Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1900-12-06
THE ROB iIii#; TARIFF.
Duties Tint serve only 10 Protect
manufacturers In Combining
Against Americans.

Saws the 81, Louis Globe'Democrnt;
SIN nine months ended with September
the exports Of American steel and iron
products amounted to S8l3l3OOO, an Increase
Of S2l, 00O, 900 over the same months last year
According 10 free traders the DlnBley tariT
should have closed against w the markets
Of the world, The free trader has ceased
to chlrp on the subject OF American foreign
trade"
The free trader Is at least not ig-
norant of the fact that steel and iron
products are among those most vigor-
ously guarded against foreign COMPETE
ton by republican high tarlil laws,
Being aware OF this fact he may be
permitted to "chlrp" to the eNtcnt of
demanding that the Dlngley blgots or
the Dinghy robbers state u reason why
Americans who 0re able TO sell their
products abroad TO the value Of $073OO,-
600 In nine months, or at the rate Of
Sls0100OOO year. need protection
equivalent TO 10 per cent. or more In
their home market, Do they need II In
order that they may sell below cost to
foreigners and make up their losses by
eXactng eXorbItont prices from their
own countWmcn? II not, II Is pretty
plain that they need no Dlnglcy law
10 enable them to realize fair profits
on their product.
Whatever an American sells abroad
he must sell not only without the bene-
NJ a. any fayorlug leg 'a'lon, Gu' GEN.
orally IN the face Of adverse legisa-
ton intended TO give an advantage
to those competitors who produce in
the countries where he makes his sales.
In view OF this fact It il n reasonable
presumption that when our iron and
steel makers sell $l30OC0,00O worth Of
their products abroad In q year with
transportation always and legislation
often against them, they are abundant
ly able to compete against all corners
in their home markets without protcc.
ton,
II they cannot we must conclude, as
above suggested, that they sell at n loss
abroad and get even by oyerchorgng
| lHNll bhll ''hil'l y '''N'
But we can hardly suppose that they
sell great quantitiesnt loss, or without
realizing fair profit, anywhere. They
are not doing business "for their
health" They are not exporting at
loss or without profit for the glory
there is in big export figures.
We are compelled to believe that they
make a fair profit on what they eX-
port. and therefore that they are album
dainty able to meet any competition
at home, where they have transporta-
ton and close touch with their custom
ers in their favor, without any help
from Dingley laws
That being the case, will some tariff
bigot or beneficiary kindly "chirp" to
the extent Of Offering some little ex-
cuse for the monstrous Dingley duties
which serve only to shelter our man
ufacturers in combining 20 wiring eX-
tortionate prices from their own coun'
trymen?
As to the alleged contention Of the
free traders, It Is sufficient to say that
the Dlngley law has provoked retalio-
tory restrictions and TO no inconsider-
able extent closed foreign markets
against MS. The fact that we are en-
porting largely does not prove that
we would not export more IL we had
not the Dingley law to excite the COM
mercial hostility Of European countries
and provoke hostile legislation on their
part,--ChicNgo Chronicle.