New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-19
THE FREE TRADERS OBJECT.

The Djncley tariff bill has been put into shape
for action in the House, and at once the custom
ary outcry of Free Traders begins. 1t will increase
the cost of living they say OF course it Will cost
the people more at the moment TO pay the ex-
penses of their Government than 10 borrow
the money. The Free Trade party has been Dor
rowing S293, 54,2S5 in cash during the four
years in order TO make the present cost Of govern
ment lighter. and in so doing has fastened upon
the people yearly burden of S5,oOO,OOO for seven
years. and auother of Sc 400 616 for twenty-eight
years. in all S2l6 1929 interest besides 1902
3D. 400 principal to De paid in order to avoid pay
ing the whole cost OF government during one
Democratic administration. IT will make living
cost more now. but vastly less in the end, to stop
that Free Trade nonsense and to raise enough
revenue to meet expenses each year.
But. says Free Trade Representative lsidor
Straus For every so worth of protection 10 the
domestic producer only 81 will go into the Treas
"ury" Mr. Straus Is altogether too well known as
a capable and experienced business man to make
such an assertion without damaging his own rep
utaton for veracity. The imports for consump-
lion of woollen goods in the fiscal year 1890 were
S541 65423 and the value of all wOolen goods
produced by manufacture in the census year 1890
was sos 22421O. which is not ten for one, nor
oven six for one. and moreover. Mr. Straus well
knows that the proportion of domestic goods af-
fected by duties on imports, though greater in
woolleps than in almost any other important
branch does not include the whole nor anything
opproaching the whole of the goods manufact-
ured in this country. Nobody knows this by prac-
teal experience better than Mr. Straus, through
his connection with the business He knows per
fectly well that the great body Of wOollen goods
made here under the Mckinley or the previous
tariff was so made because those goods could be
and were produced at cost with which similar
foreign products could not compete. AS TO such
goods, competition between domestic manufact-
urers fixed the price The duty on foreign goods
fixed the American price Of only that small pro-
portion OF American goods which was in direct
competition on comparatively easy terms with
corresponding goods imported. That Mr. Straus
knows perfectly well, was not one-ifth OF the
total value produced.
These same principles apply 10 other indus
tries and 10 most of them in still greater degree
Mr. Strauss assertion implies that the cost Of oil
boots and shoes 10 American consumers was in
creased 80 per cent by the duty on SSOS69 worth
imported in the census year, although in the
same year the domestic product was about $3.50
600 600 and the prices Of such products were so
low in this compared with other countries that
boots and shoes were exported in quantities TO
almost every country, TO England Canada, Brit
ISL West Indies, Cuba, Mexico and Central Amer
lea. OF cotton goods worth five to seven cents
per yard we imported about million yards. and
exported 11S,O0O,OOO yards. II Is dotic 10 say
that of such goods the price was controlled by
the importaions and duties thereon. but the pro-
duction of these exceeded 2.5OO,O0O,0OO yards
out of 5000. 900, 900 yards of all kinds produced.
Demonstrably five-slxths Of the entire production
was not affected at all by the duty, and yet Mr..
Straus asserts that for every dollar paid 10 the
Treasury on cotton goods, S11,G91.G11 in 1890,
ten times as much was taken from the people by
increase in cost Of domestic goods, which, ex-
Guiding the fiye-sxths above considered, did not
cost that much all told.
Mr. Straus exhibits himself yet more when he
says, I'm voting for Mr.. Mckinley we thought we
were denolncing free silver This is apparently
meant to imply that the Democrats who voted