The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-06-18
WE PAY THE TARIFF TAX.
Hon. Owen Scott Points Out the Fallacy
of McK:nley's Statement.

o"oh " D''' ''A '"c "hhh'y
of Mck!nley's Statement.
But the a~pologists 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 IA duty on imports is a
tax that is paid by the consumers"
Major Mckinley, in his canvass, said:
1--WE 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-
guished gentleman says:
1.-The foreigner pays it-you don't"
Now let us see who pays the tax.
Marshall Field e. Co. imported 81 400
worth of pearl buttons and paid at Chi
cage 5000 duty. This $i,400, with the
cost Of transportation added, was the
cost to them and upon which they based
their sales of this article which went to
consumers and was paid by them. Would
the button makers pay s., 900 tax to get
81 400 for their products:
Armour imported 100000 pounds of
tin and paid So, 200 as duty. N~inety-nine
per cent. of this, as provided in the Nc
Kinley law, was refunded to him, be-
cause the goods which this tin inclosed
We're exported. If 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 $4,000 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 IA million dollars duty ON tin i'm
ported in 1890. Ninety-nine per cent. of
this was refunded to this giant corpora
tioG 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 n sum Of the peoples money? 1t is
claimed by the friends of protection that
they have saved to the people of the
country 500, OO0, 600 by taking the tariff
off of sugar. II the foreigner pays the
tax, why take it Oft? II 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-almost 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 a bill to al.
! NIT building materials to that stricken
city free Of tariff. II the tax was not
| paid by the consumer, how wouldit bene
fit the Chicago people who Were trying
. to rebuild their city from the ashes tina
were left by the great confiagration? Til,
/ earnest protest from the lumber baron,
induced congress to exempt lumber from
e this provision. All other building ma
~terials were made free under the belle.
that the were being bcnefte,
y by taking off the tax. The modern the
e Dry OF protectionists is that the people o
Chicago were not benefited in this, bu
e that the foreigners who shipped thei
! iron and lead and other materials tina
were used i'll constructing the magnifi
II cent temples of trade and commerce It
D., make the wonder of the Nineteenth cen
tury were the beneiciarics by this spe
cial provision. Similar requests wcT,
asked in regard to other cities that hav'
been unfortunate. Att time when East
port. Ne, burned down the gentleman
q from Maine, Mr.. Boutello, member o
1t this house, and insisting that the tariff i
y not a tax, introduced a bill To take build
II ing materials into that city free. 1t wa
" discovered. though, that the foIeigne
paid the tax. and his bill did not pass.
Mr.. Wanamaker. the present postmas
ter general. with others, brought a Sui
against the government to recover bt
tween $1,000, 900 and 5000 900 of res
enues. If Mr.. Wananlaker has returne
p this to the foreigner ii has not been IT
o ported. Neither has he paid ii back I
e the country merchants who sold to tn
consumers. In this case the people Ia
to pay this tariff twice-once when the
Ie bought the goods and once when tn
4 government reimbursed Mr.. Wanamake
n out of the treasury from the money
they had paid. 1t would seem from thi
II that the postmaster general did not al
IS preciate the fact that the foreigner pal
4 the tax. All this shows conclusivelN
" and the instances might be multiplied
that the tariff is II tax and the consume
pays it.-Congressional Record.