The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-09-10
CHEAP GOODS


A circular from New York firm an
Full, regular made half hose, just
taken from bond. and which we will
sell at new tariff prices, attractively
boxed" That means a fall in hosiery
rates; that means cheaper socks and
stockings: that means a saving to
nearly everybody in the United States.
OF course, we except the sockless
statesman from Kansas.
/ In speaking of this to prominent
merchant in this city, he said: 1--WE
have greatly reduced the price of hos
iery, as we bought under arrangements
to have the tariff reduction. We are
also selling dress goods at from fifteen
to twenty-five per cent less than be-
fore" The effect of the tariff will be
to reduce prices.
To this some sapient Republican
will ask: What is the good of having
goods reduced from sixty-five to fifty
cents. if you haven't got the fifty
cents?" To which the answer may be
made in the form of another question::
If you haven't half dollar what bet
ter off would you be if the price of
what you want is sixty-five cents?"
The benefit of reduction comes, OF
course, to the purchaser, whether he
has the money to pay for it or sticks
it up"
| The reduction of duty on various ar
ticles in common use will bring down
! the prices of those articles in the
American market, because the trusts
and corporations and combinations of
capital, which have been formed to
keep up the prices of goods for their
own profit, will have smaller mar
gin. They will have to compete with
foreign manufacturers to the extent OF
the reduction of the duty.
There is more than sufficient duty
still imposed to much more than cover
the difference between the wages paid
to the foreign woTkmen and those paid
to the American workmen. Therefore,
the Republican evasion about high wa
ges and low wages will not count.
/ There is no advantage to the pur-
chaser in having to pay high prices
for goods that can be fairly sold for
less. If the people of Utah can buy
hose for thirty-five cents for which
a few months ago they had to pay fifty
cents, will they not each have fifteen
cents saved from each purchase, with
which to buy something else? And
where will there be any disadvantage as
an offset to this? Nowhere that can be
truthfully pointed out
1t will be the same in agricultural
implements. Forty-five per cent taken
off the tariff will bring a reduction that
must be to the profit of the purchaser,
and he will be able to get what he buys
as cheaply as it is sold to the foreign
purchaser. For it is fact susceptible
of positive proof that machinery of
various kinds has been sold to be sent
abroad at less price than that charg-
ed at home. and the difference has
been the figures of the duty.
If the people of the United States
were benefited by taking the duty off
sugar to the extent of that duty, why
will not taking the duty off other ar
ticles benefit them also to the extent of
the duty? The change of policy in the
tariff as to sugar will put into the
treasury a large sum, which, under
McKinleyism went into the pockets of
the trust, and will save to the treasury
the large sums. which, under McKin-
leyism. were paid out for bounties.
That will save so much to the public,
and permit of reductions in taxes upon
other commodities, which will more
than balance the slight increase in the
retail price of sugar.
The lowering of duties is in the in
terest of the consumers, the masses of
the people. The raising of the tariff
rates was solely in the interest of the
classes, the corporations, the monopo-
lists, and the trusts, except wherein
they fried out the fat" they thus OBJ
tanned, to continue in power the Re
publican party, which put the fat on
their ribs and increased their power
to grow in obesity and in arrogance.
Who's afraid of cheap goods?