The San Francisco call., 1895-11-15

spects superior to ours This is the new world
condition, it has come to stay, and this condf-
ton we must now meet. The condition which
permitted prosperity in spite OF injustice is
gone, and the time has now come when other
and better and more just methods must pre-
vail
Those who make light of this statement, or
those who insist in maintaining the present
one-slded and unjust protective system, be-
cause itoperated to their satisfaction for the
past thirty years, must prove clearly: First,
how tariff on imports can protect an export.
Second, how the home markets OF such prod
ucts can be indirectly protected as long as
there is surplus for export which is sold In
the open market at free-trade prices. Third,
they must prove that we are still the
exclusive users OF agricultural machinery, and
that we do not annually export about So, ,0O0,-
OOO worth OF these for use in the cheapest land
and labor countries OF the world. Fourth,
they must prove that there are no plants for
the manufacture and export OF agricultural
machinery to the cheap land and labor coun-
tries in England, France, Germany, Austria
and Belgium. Fifth, they must prove that
there is no great subsidized trunk railway
lines in India and in other British possessions,
1or the purpose OF cheap carriage OF agrl-
cultural staples to seaboard. Sixth, they must
prove that the Suez canal has not shortened
distance in carriage OF agricultural staples to
England. Seventh, that Argentine did not
import flour and grain q few years apo; that
she die not send to England in direct competi-
tlon against us 6, ,470,0 ,045 bushels of wheat in
1892, 14,645,09 in 1893 and "a ,774, ,6S5 i'll
1894; that the same country did not send to
Germany in direct competition against us
66, 1897 metric tons of wheat to our &c.,
213.0 metric tons in 1892; that she did not in
crease the 66,169.7 metric tons to 346, ,224.5
against our 323, 1913 in 1894. And in periods
nf 4r-n
1876 to 1880, and 1891 to 1898, that
India did not increase her cotton crop from
56,sOO,O00 to 134 500, 600, then to 407,-
100000, then to 491 500 900. And that Egypt
did not in the same period increase her cotton
crop from 30,100,0O0 to 60, 100000, then to
26S, 700 900, then to 449 800, 600. Eighth,
they must prove that agricultural machinery
is not being introduced and that rapid devel-
opments are not taking place in European and
Asiatlc Russia, or that Russia or Argentine
have reached their limits in the placing of
available land under cultivation, or that all
those things have no material effect on the
worlds price, that the worlds price as soon
as we produce surplus for export is not also
our home market price. Can these things be
refuted? No, not one. Finding themselves
beaten, inch by inch on their own ground,
these would-be conservative leaders take a
crosscut out Of the difficulty by brazenly claim
ing that protection does not enhance the price
of manufactures TO all. that the "fellow on the
other side" pays the duty, and that our manu-
factures are cheaper than those of other coun-
tries. When confronted with the fact that we
only export OF mining, fisheries, manufactures,
forestry and miscellaneous about 25 per
cent, and OF staple agriculture rs per cent
that If our manufactures were cheaper there
would be no need Of tariff, that we would
export them in place of fearing competition
m hqt in re Of h 10Th riE ba
foreign manufacturer can and does still un-
dersell us TO the extent of about 5000 900 900
protective duties annually paid into the treas
ury, which, with profits of middIemen added
thereto, is paid by the consumers of the coun-
try, to be ultimately repaid in total with addl-
tions by the producers OF agricultural staples
They alone, be il remembered, are the only
great class in our country who pay for protec-
ton and are themselves unprotected But the
enormity OF this unjust burden resting on the
producers of agricultural staples is much
greater than is seen on the surface. Not alone
IS the duty added on imports, but the usual
profits OF merchants are likewise added on the
duty as well on the goods proper. This
together becomes the measure of possible en-
hancement or protection of home manufac-
lures. TO illustrate, if the duty is $50 on a
case goods, and if the profits of importer,
iobber and retailer be respectively 15 20 and
% per cent (Which as general average and
excluding staples is conservative), the real
duty will swell about tollows: Duty $50,
importers profits Is per cent increase the
duty to $57 80, to which add 20 per cent job
ber's profits, increases the duty to 500, TO
which add % per cent retailers profits, making
total OF $50 nominal enhancement Tor
duty $50 25. -
The Home Market Bulletin of Boston, the
official organ OF the Home Market Club, the
principal New England adjunct to the Ameri-
can Protective Tariff League, in its October
Issue criticizes this enhancement in the fol-
lowing words: "Outsde the madhouse of the
New York World we have seen no recent con-
tention SO untenable Mr.. Lubin's computa-
ton of the profits made by middlemen 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 knows
no better, as the following evidence will show:
OFFICE OF TEFT, WELLER & Co.,
326, 32S and $50 Broadway
New York, October 81, 1859
d. Lubin Esq.-DEAR SIR: In response to re-
quest, we write you with reference to the ques-
tion as 20 whether in figuring the percentage
upon imported goods we do so before or after
adding duties. We have no hesitancy in say
Ing that we tgure the cost OF the goods as
landed in our store. We think you will find
this to be the general custom.
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 transporta-
ton, OF custom-house brokerage insurance
and carriage. A nominal $50 duty, therefore
means more than real duty of $50 25.
To attempt the payment of imports with ex-
ports OF highly protected manufactures is as if
q dog were Whlrling around in a circle in an
endeavor to catch his tail, when the aforesaid
dog had no tail to catch. We must pav for onr
imports in bullion or in commodities IF in
commodities they must be at free-trade prices
The Items OF manufactures which are pro-
duced under protection which can be profit
ably sold at e-trade prices are few indeed
We must, therefore, continue to export agri
cultural staples to the extent of rs per cent of
our exports in order to pay for our imports.
Some radical though foolish one-sid ed nro
tectionists suggest that we overcome the diff
Guilty by the prohibition of commercial inter
course with foreign nations. Others of these
one-sided protectionists advise the producers
to curtail the production of agricultural staples
and to diversity their products Strange to
say, quite humber of agricultural journals