The record-union., 1895-11-16

niddlemen upon the duties which he
insists are added to the prices. The
most charitable view to take OF this
unjust and harsh criticism by the
Home Market Bulletin is to say that the
editor knew no better, as the following
evidence will show: "Office of Teft,
Weller & Co, 326, 32S and $50 Broad
way, New York, October 81, 1893. D.
Lubin, Esq.-Dear Sir: In response to
request, we write you with reference to
the question as to whether in figuring
the percentage upon imported goods
we do so before or after adding duties.
We have no hesitancy in saying that
we figure the cost of the goods as
landed in our store. We think you Will
find this to be the general custom.
Signed: Teft, Weller & Co." So then,
not alone is the usual profit on the
duty added to the price of the imported
goods, but in addition there is also the
profits on cost of buying in Europe,
cost of transportation, of Custom
house brokerage, insurance and cart
age A nominal 500 duty therefore.
means more than real duty OF SSo 20.
If more evidence is wanted TO the
same effect, we have it here in the fol-
lowing: New York, Oct. 81, 1879.
Profits on imports are not alone charged
On merchandise cost, but a like per cent.
of profit is also charged on the duty
paid Signed, Garrison, Wright q
Co, Bernhard, Ulmann q Co, George r.
Gibson, Friend, FOise & Co, A. Stein
hardt & Bro, Koch, Sons & Co" We're
it deemed necessary, enough names OF
merchants of the highest standing
throughout the United States could be
obtained to verify the above which
would make a book of thousands of
pages. How many names of reputable
merchants could the Home Market Bull
letin obtain to prove that no prOflt is
added to the duty? Not one.
Being driven from this ground the Op-
position reluctantly admits that SO long
as we have a surplus of agricultural
staples they can neither be protected in
the home market, directly or indirectly,
by tariff on imports. But" say they,
let us continue protection by "a tariff
on imports. and thereby so stimulate
manufactures as to make it possible for
US to consume our surplus of agricult-
ural staples at home, for as soon as we
TO longer have a surplus of agricultural
staples for export, we can then protect
them by tariff on imports" True, but
will the foreign nations be any more
willing to accept in payment for our
imports our protected manufactures in
the future than they have in the past?
Certainly not.
To attempt the payment of imports
with exports of highly protected manu-
fe ctures is as if a dog We're whirling
around in a circle in an endeavor to
catch his tail when the aforesaid dog
had no tail to catch.
We must pay for our imports in bull
ion or in commodities. If in cOmmodi-
ties, they must be at free trade prices
The items of manufactures which are
produced under protection which can
be profitably sold at free trade prices
are few indeed. We must therefore con-
tinue to export agricultural staples to
the extent of I5 per cent. of our exports
in order to pay for our imports.
Some radical though foolish one
sided prOtectionists suggest that we
overcome the difficulty by the prohibit
| ton of commercial intercourse with
| foreign nations. Others of these one
sided prOtectiOnists advise the produc-
| erS to curtail the production of agri-
! cultural staples and to diversity theil
products. Strange to say quite num-
| ber of agricultural journals repeat this
advice. On the surface it looks reason
| able and sound but in practice it is
disastrous, not alone to the producers
| of nOn-stable agricultural products
but, like a boomerang, the mischief
caused thereby rebounds and Injuries
the producers of staples as we'll
When cotton, corn, wheat and to-
| baccO were profitable crops, the grow
eTs of these could afford to buy theiI
root crops, poultry, hay, fruits and
dairy products, thus the production Of
non staples, as we'll as the staples OF
agriculture were profitable industries
! As soon, however, as the staples be
came Improbable, and the producers
started into raise root crops. poultry
! hay, fruits and dairy products, a result
! followed which might have been ex-
! pc cted The nOn-staple agriculture
products also fell below the profit point
None know this better than the Pa
irons assembled here, and none pres
ent can refute it.
| The most demagogic cry of all, anC
| the one of least value and most harm tC
| the agricultural interest, is the cry fOl
that equal protection for agriculture
which may be had by tariff on i'm
ports Can a tariff on imports protect
! the home market Of agricultural sta
| pies as long as they are produced in
surplus quantities for export? No
not directly or indirectly. If they never
! knew this before, they surely know il
now OF what benefit, then, is their cry
fer equal protection of agriculture by
! a tariff on imports? OF no value what
ever But" say they, 'if the tariff can
not protect wheat, cotton, corn, tobacco
and hops, can it not protect wool?" Yes
| it can protect wool, but at the expense
of the producers of such agricultural
| staples as we must continue to produce
surplus of.
Additional protection by a tariff on
| imports as long as the great staples
are themselves unprotected must al
| WAYS be a the expense of the staples
! unprotected. and would tighten the
cinch the tighter and aggravate the
| Injustice. There are but two methods
| for the removal of the unjust and ty-
! rannical burdens which agriculture i
| laboring under. One is by the abSO-
| Lutte abolition of the protective sys-
| TEN. and the other is by protecting
! the home market of agricultural staples
| by an export bounty. Under ordinary
| conditions of international competition
| the adoption of free trade would not
| be a very serious affair. But the con-
| dition confronting us Is not an ordi-
nary one In manufactures we are
| confronted not alone with European
! comDetition but with ASiatic as well
We all know that Japan is looming
up as the most formidable competitor
| in manufactures in the world. AS
| long as these people employed no man
Iufacturing machinery they were unable
TO compete with Caucasian labor. Now
| however. with manufacturing machin-
cry they can as readily, under free
trade, fix the rate of wages in this
country as the peOn, ryot fellah, coolies
and the moujik now fix the world 5
and our home market price for agri-
cultural staples.
Only the day before I left San Fran
cisco, I saw Japanese matches solo in
that city at a lower price than those
produced in our country, in spite OF
the tariff Remove the tariff and in a
very short time our operatives would
be obliged to accept the japanese wage
rate or no matches would be made in
our country. So with other manu-
features. The question is asked, why
does not Japanese competition hurt
free trade England? But it does, and
so does India competition; thousands