Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1892-04-29
ABOUT THE TARIFF,
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS POINT.
EDLY ANSWERED.
An interesting Report ON rr I'm Mort.
eages-The Results of tho Decision on
he Mckinley Law-Pictures aud Para
graphs.
A Few Quotations Arawer.d.

a revenue or free trade tariff, such as
the former duty on sugar or tin plate,
we pay it all; il a protective tariff, we
may pay Il part of the duty at first, but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly il
not quite all of it on goods actually i'm
ported. If we prefer to bnv English
lean goods are better and cheaper, then,
OF course We ,ay the duty.
Ask the Canadian farmer who pays
the American duty. Ask the Sheffield
manufacturer, the Chemnitz workmen,
tie pearl button makers of Vienna.
the tin-pla:e makers of Wales, the for
eign manufacturers of silk and linen
aud cutlery, and scores of other articles.
They will all admit that they pay the
duty If they put the goods on our mar
ket. Here is an admission from the
New York Times OF February ., 1891.
We produce it as good free-trade testi-
mony indorsing our own assertions:
A statement issued by the Departmental of
mted States from Canada for the year
$50. shows that the Dominion exported
Sii,2l3oia worth of agricultural products
To the I nited States last year. The aver
age rate OF duty collected by; the United
States customs upon agricultural products
Is about " per cent, and 1T is easy 10 prove
IRON the speeches of SIR John Macdonald
and other Conservative leaders that the
duties imposed by the Americans upon
canadian product" exported to the United
States come out of the pockets of the
C,anadif farmers. Hence we find that
Turing the fiscal year 1891 no less than
S2,24S ,S0U-that is ~ per cent. of $l1. 2t9.O43
went into the Washington treasury,
whlch! would have gone into the pockets of
Canadian farmers ii the Dominion cnloyed
unrestricted reciprocity.
1t SEEM useless to pursue the matter
further. In the face of the many arti-
Giles selling for less than the duty, the
free trader still cries, ''Ihe tariff is u
tax" Is the tariff or wire nails a tax,
selling ut Sl.9Oa keg, while the duty is
W? ls the tariff on u ynrd of calico Il
tax, selling Mt ~ cents. while the duty is
o cents? lis the tariff on a ward of
cloth Il tax. selling at %75cents, while the
duty is SD cents.
question No. &. How do you reconcile pro.
lection with reciprocity: III reciprocity is
good Tor IL few Countries, why not tor all?
Protection levies duties on articles
which we produce at home, in order to
preserve American industries and the
higher wages of American working
men. 1t also removes duties from all
articles which We do not ourselves pro-
duce, because the duty on them is an
unnecessary and burdensomet tax to the
Reciprocity remove the duty from
arucles which we 10 not produce, and
sRt the same time gets concessions IRON
foreign countries by which they remove
or lower their import duties on our
products exported 10 them.
Protection guards the products OF our
labor ut home.
Reciprocity opens to the products of
our labor Il market abroad.
One is the handmlaiden of the other,
Question No. 4. Tho Hon. Wm. NJ. Springer.
chairman OF the ways and means committee,
makes the following statements IN the Febr,i-
Them:
1.-The imports of wool fer the ten
months ending October 30, 1880 1.-THE
Mckinley bill took effect October 6,
$500, amounted to $4,000, 900 pounds,
wi.ile the imports for t:,e ten months
ending October 80, 1S9l-the ten months
next after the passage oil the bill-were
over 1l9.000,O0O pounds, al increase of
over 30 per centum.
"l'or the ten months ending October
80, 1890, the imports OF WOODEN goods
were valued at v $4,000, 600, while
those for the ten months ending Octo-
ter 30, 1891. were valued ut only $40
OeVO q 0G vi obeA II 4N4 sCkkt-
um. 1t also appca:s that the price of
wool has averaged from , to 3 cents u
pound less since the passage OF the Me-
kinley bill than it was when the bill
passed."
I. is. true that during the last calendar
year imports OF raw woods OF all
kinds yer greater than in $3.50 by 80
G3G, 800 pounds, about the rate of in
crease given by Mr.. Springer. This is
the fact that seems to puzzle our corre-
spondent. 1t ought not to.
The United States consumes annually
about 6OO, 900. GOO pounds of raw wool.
We grow about one-half of this guam
tity, or 300. 000, 900 pounds, and import
ali the rest. Some of it, about 100, O0O,-
0DWpounds, we have been in the habit
OF importing in an manufactured
form, and of importing the res, in u
manufactured form as wooden goods.
The trainers OF the MclSinley law saw
that the great evil they had to remedy
was the importation of woo'cns, which
not only dispiace American wool just AS
really as do importation OF raw wool,
Int also the labor which should receive
employment making the imported ar
taie here. "If VIZ do NOT grow wool
enough .or o;r cSn nse,' they said,
''thcn let us import the raw wool i'm
stead of the finished product. and 80
give work TO our W pccp.o instead OF
to foreigners"
The result has been abo,. as was ex-
pected. During the year ending De-
ccmber 81, 1891, our imports OF ulin,,-
features of wool were about $50, O0O,OOJ
less than they were the year before
Here WAS an increase OF 6O.UOO,tNC
pounds in the demand of this country
Tor raw wool to make similar goods in
this country. Manufacturers necessari-
IL went abroad for part of their supply,
for oufaown wool growers did not pro-
duce enough last year to supply it.
The good effect of the tariff in shield
ipg our /hkmers from this worldwide
fall in PRICES appears in the fact tina,
froIn~Januarv I, 1880. to February u
lS922, wool fell in the London market l.
per cent on an average. and only ":
F. per cent. in this country between the
same dates. II would be equivalent tt
a fall of 8! cents on n pound o
wool, worth % cents. as AGAINST l cen
on wool OF the same price in this coun
try-not 2 to 3 cents, rs Mr.. Syringe,
ssys.
Farm Mortgages.
,CL...... cn- :e.~p r,,It;o .,,,oe<;on