Missouri Valley times., 1901-11-14
Porto Rican Tariff Beggars.
From the Chicago Cronicls

IOItO hlCdu dTlu 60888Ce.
From the Chicago Cronicle
1t turns out, as the Chronicle sup
posed it would, that the Porto Rican
delegation which wants us to buy the
coffee produced by the people they rep
resent proposes that we secure this
"home market" for them in the regular
republican way-by putting q tariff
tax on all the coffee we import from
other ports of the world.
The delegates called on President
Roosevelt Mobd.y morning and told
him plainly that they wanted tariff
protection in this market, and men,
toned . cents per pound as about the
right figure. Their spokesman, Thos.
l5lasini, declared that Porto ltcan cof.
fee was the best in the world and said
this WAS proved by the prices pa id for
it in Europe before the war between
the United States and Spain.
An,icipatlng the question whv it was
not stll sn|d there at such prices, MIR
lilasini said: SINCE the acqnisltlon of
lorti REQ by the Cnnted States the
Europeanm llkets are practically closed
to us Through the provisions of the
Dingley tariff act. We are now depen-
dent on the United States for consump-
tion of our coffee.
This seems to mean that the Ding
ley tariff applied to goods imported
INTO Porto liica as stopped imports
from Europe. 1t seems to mean tl,a'
| Europeans will M longer buy Porto
lsicap coffee because the Porto Ricans
no longer buy European goods.
1t this is true we must con clude Ell
ther that the Din.ly tariff is much
worse than the Spanish tariff was VIII n
! Porto Rico was Il Spanish colony or
else hat the Europe which Mr.. Bias
mi says formerly bought Porto Rico
coffee consisted of Spain only.
The latter most likely is the correct
conclusion. Spain favored Porto Rico
by admitting its coffee free while put
ting u stiff duty OH all other cotf ee i'm
ported. That accounts at onca for the
fact that Porto Rlcan cotf 70 found q
market III Spain and for the high price
obtained for it there The high price,
therefore, did not prove the superior
quality of the coffee. but only that it
81 ,yed pretty much a monopoly of
the Spa!sh market.
Now MIR I'lasini and the rest of the
Porto Rican coffee planters ask us to
do as much for them as Spain did. Can
we do less than that t.rannical couE-
! try? President Roosevelt seems to
think not.
1t will cost American consumers
something, however. Mr.. Blasini asks
us to head off competition-B Brszilian
competition especially duty of
about . cents a pound In 1900 we i'm
ported about 7sS,OOO,OOO pounds of cof-
fee and in 1899 about s36, 700 O0o lbs.
Calling our average annual importa a.
tion SOO,0OO,0OO pounds, the tax would
cost our consumers TIE snug sum of
$40 100000 a year, or more than three
times the value of the entire Porto
Rican crop in the bumper year before
III 1T would be more than $50 600 .OCC
better for our coffee drinkers to pay to
the Porto Ricans bounty of 10 cents
pound than to give them the benefit
OF a tariff tax of 5 cents pound II
would be twice as good for the Porto
lSican growers.
i Yet it is not so very unlikely that
our republican lawmakers may think
it their benevolent duty to bleed Amer
lean consumers S4O,OOOOOO year in
order to put possibly $5,GOO,OoO in the
pockets of Porto Rican coffee growers
They may think colonial market
cheap at that price.
Letter List for Week Ending
Nov. IL.
Grim, Maggie