Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1892-09-08
WE PAY The TARIFF TAX.
Hon. Owen Scott Points Out the Failacy
of McK.nley's Statement.

Hon. Owen Scott Points Out the Failacy
of McK:nley's Statement.
But the apologists for this system of
spoliation say that the foreigner pays
the tax. The supreme court of the United
States, in the case of Brown versus The
State of Maryland, unanimously an
nounced that duty on imports is a
tax that is paid by the consumers"
Major Mckinley, in his canvass, said:
I'VE took the tax off of sugar and
now you don't have to pay it. See how
we have relieved you from taxation by
taking the tariff off from raw sugar"
In another breath this same distin-
guishcd gentleman says:
1.-The foreigner pays it-you don't"
Now let us see who pays the tax.
Marshall Field s. Co. imported 81 400
worth of pearl buttons and paid at Chi
cage So, 1000 duty. This $4,000, with the
cost Of transportation added, was the
cost TO them and upon which they based
tllig sales CT this article which went to
consumers and was paid by them. Would
the Luton makers pay $4,000 tax to get
81 100 for their products!
armour imported 100000 pounds Of
In and paid S6,TOO as duty. Ninety-nine
Ier cent. Of this. as provided i'll the Nc
Kinloy law, was refunded to him, be-
cause the goods which this tin inclosed
were exported. II the foreigner paid the
tax on the tin, why throw the govern
ment's money away by refunding it to
Mr.. Armour? Mr.. Mckinley introduced
a bill in this house last session to appro-
pirate SEQ, 900 to pay taxes on plate glass
for lighthouses to be built by the gov
eminent If the foreigner pays the tax,
why was this necessary?
The Standard Oil company paid al
most million dollars duty ON tin i'm
ported in $780, Ninety-nine per cent. of
this was refunded to this giant corpora
ton under the provisions of the McKin-
ley law. If the foreigner paid the tax
on this tin, why was it necessary for con-
gress to provide for throwing away so
large sum of the peoples money? 1t is
claimed by the friends of protection that
they have saved to the people of the
country $56, 100000 by taking the tariff
off of sugar. If the foreigner pays the
tax, why take it off? It would certainly
be good business sense to allow the for
eign manufacturers of sugar to pay into
the federal treasury this vast sum OF
money each year--alnost half enough tc
pay. the pensions of the disabled and
wounded soldiers of our country.
In this house, after the Chicago fire,
General Logan introduced bill to ad-
nit building materials to that stricken
city free of tariff. II the tax was not
paid by the consumer, how would it bene-
fit the Chicago people who were trying
to rebuild their city from the ashes that
were left by the great confagration? The
earnest protest from the lumber barons
induced congress to exempt lumber from
this provision. All other building ma
terials were made free under the belief
that the consumers were being benefited
by taking off the tax The modern the
DRY of protectionists is that the people Of
Chicago were not benefited in this, but
that the foreigners who shipped their
iron and lead and other materials that
were used in constructing the magnifi-
cent temples of trade and commerce to
make the wonder of the Nineteenth CEN
fury were the beneiciaries by this spe-
cial provision. Similar requests were
asked in regard to other cities that have
been unfortunate. At a time when East
port, Me-, burned down the gentleman
from Maine, Mr.. Boutelle, a member of
this house, and insisting that the tariff is
not tax, introduced bill to take build
ing materials into that city free. 1t was
discovered, though, that the foreigner
paid the tax, and his bill did not pass.
Mr.. Wanamaker, the present postmas-
ter general, with others, brought a suit
against the government to recover be-
tween $4,000 and $40, 900, 900 of rev.
enues. If Mr.. Wanamaker has returned
this to the foreigner it has not been re-
ported. Neither has he paid it back to
the country merchants who sold to the
consumers. In this case the people had
to pay this tariff twice-once when they
bought the goods and once when the
government reimbursed Mr.. Wanamaker
out of the treasury from the moneys
they had paid. It would seem from this
that the postmaster general did not ap-
preciate the fact that the foreigner paid
the tax. All this shows conclusively,
and the instances might be multiplied,
that the tariff is u tax and the consumer
pays it.--Congressional Record.
Take the Union Pacific and visit Salt
Lake City and Denver enroute. tt