The Coconino weekly sun., 1894-02-15
PROTECTION PRICES.
Democratic Drivei About High Tariff Re-
 dnCtious.


 ductious.
 From time to time some democratic orator in the house attacks the Me Kinley law, not merely for its alleged unconstitutionality, but because it has raised prices" But the men who make this claim never give any facts. They never show what articles which gre affected by the tariff brought high CT prices during 1891 and 1892 than they did prior to the passage of the Mckinley bill. Evidently they think it is a safer policy to make no specific statements, but to stick to general ities
 The truth is that there was no gen eral rise in the price of competitive goods subsequent to the passage of the act. There was an abortive at tempt at n rise prior thereto. When the provisions of the bill became known and it was evident that 1t would become law almost every retail deal- CT in the country jumped Ut the conclu- sion that here was his opportunity, and he began marking up the goods which he had on hand then. Unques- tionably he assumed that the effect of the new tariff would be a general ad- vancement in prices But the pubic declined with great unanimity to sub init to this marking up of the goods on hand, and the retailer had to back down.
 The bill was passed, the stocks of goods imported in anticipation of that event, and which had paid the lower duties, were worked off, and what hap pened then? Certainly not a general advance of prices of competitive ar ticles. On the contrary, the prices of manufactured goods of nearly all kinds in ls92-'93 were lower than in lSsO-'0O That is fact known to all observers. Of course there were a few exceptions. such as pearl buttons, some grades of linens, cotton plushes, etc half dozen articles out of couple of Ihou- sand, That the prices of many pro- tected articles fell is known to all. Among them was wool, which sold for less in spite of increased protection. The democrats have dwelt on this fact often to show the inutility of protec- tion to aid the producer.
 How did it happen that the mer- chants who confidently expected jump in prices and tho democrats who so confidently predicted it were mis- taken? It was due in great part to the fact that the European manufacturers, merchants, and shippers cut their prof its down to the lowest notch so as to retain for their surpluses whatever hold they had on the great American market It was worth too much to them to be given up without strug- gle. Once surrendered it might be lost forever. The cost of producing their goods was cut down as much as possi- ble. In many cases there were wage reductions, which broke the force of the higher duties. When the manu- facturer was also the importer he sim ply cut down the selling price of the surplus which he sent to the United States. If he made a hundred thou sand yards of cloth and sent ten thou sand here he submitted to loss on the one-tenth, but disposed of the other nine-tenths at the higher rate, thus making the reduction on the entire output comparatively small.
 Therefore, as q matter of fact, the European producers actually paid, though much against their will, the greater part of the increase of duties under the Mckinley tariff law. There is no rubbing that out And as the foreigners paid that increase and their goods were offered here at the same price as of old it was impossible for the American producer of competing goods to raise his prices. Had he done so the consumer would lave bought of the foreigner. Even in the case of pearl buttons, where the advance in duty was heavy and the industry did not previously cexist here, the increase in price was by no means as great as was expected.
 Thus it is manifest that a large part of the increased revenue due to the higher duties of the Mckinley law has not been paid by the American con sumers, but by foreign producers The tariff has been tax on the latter, not