Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1908-04-30
Tarin and Print papsr.

The newspAperb have given mucl
space Of late 70 demanding lower tarii
on paper IN order to reduce the price
and lot Of cheap politicians. think
Ing thus to get the support Of thu
papers, have howled for 1t without
knowing . blessed thing shout the
facts. Congressman CT Scott hal
taken the pains 70 tell the truth about
1t and In the most sensible discussion
Of the matter yet printed says In q
letter to Manhattan paper:
THE only object we can have in
asking for free trade In paper, as I
understand 1t, is to get paper at a
lower price. Is there any assurance
that this result would followP The
records show that during the past ten
years the price Of paper at the mills
has ranged from $s2 to $50 a ton. with
the tariff remaining the same all the
time. Is 1t clear how tariff Of So a
ton can be responsible for an advance
Of $50 a tonP Under the low tariff
and during the hard times OF the
Cleveland administration the price Of
paper In New York per ton was as
high as $4S. In 1900 and 1901 with
times booming and with higher tariff
the price in New York was only $50
and $S7 per ton. These are CURES
given BY Mr.. Herman Ridder, presi-
dent Of the American Publishers As
ISOLATION, who is making the fight for
paper and they are doubtless accurate.
Yet they show that under low tariff |
and In hard times paper was $40 to
el2 ton higher than under the pres
ent tariff and in good times. Indeed
up to the present hour the price Of
paper In New York has only reached
40 as against &4S in 1898, $45 in 1894
ind "a in 1895. It really seems to
ne that in the face Of these figures we
rave no assurance whatever that the
'eduction in the duty would mean q
corresponding reduction in the price.
"But you ask, why should not the
emoval Of the duty lower the priceP
The answer iseasy. There is no print
'aper imported into this country ex-
ept from Canada. The Paper Trust
Includes Canadian as well as Ameri-
an manufacturers, and the price OF
he Canadian product therefore can be
8 perfectly controlled as that Of the
american product. Now what does
his meanP Why it means that il the
ariff were removed the amount now
aid to the treasury Of the United
tates as duty on imported Canadian
aper would simply stay in the Golfers
I the trust, and we would pay the !
lme price that we pay now.
lit seems to me this conclusion Is
osolutely borne out by the fact that
D member Of congress has received
tier from any manufacturer OF paper
-otesting against the removal Of the
riff, nor has the ways and means
been asked for hearing
anyone representing the American
Anuiacturers.
Mr.. Scott's argument is unanswer-
10 and his further remarks that for
ngress to revise the tariff on paper
d not on other things would mark
. members as afraid Of the press n
d doing It for buncombe only are
rect. He says; "Would we not
met with the argument that the
publican party cowed before the Z
.ss Of the country because it was
. TO make its demands felt but that
lad no consideration for the great
IS Of the people who may feel
mselves injured by the tariff on 1t
5, that or the other articleP III
DO we as Republican editors not
ourselves open to the charge Of
ishness and Of inconsistency as
/ in asking that our own particu- =
product be made an exceptiOnP"