The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1892-03-25
WHO PAYS THE TARIFF

Pays 1t or Whether 1t Is n Tax-The Fall
lacy of the Free Trade Argument Ex-
posed-Everything Cheaper Under Protec-
tion Than 1t Would be Under Free Trade.
If a revenue or free trade tariff, such
as the former duty on sugar or tin plate,
we pay it all; if a protective tariff. we
may pay part of the duty at first, but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly If
not quite all of it 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. This is q
tax on Anglomania, but on ordinary
products, brought in to compete with
domestic products made on large scale
and already in practical possession Of
the domestic market, the importer, the
foreign manufacturer and the foreign
laborers pay the duty.
In this connection we quote the fol-
lowing from a recent number of Lon
don Fair Trade:
II we are TO retain hold on foreign markets,
slight though it may be, wages must be kept
down that the high foreign tariffs may be over
come. One of the greatest arguments against
the theory that the consumer pays the import
uQLy Is 10 DC IOuUu IN I0c I1cI t0iit WUtH u
eIgn nation increases the tariff on a British
product, the establishment charges as well as
the wages on this side of the water are lowered.
in order to give the manufacturer or the mer-
chant chance TO deal successfully with thu
change. II the consumer paid the duty there
would be little cause for our exporter to grum-
| bic. But our manufacturers and work people
do make sacrifices to meet the extra duty, and.
we accordingly hear grumbling from both
This is plain enough certainly, and
need only be verified by actual facts
Ask the Canadian farmer who pays the
American duty. Ask the Sheffield man
ufacturer, the Chemnitz workmen, the
pearl button makers of Vienna, the tin
plate makers of Wales, the foreign
manufacturers of silk and linen and
cutlery, and scores of other articles
They will all admit that they pay the
duty if they put their goods on our mar
ket Here is an admission from the
New York Times of February 2, 1891.
We produce it as being good free trade
testimony indorsing our own assertions:
| A statement issued by the department OF agri-
| culture, giving the exports TO the United States
from Canada for the year 1890 shows that the
Dominion exported sll ,2l9,0i3 worth of agricul-
| tural products to the United States last year.
States customs upon agricultural products Is
about 20 per cent, and IL 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 ex-
ported to the United States come out OF the
pockets of the Canadian farmers. Hence We
find that during the fiscal year 1890 less than
q 243 s0O-thatis 20per cent OF S11 ,2le 0f3-went
| into the Washington treasury, which would
have gone into the pockets Of Canadian farmers
II the Dominion enjoy 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 81 90 keg while the duty is
81? Is the tariff on yard of calico q
tax. selling at ~ cents while the duty
! is cents? Is the tariff on a yard Of
cloth tax, selling at 75cents while the
duty is S713 cents? We deny that the
tariff is ever a tax--that is, burden
In cases where the tariff has been in
creased with a view to create and
develop a new industry, even if prices
are temporarily enhanced, it is simply
an investment which will be repaid
many fold as soon as the industry is es-
tablished. The farmer does not begrudge
the price of the seed in the spring
which will pay him bushels of grain in
the fall.
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 $50, 0O0 O0o
less than they were the year before.
Here was an increase of 10000, coo
pounds in the demand of this country
! for raw wool to make similar goods in
this country. Manufacturers neces-
sarily went abroad for part Of their
supply. for our own wool growers did
not produce enough last year to supply
it But over and above the extra 80.
900, 900 pounds which they imported.
there remains another 10000 900 as q
positive increase in demand for Ameri-
can wools-that is, there were 10000.
900 pounds of wool less imported during
the last calendar year than in the year
before. So that Mr.. Springer's second
point, about the decreased imports OF
woolens, answers his first about in
creased imports of raw wool The net
result is a gain to American labor, wool
/ growers and wool manufacturers.
! There remains, then, but one point,
namely: Does the consumer pay
greater price for any domestic product
! because of the tariff? To this we an
swer. No. We do not mean to say that
| the duty is not in some circumstances
added to the price paid in the foreign
market We do maintain, however,
that if the tariff were abolished we
would have to pay IN equal IL not
! greater price than we now pay for the
/ protected article. Imagine the tariff
| on wooden goods abolished tomorrow.
| Foreign wooden mills would find for
| their output a new market wider and
richer than all their other foreign mar
! kets combined. The capacity for pro-
/ ducing would remain the same, while
the demand would be largely increased
| Under such conditions must not prices
rise? That is TO say, ii the tariff were
abolished we could not buy in the for
eign market at present prices under ex-
| istent tariff conditions That countless
! American products are cheaper now
| than foreign products would be under
free trade would hardly admit of q
| doubt In these cases the foreigner
! pays all the tariff.
We have had many cases of this kind
! in our history, and in every instance
I where the tariff has been removed or
reduced below a protective basis the
| foreigner has put up the price and we
have had to pay it; therefore we con-
clude that. while denying in toto that the
tariff on imported goods is tax on
! domestic products. as the Hon Grover
+, Cleveland contends, we are very far
| from admitting that it is always tax
even on imported goods Foreign mill
/ owners would be the greatest gamers
/ by free trade Their eagerness to break