The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-20
AN uNsoPHrsr1cArED PERSON.

which finds "the obtuseness Of the
G o b e, when it comes to tariff mat
tiers, simply astounding" preferring to
believe that, while the Times, with the
object lesson Of the lumber tariff and
it's uses before its eyes, perceiving the
outrage Of it, still is unable to realize
that the lumbermen, in advancing
simply put into practice the theory of
all protective tariffs. We take 1t as
an encouraging sign, however, that our
contemporary is able to see it work in
the case Of lumber, as it indicates a
possibility Of seeing that may take a
wider range later. Meantime, If it will
aid the Times any in clearing the fog
that envelopes it, we will assure 1t that
the Clio is not "imbued with the
fixed idea that the tariff in all cases
is a tax, |. e., the price Of commodity
is increased in exact proportion to the
tariff imposed" If the commodity
meant is one Of which we
produce surplus. We have
on several occasions pointed out
how the efforts Of makers of these
commodities have failed to take to
themselves in increased price the ad-
vantage given them by the taxation Of
their foreign competitors, but this fall
ure was due not to any intent Of the
law or to their own action, but because
there is law Of gravity in production
and prices that is superior to congresses
and human greed.
What we do insist on, however, and
what 1t surprises us to have so intelli-
gent a person as Is the editor Of the
Times deny, is that it is the effect Of
any tax laid on imports and 1t Is the
express purpose Of every protective tax
so imposed, to permit the domestic
makers Of similar articles to increase
the price of their products common
surately. What is always the argu-
ment? If no tax. or one too low, Is
laid, our manufacturers cannot COM
pete with foreign makers of like wares.
Why? Because the foreigner can make
his goods and lay them down in our
markets at less price than our max
ers can produce them. Therefore a tax
Is laid on the imported articles to in
crease their cost in our markets to
the cost level Of our goods, so that the
domestic articles. If our contemporary
paid any attention to the hearings al
ways had by the ways and means COM
mittee whenever the tariff Is touched
by congress. he will know who it Is
that informs congress what and how
high this tax should be; and, If he will
take the pains to compare the tax i'm
posed with the amount asked by the
manufacturers at these hearings, he
will learn how complaisant congress is
to the class Of tax increasers.
We apprehend that the editor Of the
Times has not given to the current
news items, since the adoption Of the
Dingley act, that attention he should
have given If he wishes to gain infor-
nation. The action of the lumbermen
he could hardly avoid seeing, for it
Is a local matter, and we are glad to
know that he views with proper horror
their utilization Of the tax, thereby
showing their accurate appreciation Of
its purpose. But he must have missed
the numerous other like actions Of those
whose privileges are written in the
Dingley act. The list is too long to
repeat here. We have noted them as
they appeared and made suitable COM
ment on them. Hardly an article Is
missing Glass, cutlery, nails. woolens,
boots and shoes, leather, sugar and
hundred other articles have moved up
in price to embrace the opportunity
given them by our gracious congress.
But, If the Times man has missed these
news items, 1t cannot have failed to
note the impetus given by the new
tariff to the increase and growth Of
those commercial combinations for
which it affects such a horror, the
trusts. If he will compare their prod
them amply protected. What does he
suppose these trusts are formed for?
Why is there rise in the price Of
their products following their organi-
zation2 Why should they not increase
the price to get the protection given
them? If they do not, where Is the
protection? If our lumbermen did not
raise prices, why should they have
labored as they did to get the oppor-
tunity to? We apprehend that the
lumbermen and all the rest Of the gang
will think the editor of the Times is
very simple, unsophisticated fellow who
does not know what protective tariffs
are for.
DEFICITS ALL ALONG THE LINE.
Some years ago, when the customs
and Internal revenues were SURPRISING
the expenditures, before Republican
congresses had discovered that the way
to reduce a surplus was to spend more