Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1903-01-08
ONLY A MARE'S-NEST.
Tariff reform Organ Makes IA Dis
coyery That is Strange and
Truly Startling.

ously, such a ruling had to be made,
otherwise it would be impossible to
prevent undervaluation. The justice
of the method was recognized by the
representatives of the allied powers
when they decided that the customs
tax to be collected by the Chinese
should be based upon the value of the
articles at the place Of import, and
not upon prices which might be made
for the purpose of capturing trade or
which were fixed low in order to de-
fraud the government, says the San
Francisco Chronicle.
But now comes the Boston Herald
with a charge that the ruling demon
strates that the American protective
tariff is in effect an export bounty
system. 1t says: IF the construction
of our treasury department Is to be de-
pended upon and is to be applied to
our own practices, then the congress
of the United States is paying export
bounty to certain American industries,
a practice which may be open to consti-
tutional objection" 1t adds: "Nheth-
er it would be possible, if the United
States courts should decide that the
treasury department was correct in
its construction concerning this Rus
sian proceeding, to bring our own
beneticiaries by government bounty
before the courts, as obtaining uncon-
stitutional privileges through con
gressional action, is a question which
at least will bear careful considera-
ton"
If the question is carefully consid-
cred, certain facts will be ascertalned
which the Herald seems to have com
pletely overlooked in its anxiety to
make a point against American manu-
facturers. Foremost among these is
that its assumption that the practice
of forcing out goods at lower prices
is one peculiar to protective countries
is erroneous. 1t is as much in vogue
in free trade Great Britain as in the
United States. There are few manu-
facturers in that country who will not
make sacrifices to establish trade with
foreigners, and in doing so they follow
a practice which is merely an extern
sion of the rule adopted in the conduct
of domestic business of getting rid of
surpIuses with as little disturbance to
the local market as possible.
If it is right and eXpedient for a
merchant who sells muslin at ten
cents a yard on Saturday to one set
of customers, to turn around and sell
muslin of the same quality for seven
cents a yard on Monday, then it is
not immortal or improper for manC-
facturers to resort to the same
course. The circumstances are pre-.
cisely analogous. In each case the
aim is precisely the same. The mer-
chant, after selling all he can at ten
cents a yard, tries to get rid of the
remainder of his stock at sever
cents a yard. The American manu-
facturer endeavors to get all he can
for his product in this country, and
he takes what he can get from the
foreigner. If he could obtain the
same prices for his surplus from the
latter as from the domestic coa-
sumner, he would cheerfully do so. 1t
is absurd to think that he would not,
and it is equally absurd to imagine
that the American consumer would
be benefited by imposing restriction
on American manufacturers which
would prevent their following the ex-
ample of enterprising department
stores of unloading excess stocks as
quickly as possible.
The economic strabismus of the
Herald prevents its seeing that one
of the reasons why the American
consumer is able to pay so much
more for goods than most foreigners
is because the manufacturer of the
United States are not subjected to
repressive measures. They are prac-
tically encouraged to let production
expand. As a consequence the re-
sources of the country are energetic
ally developed and there is larger
share for all those who assist in their
production. That this is true the
statistics of consumption abundantly
attest, and, being true, the people
have right to account themselves
prosperous, no matter how domestic
prices may compare with those which
obtain in other countries.
The only persons who have any
thing to complain of are the foreign
ers who are the victims of the dump
ing process, and they will be fullE
justified in taking any steps which
may put an end to the practice. That
they are likely to do SO is suggested
by the vigorous objections to dump
ing which find their way into print
in free-trade England. Although the
gospel of cheapness is preached by
British economists, il is noteworthy
that they are beginning to realize
that when it obtains at the expense
of the domestic producer it is dearly
paid for by all classes. Production
is the handspring of prosperity, and
anything that strikes blow at il
must prove detrimental to a country.
This is truth which sophistry can
not disguise even in Great Britain,
where cheupncss is eNtollcd, but
where il is nevertheless clearly
recognized that the chcapness which
proves destructive 20 domestic ina