The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1892-05-04
EXPORT DISCOUNTS.

American manufacturers sell cheaper
TO foreigners than to our own people?
We answer that probably some few of
them do sometimes, to very limited
extent, especially in the case of articles
like sewing machines which are covered
by patents.
That 1t is prevalent custom among
our manufacturers is untrue. Indeed,
it is confidently denied, by men in
exceptional positions to know, that it
is ever done. For instance. Mr. A. Il.
Cohu, of the A. Il. Cohu Company, man.
ufacturers of agricultural implements,
1877 Water street, New York, said:
We have been twenty years in the business
and our experience has been that goods
are sold in this country as low If not lower than
they are sold for export with this exception:
Export buyers pay cash or give a letter OF
credit on London, which we sell here on the day
the goods are delivered on board, and get cash
for it. This gives them slight discount, but
domestic buyers can at all times obtain the
same discount by buying on the same terms
that Is, by paying spot cash.
This allusion to the slight discount
given for spot cash, as against the sales
on thirty, sixty or ninety days time,
which is generally demanded by the do
mestic buyer, probably explains the APP
parent discount said to be given to the
foreigner. But it should be remembered
that it is given not because he is for
eigner, but because he pays spot cash.
The American who will pay spot cash
can get the very same discount
But, for the sake of argument, sup
pose we admit that some American man
ufacturers do sell at lower prices to for
eigners. Why do they do so?
Sometimes manufacturer has sur
plus stock, which, if he does not SELL
will be almost a total loss. He sells all
he can, but the season comes to an end
leaving an unsold surplus for which
there is no home demand. 1t may be the
whole profit of his years business is
locked up in that surplus, and If he does
not dispose of it he will be bankrupt.
He hears of an opening for his wares in
some foreign country. Would he not be
fool not to place them there at sacri-
flee prices rather than to suffer ruin?
And who at home is injured by the
transaction?
Or perhaps a manufacturer has a stock
of old Anticipated articles on hand which
the American people will not buy at
any price. Is he not wise, or will you
blame him, if he turns them off on to
foreigners at lower prices than first
class goods cost in our own markets?
Again, here is manufacturer who
gets a letter from q friend in some for
eign country informing him that there
is Il splendid market for his products
in that country if they only could be
introduced. Would he not be unworthy
the name of Yankee if he neglected to
send his goods there even at a nominal
price, to introduce them? Why, we see
every day men hired to go about giving
away samples of this, that and the other
thing for. the purpose of introducing
them TO consumers. And who would
be hurt by the Yankee manufacturers
action? If he succeeds in building up 9
foreign trade, it means more work fOl
American labor, more money for Ameri
can channels of trade, and lower prices
at home, which always come with in
creased output.
Some American mills also make two
classes of goods, an article for SALE
abroad. inferior, yet good enough tt
compete with the wretched products o
foreign mills; and another better articl,
for sale to Americans, who will always
have the best or nothing. Cannot sucl
concern sell the inferior exported
articles more cheaplv than it sells the
others? and is not the country benefited
by his increased business?
Do not these illustrations make il
clear that lower prices to foreigners
may at times be advantageous al
around?
But now we come to the importan
point--namely, Is protection in any
way responsible for whatever 'discoun
for export only may be given by oul
manufacturers? Mott in the least degree
is it responsible. How do we prov,
it? BY pointing TO the fact that the
practice is far more prevalent in free
| ITdtlc Ellk IbCloN ~ IL SN
tract from the hundred of similar decis
ions made by the United States customs
authorities. 1t is taken from decision
by Secretary Folger, quoted in Secretary
Manning's report for 1856, and relates t
certain worsted yarns imported from
England, whose price was called il
question. The decision says:
1t is conceded that the invoice shows TIL
prices actually paid for the merchandise. Thes
prices are lower, however than prices of tn
same goods for the English market. But it il
stated that the invoice prices are those at whicl
such goods are sold for expectation, 30 that ii i
said there are two wholesale prices both o
them actual, one for consumption in Engan'
and the other for expiration; and the question
arises, which OF these two values is TO be chose!
as the basis for the assessment OF duties!
So the question as to export discounts
is wholly irrelevant in tariff discussion
Only the shameless dishonesty of tn,
demagogue free trader has dragged it il
for the purpose of creating prejudic
against protection.
HERE is frank admission. A Londol
exchange says: Zone of the creates
arguments against the theory that tn
consumer pays the import duty is to b
found in the fact that when foreign
nation increases the tariff on British
product, the establishment charges a
well as the wages on this side of tn
water are lowered, in order to give tn
manufacturer or the merchant chanc
to deal successfully with the change. |
the consumer paid the duty there woul'
be little cause for our exporter to grum
bic. But our manufacturers and worl