The Globe-republican., 1894-02-16
PROTECTION PRICES.
Democratic DriveI About High Tariff Re-
ductious.

democratic DTlyel ABOUT dlSh I0rin ne
ductious.
From time to time some democratic
orator in the house attacks the Nc
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
are affected by the tariff brought high
er prices during 1891 and 1892 than
they did prior to the passage Of the
Mckinley bill Evidently they think
it is safer policy to make no specific
statements, but to stick to general
tiles.
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 rise prior thereto. When
the provisions of the bill became known
and it was evident that it would
become law almost every retail deal
er in the country jumped at the conciu-
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 general adj
vancement in prices But the public
declined with great unanimity to sub
nit 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 of, 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 1sG2-'93 were lower than in 1sS9-'9O.
That is fact known TO all observers.
OF course there We're few exceptions,
such as pearl buttons. some grades of
linens, cotton pushes. etc.-haf q
dozen articles out of u couple of thou
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-
ton to aid the producer.
How did it happen that the mer.
chants who confidently expected
jump in prices and the democrats who
so confidently predicted it were mis-
taken? 1t 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
o<oS fh01R hat
hold they had on the great American
market 1t 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 posi-
bic. 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 hundred th.:-
sand yards of cloth and sent ten thou
sand here he submitted to q loss on the
one-tenth. brt dispose; of the other
nine-tenths at the b CHER rate. thus
making the reduction ca the entire
output comparatively small
Therefore. as a 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 sexist here. the increase
in price was by no means IS great Is
was expected
Thus it IS manifest that . large part
OF the increased revenue due to the
higher duties of the Mckinley law has
not been paid by the American con-
sumeE4 but b foreign produeseA Ths
taEt4 he's beaA tax ea tie lattaR. 1ot