The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1906-05-18

1t is proposed by the Democrats to abate
the tariff tax on building material for San
Francisco while that city is being rebuilt. But
the Republican standpatters are secretly op-
posing it, as it will call attention to the inqui-
ties of the present tariff law, which fosters
trusts and combines and protects them in OBJ
tanning and continuing present high prices.
The Democrats in Congress will unite in
voting for rebating the duties paid on all build
ing material used in the stricken city and
would welcome a decrease of the tariff rates
paid by the whole country.
The tariff tax on steel, glass, nails and lum
ber is all protective of the combines that aim
to control the price of and avoid competition.
The tariff on structural steel, nails, etc., is
from SO per cent. to 81 per cent. On common
window glass from 81 to 1l5 per cent accord
ing to size, and on plate glass from 40 to 14O
per cent On lumber planed on one side %
per cent. and up to 80 per cent. for flooring.
On paints from As to 79 per cent. and on lin
seed oil 50 per cent.
| There are other materials that are used in
building which pay an average percentage as
| follows:
Brick and Tile..32 Marble.
Cement ...............25 Wall Paper.
Iron and Steel pipe30 Stone ..................50
Lead. Tin Plates........-33
To refund these tariff taxes will be an enor-
nous saving to the home builders of San Fran
cisco and will open the eyes of home builders
everywhere to the tax upon building homes.
The trusts and combines have such firm
control of the market for most of the materials
that enter into buildings that they have in
creased prices since the tariff bill was enacted
fully 40 per cent. on the average, and there
is but little opportunity for competition to
L.. IL Dc IlA
materials that enter into building are in re-
lation to it, raw material, just as much as pig
iron is to finished stove. The question to be
considered by voters in electing the next Con-
| gress is whether they will vote to reduce the
| tariff rates enough to induce foreign compe
| tition, unless the trusts and combines lower
their prices to the level to prevent the foreign
| goods from coming in and underselling them.
| If the tariff on building materials and other
necessities were necessary to protect Amerl-
can workmen, employed at good living wages,
the tariff taXpayers-and that is everybody
would perhaps bear il patiently until the
plundering system conld be revised for the
! benefit of all alike. But the tariff increased
price paid by the American people should
| only be enough more than the European
prices to cover the difference between wages
there and here. The transportation charges
alone on such heavy materials are enough pro-
| lection in themselves.
The high cost of building material has SO
increased the cost of homes that rents have
advanced about 25 per cent. The farmer who
builds new house, or barn, is compelled to
pay about 40 per cent. more for the mate
rias, so the increased money invested is a
clear loss to him and the interest on the same
is virtually yearly rent charge for living in
his own house.
There is no reason why this tariff tax on
building materials should be continued for the
government collection from this source is less
than per cent of the federal revenue. The
siandpat argument that protection is needed
to protect American labor is, according their
own theories, not applicable to building ma.
terials which are raw material to be manufac
tured by the workmen into buildings. The
only reason, therefore, for this tariff protec
ton is to enable the trusts to extort enormous
profits from every family, either in the form
of increased rent or as tax upon homes.
The natural desire of everyone is to owr
their own home, but the Republican plan o
protecting the trusts and combines decreases
the opportunity of large increasing number
of people from ever being home owners. The
home is the pedestal upon which Democratic
institution must rest and to tax the home un
necessarily is to clog the evolution of th,
Commonwealth to its highest development
So let us have free homes not only in San Fran
cisco, but everywhere and not tax the many
for the benefit of the few.