The Winslow mail., 1901-01-17
A ROBBER TARIFF CHIRP.
Duties That Serve Only to Protect
Manufacturers In Combating
Against Americans.

Says the ST. Louis Globe-Democrat:
"In nine months ended with September
the exports of American steel and iron
products amounted to $91 ,313, O6O an increase
of 81, 600, 900 over the same months last year
According TO free traders the Dingley tariff
should have closed against US the markets
of the world. The free trader has ceased
to chirp 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 competi-
tion by republican high tariff laws.
Being aware of this fact he may be
permitted to "chirp" to the extent of
demanding that the Dingley bigots or
the Dingley robbers state reason why
Americans who are able to sell their
products abroad to the value of S97 ,30O,-
600 in nine months, or at the rate of
$129, 100000 a year, need protection
equivalent to 40 per cent. or more in
their home market. Do they need it in
order that they may sell below cost to
foreigners and make up their losses by
exacting eXorbitant prices from their
own countrymen? If not, it is pretty
plain that they need no Dingley law
to enable them to realize fair profits
on their product.
Whatever an American sells abroad
he must sell not only without the bene-
fit of any favoring legislation, but gen.
orally in the face of adverse legisla-
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 is reasonable
presumption that when our iron and
steel makers sell $130, 100000 worth of
their products abroad in a year with
transportation always and legislation
often against them, they are abundant
ly able to compete against all corners
in their home markets without protec-
ton.
If they cannot we must conclude, as
above suggested, that they sell at loss
abroad and get even by overcharging
their own countrymen.
But we can hardly suppose that they
sell great t quantities at 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 abun-
dainty able to meet any competition
at home, where they have transporta-
tion 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 Ysmbining to 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 Dingley law has provoked retalia-
tory restrictions and to no inconsider-
able extent closed foreign markets
against us. The fact that we are ex-
porting largely does not prove that
we would not export more if we had
not the Dingley law to excite the COM
mercial hostility of European countries
and provoke hostile legislation on their
Dart-ChicapO Chronicle