The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-09-14
AN ExpIoDED FALLAcY REVIVED.

The thoroughly exploded notion that
s'the foreigner pays the taxN is once
more patched together, and our morning
contemporary springs it anew on its
readers. That is to say, that the duty
imposed upon foreign imports is not paid
by the purchaser of the goods, but by
the person or firm that sends them here.
The absurdity of the proposition ought to
be its own reputation, bnt protection1sts,
il seems, still cling to it as an excuse for
q high tariff and will not let go of the
fragment of it which remains.
The advocates OF protection want high
tariff continued on certain articles; for
what purpose? If it is not TO enable
American manufacturers to charge higher
prices for their wares, where is the pro-
lection? If foreign made article that
without duty on it could be sold for a
dollar, has duty of twenty five per cent.
upon it and thus the American manu-
facturer can charge dollar and quarter
for similar article, who pays the extra
twenty-five cents if it is not the pur-
chaser?
Go to any hardware store in this city
and buy an English pocket knife. You
will lind that you have to pay the original
cost price with duty added and per
centage OF profit on both. So with any
other article of European manufacture.
No truthful merchant will attempt to
deny this. The American made article,
ifanythirg like the quality OF the Eng
lish goods, costs quite as much, of
course, If not more. There would be no
protection for the American manufacturer
If It were not so. That is the object and
purpose OF the protective tariff. The
importer in the first place pays the duty,
to be sure, but the purchaser pays it
when ne buys, and in the end the
foreigner does not pay the tax.
But an ingenious Canadian casuist
suDposes q case which he thinks to foist
upon the public as an argument to
prove the contrary, and the Tribune
exults over it as a clear and irrefutable
case. 1t il this:
Suppose a man has 100 acres on the Can
adam side OF the line and 100 acres on the
American side. Suppose he grows / 600
bushels of barley on each of his farms
lie takes his 1000 American bushels to
the American market and gets 81 bushel.
adian barley to the American market and
gets only IS cents per busbel. because he
has to pay 15 cents duty for taking il across
the line. How can ii in this case be
said that the consumer pays the
duty2 1t comes out of the pockets OF the
Canadian farmers
Wonderful, is it not2 In the first place
the barley in Canada was not worth any
more than eighty-five cents bushel. or
the farmer would not ship it across the
line at a cost of fifteen cents bushel. If
he could sell it at dollar a bushel in
Canada, he would not ship it into shis
country and lose fifteen cents on every
bushel. If the barley without the duty Of
fifteen cents could be sold on this side the
line for eighty-five cents. but because
Of tie duty consumers have to pay dol
lar. do MOI the consumers pay the duty?
Why, even the Tribune, dense as it is,
ought to be able TO see through that piece
OF Kannckian sophistry.
another case il of a shipper OF onions
from Bermuda who he'd to pay SO cents
Der box duty, and is cents freight. and
sold the onions at an average OF so cents a
box. In this case the shipper paid the
duty and if he got rich at the business It
must have been on the old apple woman's
theory, that she made money by letting
apples 60 at loss because she sold SO
many Of them. This is evidently mere
catch case cited to puzzle the ordinary
mind.
The question that arises in reference to
1t is, Of what use is a duty of 38 cents on
onions to protect growers or dealers who
can sell them at 30 ceItsg And why
should onion merchants in Bermuda
snip their products here at loss Of four
cents b7x besides the cost OF the goods?
ii any protectionist thinks this will 90 as
proof that on general principles the for