The Democratic advocate., 1908-09-11
TARIFF HURTS TRADE.
INTERFERES SERIOUSLY WITH EXPORTS
TO OTHER COUNTRIES
We Cannot Buy Their Goods, They
Will Not Buy Ours

A. B. FarQuhar, OF YORK, "a, maker
of agricultural implements and ma
chinery, is one of those who do not
think that the protective tariff is a
good thing for their business. In a
speech before the Reform Club, in New
York city, recently he said:
The raw material most essential IN
the implements manufacturing bus1-
ness are iron and steel, coal and hard
and soft wood With regard to the
last, the position of the United States
at the head of the list of producers
was uncontested half a century ago,
when our clipper" ships, in the face
of the worlds free competition, We're
preeminent. OF late years, our supply
has been so far exhausted that the
producers, forced TO depend on it eX-
clusively, are at decided disadvant-
age as compared with those to
whom the rich stores OF Canada are
open.
Our manufacturers desire as good
a chance as their competitors at the
best timber supply in the world; they
deserve it, and they ought to have it.,
whatever reduction it may make in
the profits of the stumpage-b
OF our Northwest. With regard to
coal, there is but the remotest likeli-
hood that Pennsylvania will ever draw
much upon an foreign supply; but
if our laws are so modified as to leave
New England manufacturers at lib
erty to buy where they can buy best,
not only will they receive better
treatment from the corporations con-
trolling the Appalachian coal pro-
duct, but we in other sections may
share in their good fortune.
The question with regard to iron
and steel is, briefly and simply, shall
the annual profits of those who furn-
ish these necessarfes of manufacture
reported for the United States Steel
Corporation as about 145 millions in
1906, and almost $50 millions last
year-continue to flow into the same
pockets, or shall some part be divert
ed to those of consumers, realized by
them in the form of cheaper machin
cry?
1t is well known to those who have
inquired, and not denied by the cor
poration's own officials, that it can
make pig iron for it's own purposes
at cost of from $6 to 81, and can con-
vert this into steel and roll the ingots
into steel rails at total charge of
$12 to SIS ton so that price of
$14 would bring it moderate profit,
whereas, the price ii asks is $2S, just
double
Other costs and prices for it's steel
and iron products are in similar pro-
portion, with large profits on all firm
ly secured by our import duty of 81
a ton on pig iron, and Sc to $25 on
different forms Of steel. 1t is we'll
known, also, that the cost of iron and
steel making by concerns like this
great corporation, or Jones & Laugh
lin, owning their own coal and iron
mines, and controlling the transporta-
ton lines that carry their freight to
Pittsburg, is far less than the least
that any English works can show,
for when the matter was investigated
some years ago by a Commission
from that country the cost of making
a ton of pig iron in Pittsburg was re-
ported $3.50, while the best report for
marlborough pig iron was 1910
ton.
In this report the labor cost at a
furnace was set at two shillings per
ton in Pittsburg, three shillings in
Though the daily
wage scale is fully 40 per cent. high
er in Pittsburg, they seem to manage
there to produce double the number
of tons with the same number of
workmen, so that the labor charge per
ton is considerably lower. Larger
and better applications
of machinery explain the difference.
If British producers cannot compete
with Pennsylvania, we may rest as
sured that nobody can; and those pro-
tective duties, of 81 and so on, have
an office but to assist the corporations
in exacting needlessly high price
from us who must have their pro-
ducts. If we had less to pay, we could
sell for less and our customers might
rejoice with us in our delfverance
from tariff bondage.
1t will thus be seen that the raw
materials on which this business
mainly depends could be furnished at
a reasonable profit to the producers,
though at far less cost to the consum-
er, were they protected by no tariff.
1t would be possible to continue in
the same line, telling of the effect of
protecting the Beef Trusts hides on
the cost of betting for our machinery,
of copper protection on the cost of
brasswork, and SO on, but there is
no need to speak of minor matters.
The duties on agricultural imple-
ments, of no use to us in keeping
out foreign ompetition-which we
have never feared-yet enable us to
use at our customers cost the power
that our providers constantly exer-
else at our own cost, of holding the
same products at higher prices to
American than to foreign purchasers;
but even so they are Of far less i'm
portance to us than the duties AFFECT
ing the cost of our material. Why?
Because it is the consumer who fixes
the volume of business to be done.
which grows or lessons with his de-
mand. High prices for machinery
cause him to do without ito repair
his old machine instead of buying
better, or to do his work with in
ferior tools. Hence the lower prices
we should have to ask, in the absence
of protective duty, would be largely
compensated by increased sales, while
the lower prices we should pay for un-
protected material would be gain un-
mixed.
So much for our interests as pro-
ducers for the domestic demand. AS
exporters, our interest in lower
tariff is powerfully intensified. Prices
are lower in foreign markets, where
we must meet manufacturers the
world over on equal terms, or even
sometimes at some disadvantage; thence
every item of cost becomes more VI
tally significant, and the higher cost
of material, enforced against us by