The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1892-02-20
Has Got His Sights Moved.

lection views, Notwithstanding they
are as genuinely republican as ar
McKinley's. But though partisan
duty, the work of opposing q gen
uine robber tariff measure comes 8
little awkward to them, and accord
ingly the Oregonian of a few day.
ago inadvertently admitted in the
course of an article denouncing Mr.
Stevens tariff demands, that a tariff
is q tax. It asked:
"But is this any good reason why thu
laws of the United States should be q
framed as to put 10 per cont profit
through protection, into the pockets d
Mr.. Stevens, manufacturer and membel
of Congress, and his associate manufac
turersi"
Referring to this, the Statesman
says:
"If there were 40 per cent, or even q
per cent, profit In manufacturing wooler
goods, new factories would 90 up by tn,
score. No such profits could be long
maintained in the manufacture of any arti
cles but patented specialties."
And, again;
"In the article from which We have
quoted, the Oregonian referred to thu
Mills bill as proposing 10 per cent rate
of duty on wooden goods. That was I
reduction of the rates that were in force
and the fact ia that the wooden industry
in many Of its branches, was then suffer
ing from inadequate protection. Mills
were standing idle aud others were in
distress. The Mckinley law corrected the
weak points and enabled the business to
revive, but it is absurd to suppose that
the manufacturers profits arc swelled by
the amount of the tariff"
And, again, in the same article :
"Although there were higher duties in
torce than the Mills bill proposed, many
factories, as stated, were crippled or CLOSED
down entirely. Among those shut down
were certain mills in the vicinity Of Phil
adelphia. These factories were standing
idle and were for sale cheap. As soon
as the Mckinley law was passed it was
found that the proprietor of the Philadel-
phia Record IA paper that advocates every
democratic free trade fallacy) had pur-
chased the mills; and he proceeded i'm
mediately to start them up. They have
since been in operation and employing
large numbers Of operatives. The ad-
vance made by <the Mckinley law was
small, but it was sufficient to afford a
margin of profit, enabling the mills to
run, while the Mills bill 10 per cent rate
would have kept thei. doors closed in
definitely"
Note carefully the language quoted
above. The Mills bill reduced rates
on manufactured wooden goods to 40
per cent. This crippled the facto-
ries, causing some of them to shut
down because of inadequate protec-
ton. The Mckinley bill corrected
this by making small advance in
tariff. Thereupon the owner of the
Philadelphia Record purchased the
local factories that had been forced
into idleness by inadequate protec-
ton, and started them up, and has
ever since kept them running at a
profit, owing to the small advance
over 40 per cent made in tariff rates
by the Mckinley law, the advance
having been found sufficient to
"afford margin of profit" But
it is "absurd to suppose the manu-
facturers profits are swelled by the
amount of the tariff" - -
If the tariff is not a tax, and if
the manufacturers profits are not
swelled by the amount of the tariff
by what peculiar process of reas-
oning did the proprietor of the
Record arrive at the correct conclu-
sion that the Mckinley advance
would justify him in purchasing
those idle wooden mills and starting
them up? In what proportion to
the rate of tariff imposed are the
manufacturers profits swelled? A
tariff not being a tax how does it
affect prices any way? If there is
not an established and mathemati-
cal relation between the rate of tariff
and the increased profits of the
manufacturers, by what rule are
tariffs to be levied other than the
demands of the manufacturers?
An economic policy that has no
basis of certainty is always an in
,entiye to fraud and rascality, be-
cause of its uncertainty. Men see
in that an opportunity for profit
and take advantage of it for selfish
ends, and tariffs which are confess
eddy based upon the demands of
their benefciaries are no exception
10 this well-settled rule.
But the Statesman says: mo
such profits las 40 per cent? could
be long maintained in the manu-
facture of any articles but patented
speciaities." Evidently our contem-
porary has got his sights moved.
A patent is protection. It differs
from a tariff only in that it is spe-
cial, while a tariff is general in its
application. A invents thing that
is in some manner beneficial to his
fellows. He applies for and is
granted a patent on his invention.
The terms of the patent forbid any
but him to manufacture it or any
thing similar to 1t. The effect Of
this inhibition il tn give A the sole