New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-22
ISSUES OF THE DAY.
GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN CHEAPENED BY
PROTECTION.
THE MANNER IN WHICH LOWER PRICES ARE
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TARIFF
From The Weekly Tribune


TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
sir: In The Weekly Tribune OF December %, 1901,
r. q. Horr says: 4" lie also knows that in /, little
while American ingenuity, ETC., ETC., will produce
End sell cheaper to the final than had tho
Industry never been established In this country IIo
knows that these things will follow because exactly
such things have followed In many hundred OF In
Stances" viii Mr.. Iorr please name twenty Or thirty
OF these instances in which the consumers are now
getting products cheaper than they could get them
from abroad, II had free trade7 And also say WHY
such products should not be admitted free IL we
are underselng the foreign articles at their cost
OF production abroad j am strong ProtectiOnist
and hope your answer may silence some carpng fools
Yours respectfully, EDWIN S. COLLAMER.
Washington, ID. c., Dec. 26, 1891.
American ingenuity is one of the things which
enable our manufacturers to cheaper production
and sell their goods TO the ultimate consumers Of
the protected articles at lower price than they
were selling at when the duty was enacted and
the industry established in this country and at
q lower price than they would now be selling
for had not built up the industry here in
this country. Mr.. Collamer seems TO assume that
that statement is the same as saying that all these
articles selling cheaper in this country now.
at the present time, than they are abroad. That
assumption, however. is one Of the falsehoods
which Free Traders are constantly repeating; and
/ would have thought Mr.. Collamcr a Free Trader
had he not saved me from doing him that in
justice by his timely declaration.
Mr.. Collamer calls upon to name twenty or
thirty articles which consumers are buying at
cheaper price than they can buy them abroad.
and asks if we are now undcrselling the foreign.
ers why should not oil such articles be put on
the free list. That again, is precisely tbs man.
ner in which Free Trader always states the case
/ am surprised that a good Protectionist could
have been deceived by free-trade juggling OF
words and induced to ask the question in that
form.
Let me repeat once more Il am glad to do ~
inst what Protectionists do claim. We claim tnat
when we have the materials in this country out
of which to produce any given article ecohohi'
caly or when we can get sucn ma'eriaiS Go
cheaply as the foreign manufacturers can. anu
whom owing 70 the cheap labor Of the Old World.
which gives the foreign manufacturer an ao-
vantage in cheap production, that particular
criticize he's never been produced in this country
in srch a case, understand, we claim that oy
nIacing a dirty on the imported article, at suci
q rate as will make up for the difference In INC
cost of labor and give our home producers al
advantage in our home markets, theh. ny Viio
levvinr Of such a duty, the industry VIII DC
built nm in the United States; and TINS pro'ec-
tion always results in the production ana safe Oh
the article at price lower than 1t was seihIs
at when we levied the duty, and in all prop.
ability lower than it would then be selling at mao
we produced none of that article in this country
Is not that definite proposition? Is it, IN any
way hard to comprehend? Is it true? 1hat
proposition does not for a moment claim that 'ie
foreign producers will not also cheaper oher
nrice for the same article. If we cheaper the
Goods for our own consumers, the result Is that
the price is cheapened all over the world That
fact is not TO be urged against the protective
system, but should be- named to its credit
Now then, can I name twenty or thirty arti-
cles which are selling at lower price than they
were when the duty was levied, and which have
been constantly growing cheaper and cheaper, not
witbstanding the duty? Certainly can Here
is the list: