The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1892-08-11
Pertinent Questions Answered.

QUESTION NO. 5.-y u Is hR O03eCt OF the
tnif to protect labor. could the tariff be great q
reduced and still afford protections
In some instances. yes. But what ben-fit
would BE- derived through such reduction q
Take wire nails, for instance. The duty on
them is cents pound. 1t is obviously
nails are actually sel:in: for Il cents pound.
What harm does the du,y 10? II abolished
probably not u nail would be imported. Why
not abolish i17 Probably because no one ever
thought 1t worth while to ask for it's abolition.
Congress did not act without a reason in|
framing the present tariff. Every chan g of
any importance WAS made ut the suggestion
OF some person or persons, after arguments
pro and con had been heard. No one asked
for the removal of the duty on wire nails, fr|
tho Same reason. perhaps, that no one asked
for a law against spos on The sun. No goOl
could possibly result in either case. Any one
h 8 the privilege OF appearing before the Ways
and Mems Committe. to show cause why the
duty on any article should b changed. If Any
ono believes the duty on wire nails Is OPP
pressive. while higher than need be for pro-
tective purposes, let him state The case 10 Con-
Sress, ask for y reduction. and the request
will undoubtedediy be granted.
Question No. 27.-Why is it that american
shipping interests hare declined during ihe Pc
Rod of Protective Tariff?
OF course the question refers to shipping in
the foreign trade. 1t has declined B. cause it
has been he single one among all our varied
industries which has received no protection
The branch OF our shipping which has bean
protected, that employed in the coastin9
trade. has fourished and aourishes to-day
leqnally with our other protected Industries.
Question No. 2S.-WAy the abandonment of
Eastern farms ,oith protected labor in tie ne,gi.
boring factories?
Because there is so much batter and cheaper
land out West. Eastern farmers prospere:
before Western farms were di- covered. Ait r
that event the Eastern farmers found it to
their advantage to go Wes'." where they
could get any quantity OF the test land for the
asking. But, ns a matter OF fact, the deserted
farms in New England are few. For, let it
not be FORGOTTEN, that many OF the rocky hills
OF New England are moro profitable to the
cultlvator than the fertile fields OF tho West,
Why? Because OF those same factories with
their protected army OF consumers within
easy reach.
Question No. 81 With bounty Of too cents
United States Treasury. ,chere does the saring to
the consumer come IN through free sugar?
1t comes In this way: The revenue from the
duty on sugar aud molasses amounted to
about $50, 900 year, which was all paid BY
the consumer. The bounty paid on sugar
amounts to 81. ooo, 900 year. The differences,
$4S. 000. 600. Is the saving to the consumer.
Question No. 80. Has the Mckinley tariff
caused the price Of cotton to be lo,cs
No: No more than il has caused tho price
OF Shakespeares autographs to be high.
There are very few OF the autographs OF
Shakespeare 10 existence; hence they cost n
Gr-at deal. There 10 more cotton in the
United States than there is a demand TOR
throughout the whole world; consequently
the price OF cotton is low. The Mckinley
law had no more to do with that than 1t had
wi b the color OF the moon.
| Question No. 49, What has been the direct
benefit to the American farmer by the placing OF
the duty on eggs? What 1oould be the result il
The duty acere abolished
In 1880 We imported L, 962, 752 dozen eggs.
valued at 81, 5s40S9; in 1891 ". import
,263. 375 dozen eggs, valued nt 1888, 497. The
difference between the amounts i'm ported in
these two years, 3d.. S77 doz"n - measures
the larger market for eggs which has been
4 furnished to the American farmer; and The
difference between the values of the eggs i'm
i por:ed in these two years-$1. O5o. 592-mpas-
ures roughly the value of that market to him.
The direct result OF the Mckinley duty on eggs
has thus been to put 81 ,050, 592 moro into the
pockets OF the farmer than he received the
preceding year. II the duty were abolished.
by that sum at least would he be the loser.