The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1892-03-16
A Few Quotations Answerea.

Sae'e.ot ~. - "ho phyS thc tafiu 10 the
1t depends upon the kind of tariff. If
revenue or free trade tariff, such as
the former duty on sugar or tin plate,
We pay it all; il protective tariff, we
may pay part of the duty at first, but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly if
not quite all of il on goods actually i'm
ported. If We prefer to buy English
goods, however, even though the Amer
lean goods are better and cheaper, then,
OF course we pay the duty.
Ask the Canadian farmer who pays
the American duty. Ask the Sheffield
manufacturer, the Chemnitz workmen,
the pearl button makers of Vienna,
the tin-plate makers of Wales, the for
eign manufacturers of silk and linen
and 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 Department of
Agriculture, giving the exports to the
United States from Canada for the year
1890, shows that the Dominion exported
LIS, 0i3 worth of agricultural products
age rate of duty collected by the United
States customs upon agricultural products
is about 20 per cent, and 1t is easy TO prove
from the speeches of Sir John Macdonald
and other Conservative leaders that the
duties imposed by the Americans upon
Canadian products exported to the United
States come out of the pockets of the
Canadian farmers. Hence we find that
during the fiscal year 1890 no less than
$2,H3, S00-that is 70 per cent. of 81, Job
went into the Washington treasury,
which would have gone into the pockets of
Canadian farmers if the Dominion enjoyed
unrestricted reciprocity.
1t seems useless to pursue the matter
further. In the face of the many arti-
cles selling for less than the duty, the
free trader still cries, "The tariff is
tax" Is the tariff on wire nails tax,
selling at Sl.90a keg, while the duty is
81? Is the tariff on yard of calico
tax, selling at Al cents while the duty is
5 cents? Is the tariff on yard of
cloth a tax, selling at 70 cents, while the
duty is S72 cents?
Question No. s. How do you reconcile pro-
lection with reciprocity? If reciprocity is
good for a 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 burdensome tax to the
consumer.
Reciprocity removes the duty from
articles which we do not produce, and
at the same time gets concessions from
foreign countries by which they remove
or lower their import duties on our
products exported to them.
Protection guards the products of our
labor at home.
Reciprocity opens to the products of
our labor a market abroad.
4 One is the handmaiden of the other.
Question No 4. The Hon. VIM. NJ Springer,
chairman OF the ways and means committee,
makes the following statements in the Febru-
: airy North American Review. Please explain
them:
1.-THE imports of wool for the ten
months ending October go 1890 (the
Mckinley bill took effect October 6,
1S9O), amounted to $4,000, 900 pounds,
while the imports for the ten months
ending October 30, 189l-the ten months
next after the passage OF the bill-were
over 119, 000, 900 pounds, an increase of
over 80 per centum.
"For the ten months ending October
80, 1890, the imports of WOODEN goods
were valued at over $49, 600, 900, while
those for the ten months ending Octo-
Der 80, 1891. were valued at only $780,
100000, decrease of over Al per cent
UNI. 1t also appears that the price of
wool has averaged from to 3 cents
pound less since the passage of the Nc
Kinley bill than it was when the bill
passed"
1t is true that during the last calendar
year our imports of raw woods of all
kinds were greater than in 1890 by 3d.
636, 800 pounds, about the rate of in
crease given by Mr.. Springer. This is
the fact that seems to puzzle our CORE
spondent 1t ought not to.
p The United States consumes annually
about 600,000,0 900 pounds of raw wool.
We grow about one-half of this guam
tity, or 800, 900 pounds, and import
all the rest. Some of it, about 100000,
00U pounds, we have been in the habit
of importing in an manufactured
form, and of importing the rest in a
manufactured form as wooden goods.
The trainers Of the Mckinley law saw
that the great evil they had to remedy
was the importation of woolens, which
not only dispace American wool just as
really as do importation of raw wool,
but also the labor which should receive
employment making the imported ar
ticle here. "If we do not grow wool
enough for our own use," they said,
"then let us import the raw wool in
stead of the finished product, and so
give work to our own people instead of
to foreigners"
The result has been about as was ex-
pected. During the year ending De-
cember 81, 1891, our imports Of manu-
features of wool were about 5000, 900
less than they were the year before.
Here was an increase of 10000, 900
pounds in the demand of this country
for raw wool to make similar goods in
this country. Manufacturers necessari-
ly went abroad for part of their supply,
for our own wool growers did not pro-
duce enough last year to supply 1t.
The good effect of the tariff in shield
ing our farmers from this worldwide
fall in prices appears in the fact that
from January 4, 1890, to February g.,
1892, wool fell in the London market 10
per cent. on an average, and only l-3
per cent. in this country between the
same dates. II would be equivalent to
fall of 81 cents on a pound of
Wool worth % cents az against cent