The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1892-02-27
=
The Tariff and Profits.

II the tariff is not . tax, and if the
manufacturers profits are not swelled By
the amount Of the tariff by what peculiar
process Of reasoning did the proprietor Of
the Record arrive at the correct conclusion
that the Mckinley advance would justify
him in purchasing those idle wooden
mills and starting them up2-Keyetone.
Our contemporary certainly cannot fail
to see the point of the argument that the
Statesman made in connection with the
matter referred to in the foregoing. What
we claim IL that manufacturer profits
are not swelled by the amount Of the
tariff. We fail to understand how any
body can believe that they are, but the
assertion has been made so often that
many persons seem to accept it as u truth,
absurd as it is on its face.
The paragraph quoted from the KEY
STONE indicates that that paper believes
that manufacturers profits "are sweIled
by the amount OF. the tariff" In the mat
ter of w0olens, there was tariff prior to
the passage of the Mckinley law. That
tariff was higher than the rates proposed
by the Mills bill, the latter being higher
than those now proposed BY Mr.. Springer.
But that tarlff-the tariff in force prior
to the enactment of the present law-was
too low. It was so low that many mills
had to be closed down, among which
we're those afterwards purchased BY the
proprietor Of the Philadelphia Record
Statesman.
That won't do, Mr.. Statesman.
You said there was tariff in force
when the Mills bill was proposed, of
over 40 per cent, and you must stand
up to the rack, fodder or no fodder.
Your language was this: "the Ore
gonian referred to the Mills bill as
proposing a 40 per cent rate on
wooden goods. That was a reduc-
ton of the rates that were then in
force; and the fact is that the wool
industry, in many of its branches,
was then suffering from inadequate
protection. = The advance
made by the Mckinley law was
small, but it was sufficient to afford
a margin of profit" This is what
you said and what the KEYSTONE
replied to. Supposing that you
were an authority on protection, we
disputed not your facts but your
deductions. But if the price Of
goods is not "swelled by the amount
of the tariff" please to furnish us a
reliable rule by which to gauge the
swelling. 1t is necessary to be ex-
act in making out a case. And it
is evident from your own statement
that rate Of 40 per cent is not
sufficient to keep wooden mills run
ming, but that the small advance
made by the Mckinley law made
up the deficit and started the mills
to running at a profit. Was it the
advance or part of the advance
made by the Mckinley law that
enabled those mills to run? Forty
per cent not being enough to justify
operating the mills, how much more
than 40 per cent is required, and
what part Of the whole tariff goes
to swell the price of goods? If the
price of goods is not "swelled by the
amount of the tariff" what office
does the excess of the tariff over
thatemployed to "swell the price of
goods" perform, anyway? Let us
know, please, exactly how much
the price of goods is "swelled" by
a given rate of tariff, and then We
can both argue from more intelli-
gent, because more definite, basis.
1t is folly to wrangle without estab-
lished premises. We believe the
price of goods is ''swelled" by some
thing like the amount of the tariff,
and the Statesman admits or denies
the fact, according as the one or the
other course best serves its present
purpose. Will it take one or the
other horn of the dilemma and
maintain it? Shutting smacks of
dishonesty.