The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-03-07

-Four OF The committee named by The
Sentinel as judges in its prize contest for
republican editors have submitted their
report as printed below. Mr. Fishback.
the republican member declines to e,--
press any opinion on the result Of the
contest. and therefore drops out of the
committee.
To the Editor of The Sentiuel-Sir: In
compliance with your request we have
examined the newspaper articles submit
ted To us and have agreed to the follow
ing report.
The question propounded by The SEN
tinel is this.
IF the American manufacturers of ag-
ricultural implements and other ma
chinery have To be protected against for
eign competition i'm this country, how do
they compete with foreign manufacturers
abroad unless they sell at lower prices
abroad than at home?'
We understand this to impose two con-
ditions on any reply offered:
1. 1t is to be based on the assumption
that it is necessary to protect American
manufacturers from foreign competition
in this country.
. Ii must be based on the assumption
that the American manufactures eX-
ported are not sold i'm foreign countries
at lower prices than the same manufaCt-
ures are sold i'm this country.
Our decision is therefore based on
these imposed conditions The articles
submitted 20 us are from the Logans-
port Journal of Jan. Il, 1894, the FL
wood Leader of Jan. Is. 1894, and the
HooSier State of Feb. T. 1894. The arti-
Gle from the Logansport Journal offers
two explanations. one that goods manu-
featured i'm foreign countries are given
an American label. and the other. that
goods manufactured in this country IN
der patents are sold cheaper abroad on
account of the patent and not on &C
count of the tariff. The first of these
has no application to the question, be-
cause the question refers only to goods
actually made I'm this country and ac-
tUally exported from this country. The
second violates both conditions imposed.
because it comedies that such goods are
sold cheaper abroad than in this coun-
try. and because no protection can be
needed if they are sufficiently protected
by the patent 10 be able TO compete with
foreign products in foreign countries.
The article from the Elwood Leader is
composed of letters from several firms
engaged in the manufacture of agricul-
tural implements denying that they sell
their goods cheaper in foreign markets
than in this country. I'm these letters.
however. there is an attempt to eN-
plain the competition on the ground Of
the superior quality of the American
works SAYS: I'VE have large trade
abroad which comes to Us solely on ac-
count Of the merit of our goods. The
answer of Mr.. a. Kallmerten of the
mandatory of agricultural machinery
at Mansfield. o. calls attention to the
foreign threshing machines on exhibit
tion at the worlds fair. and says that
this machinery is not built to success
fully compete with American threShing
machinery. where speed is required. .
These explanations are rejected as con-
trary to the first condition imposed. be-
cause if these manufacturers can sue
cessfully compete with foreigners in for
eign markets on account Of the merit
of their goods, there can be no neces-
sity for protecting them in the home
market. The denial by manufacturers
that they sell cheaper abroad than i'm
this country is. of course, no explana-
ton of how they compete with foreign
manufacturers without selling cheaper
in foreign markets.
The article of the Hoosier State con-
tains this explanation: Owing to our
system of reciprocity with certain for
eign countries. our manufacturers can
send their agricultural implements and
other machinery there without having to
pay the tariff that manufacturers from
other foreign countries would have to
pay" This statement is not altogether
accurate as these treaties do not in all
cases give us such an advantage, some
countries not imposing any duty on such
machinery, and others not giving US
any advantage over competitors. For
example Great Britain gives us no adj
vantage over herself in her treaty for re-
ciprocity with British Guiana and the
British West Indies. However putting
this question aside as too complicated
for present purposes, it seems practicable
TO obtain a definite conclusion as to the
effect of reciprocity on this kind of COM
merce The report of the chief of the
bureau of statistics upon the foreign
| commerce of the United States for the
year ending June 80 1898, gives the total
exports of agricultural implements to
those countries for four years past as
| follows:
Exports of agricultural implements to
countries with which reciprocity treaties
are in force for years 1S90-lS93 (Report of
chief Of bureau of statistics for 1898, PIP.
6S-76).
1870 1 1901 1902 1902