Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1903-10-10

In partial explanation of the table
| 1t may be said that the tariff, by in
creasing the prices of nearly all arti
| cles, increases the cost of buildings
cars, railroads, beats, etc. 1t thus in
creases the cost of doing business and
of transporting goods. In these ways
| the tariff enters into the price of nearly
all goods, including many on the free
list. Even when you buy flour, meal,
| meat or milk you pay your share of the
tariff cost of steel rails, of structural
material in bridges and buildings and
of the paint, glass, tin plate, etc, used
in cars, depots, steamers, warehouses,
stores, etc. About 10 per cent of your
rent goes for the extra tariff cost of
building your home and Of keeping it in
repair. The trusts which charge two
or three PRICES for glass, tin plate, lead,
pipes, nails, screws, etc, all present
their bills to you through your land
lord. You do not see these trusts or
realize how much tariff there is in your
bill, but they get your money just the
same. The great steel trust collects
tariff taxes averaging So per family
Because you do not buy steel rails or
other steel goods you may imagine
that you do not pay your share of the
tariff profits ($75,OOO,OOO) of this great
est Of all trusts. You are mistaken
The tariff trusts go over this protected
country with a fine comb. They miss
nothing worth mentioning.
To show how carefully the tariff cost
OF each item has been estimated in the
above table we will go over the ex-
penditures for few articles.
The per capita consumption of sugar
in 1902 was 72.S pounds, or about 500
pounds per family. The average retail
price in New England was not less
than 51A cents per pound, or SIS per
family. The government collected a
tariff tax Of 500, 033,511, or So per
family, but it collected on only 3,O31,-
915,ST5 pounds, while we paid it on the
full 5,15O,O00,000 pounds consumed.
While the duty on refined sugar is only
1.9o cents per pound nOminally, vet,
because of the countervailing duty lev
led TO offset the export bounty paid by
Germany and other countries, the actu-
al duty is about 2.25 cents. Including
the profits on the tariff tax, it is GER
tain that we pay nearly 3 cents per
pound more for sugar than we would
pay If there were no tariff on it. In
fact, before England put a duty on
sugar, two years ago, 1t was selling
there for about 2 cents and was so
cheap that it was fed to stock to fatten
it. AT 212 cents per pound the tariff
on sugar taxes each family over IS q
year, only So of which reaches our ma
tional treasury.
Sugar is only one of hundreds of ar
ticleS coming under the groceries,
item. In a similar way the tariff cost
of wooden clothing is estimated at $40
per family and the tariff cost of other
clothing at $50 per family. The allow
ance for tariff cost of liquors does not
include the increased cost because of
the internal revenue taxes. This
amounts to $50 or $50 more per family
Thus at a fair estimate the tariff on
goods adds 500 to the cost of living Of
the average family of the boot and
shoe workers. Only $13.75 of this tax
reaches the government, which is less
than the average (S14.26) per family
collected last year. 1t thus appears
that the average family spends 1888
for goods and for legitimate taxes and
gives $9525 each year to the tariff
trusts. These trusts, then, increase the
cost of living more than 10 per cent.
AS the wages and expenditures of the
average family of the boot and shoe
workers are about 13 per cent greater
than those of the average working
mans family in the manufacturing in
dustries of this country we may con-
clude that the average tariff cost per
family for the whole country is about
$50 and that the abolition of tariff
duties would save this much per fam
lily and reduce the cost of living at
least 10 per cent.
Why do the voters vote to tax them
selves so heavily to fatten the trusts?
Why not vote to keep the 800 which
you now give to the trusts and have
so much extra to spend on your fam
lily? Try IT. BYRON W. HOLT.