The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-29
Porto Rico as An Object
 Lesson of High Tariff EUils

valuation of $500 per acre. When the objection was made that this profit was very liberal, Mir. Fordley came to the assistance of the witness with the suggestion that whether the value of their land was es0 or $500 per acre, they had to earn the interest on their investment. No account was taken of the fact that the valuation of s30O, as well as the high value of other California lands. has been created by tariff stimulation of demand for the crop. It is reasoning in q circle to say that the tariff must be maintained to enable the producer to pay inter est on the value Of his land On that theory, tariffs could never be reduced.
 California Products.
 During the htsring on the agricul- tural schedule. no one appeared to ask for a continuance of the, duties on wheat. corn, oats and hay. Possibly the farmer h.s discovered that these duties were a square deal in the divis- ion of the protection" pudding.
 Those who always fear the con1peti- ton of low-priced foreign labor, re- eeived something of joint, when Franklin c. Colby, a Philippine manu- facturer of cocoanut products, said he could manufacture his goods in New York, paying s2.50 to s3.50 per day for labor. cheaper than he could make them in the Philippines with ordinary labor at 40c to 500 per day.
 Representative Boutell has been try ing to find out what effect certain re- auctions of duty would have upon the price paid by the actual consumer of the goods. When the salt duty was under consideration. he said: T trust that before these hearings are closed, we will find some object where low ering or repeal of the duty would be passed on to the consumer. So far the testimony seems all to be one way" Undoubtedly 1t will be "all one way" so long as the committee listens ! credulousiy to the statements of tariR protected individuals, each of whom wants to make 1t appear that the consumer meyer would get any beneht" from the reduction or removal of his particular duty. or that the imposition | of a proposed duty would place only an 'inhnitessimal burden" upon the consumer. Mir. Boutell and some oth- CT members of the committee seem not to take into account the ordinary laws of trade If pies were taxed one-half a cent per pound, can it be doubted that soon the ordinary cut of pic sold for cent would be enough smaller to make up the tax? And likewise, if such A small tax on pies should be re- moved, competition in the restaurant business would inevitably give the q CT. The imposition of a tax upon . consurnabie commodity imposes upon l the consumer a burden greater than the tax itself. for the producer and the successive dealers through whose l hands 1t passed. must invest more capital in the business on account of the tax and must make their profit on that added capital. So the removal of such a tax will benent the con- surner by more than the amount of the tax itself for it will reduce the amount of capital upon which the manufactur- or and middle-man must make profit.
 The only thing which will prevent the consumer from getting the benefit ls monopoly or restraint of competi- ton. It is the duty of legislative body to find and apply a remedy for any such interference with the laws of trade. and not to use abnormal con- ditions, If they exist. as an excuse for
 Edward Brown of New York, speak. ing of the proposed removal of the duty of 8 cents per hundred pounds on salt, said: Tt is most unlikely that the consumer would benefit a particle" Later on he was compelled to admit that in all territory. subject to foreign competition the purchaser of a barrel Of salt would receive a benent to the amount of the, duty on 2S0 pounds or about 32 cents. Although foreign salS could not possibly compete with. .domes. tic salt very far into the interior on account of the high cost of transporta- ton, the people on the Atlantic coast are denied the advantage Of cheaper salt for the benefit Of a few salC pro- ducers in New York and Pennsylvania.