The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-03-18
"THE FOREIGNER PAYS IT,

ducts it from the price he receives for his
goods"-is the song of the high-tarif
statesman. the guardian of the protected
trust To illustrate it, let us take a
few examples.
There were imported iato the United
States during the past year wooden
blankets to the value of 81, 957. 49, The
duties thereon were $26,SO0.06, or, at the
rate of nearly SO per cent ad valorem.
Who paid this tariff tax on imported
blankets? why, the foreign Maker
quoth our high-tariff friend; ''he had to
dig up the duty out of the proceeds Of
his sale" Let us see. The tariff tax of
SIG, SOO.O6 taken from $27,957.29, the value
of the goods, leaves just $1,15723. So
that would be the net price which the
foreign maker would get for $27, 957 worth
of goods after paying the tariff tax alone,
and he has the ocean freight, commission
and insurance still to meet. Does that
appeal to common sense?
Take another example. There was i'm
ported $4,197, SOC worth of unstemmed to-
bacco, on which the tariff duties were
81, 76O, or 1888 per cent ad valorem
Who paid that duty? Did the West In
dia tobacco raiser pay it? Did he pay
$3.50, go of tariff taxes out of the pro-
ceeds from $4,1 SOC worth of tobacco?
How much tobacco would the Cuban and
Porto Rican producers have shipped to
US, if for every dollars worth they ship
ped they paid tax of $1.SS? Would they
have kept on until at the end of the year
they had paid over $7,OoO00O in tariff
taxes enough to bankrupt the whole of
the West Indies?
Take another case. There was import
ed into the United States during the past
fiscal year $77,929,745 worth of sugar the
tariff duties thereon being s57. All, 7z2. Did
foreign sugar producers contribute tariff
taxes of s57. OOOO 900 in order to have ST.
O0O,OOO trade? Did they find it profitable
business proposition to give the United
States government over 70 per cent of
the value of their product and be content
with q per cent just in order to have
their sugar eaten by Yankees?
Take these cases.
Did the Jap and Chinese tea raisers,
who shipped us $1O,0OG,0OO worth of tea,
deduct from their proceeds the $SOOG,OOO
collected by the United States govern
ment as duty, leaving for themselves on'y
50, OOO, coo, and the freighcs and other costs
to meet?
Were the 50, 726,S45 of duties on distilled
spirits deducted by the foreign exporters
from the value Of the liquors, which all
told was only $2,771, 301 THAT is to say,
did they donate the liquors outright, with
cash gift of 81. 100000 on top?
Were the tariff taxes OF SlO7,6S7 on fire.
crackers paid by the foreigner from the
$2O6 265, at which the firecrackers were
valued-in other words, 81 of taxes for
each dollar of trade?
Were the s1S,S77 of tariff taxes on bone
buttons paid by the foreigner from the
$12, $50, which they were worth?
Were s14, S73 S12 of tariff taxes on import
eU TOBACCO pdIu tue foreigner from the
$1S,565,7S0. at which it was valued?
Did the foreign exporters, who sold us
$15,62O 1856 worth of wooden goods, pay
from the proceeds of their sale the $14,-
2S4,7S1 of tariff taxes which were collect
ed--leaving the foreign manufacturer for
his labor and investment one tenth of
the value of his goods
If the answer in each of these cases is
YES in harmony with the theory of the
high tariff advocate, then the manufac-
turers and merchants across the ocean
must be organized in a conspiracy to rob
themselves in order to support as an OBJ
ject Of charity the American government,
which is trying to destroy their trade
Even if the trust price lists and the con-
sumer's pocket did not tell him that he
himself paid the tariff taxes, and no
foreign charity, common sense would
tell him that trade does not proceed
when the taxes upon it exceed cost OF
production-unless the trader is able to
pass the taxes along by adding them to
the selling price.