The Bourbon news., 1909-11-16
Confusing the Voters.

The protectionist democrats are at
tempting to confuse the minds os the
voters by asking "Why should we not
have a revenue tariff on manufactured
articles?" says Bryan's Commoner.
The question is asked as if these raw
materials and manufactured products
were living persons, entitled as mat
ter of justice to the same treatment,
or as if there was natural right to
protection and that an injustice was
done to anyone who did not receive
protection. The revenue tariff ceases
to be q revenue tariff when it is levied
for protection, and it indicates con-
fusion of mind to insist that protec-
tion has any place in revenue tariff
system. A revenue tariff ought to be
made with the object Of securing the
necessary revenue without regard to
the question of protection, and rev.
enue tariff ought to be so laid as to Sc
cure the largest amount of revenue
with the least amount of burden.
Whenever a tax is put upon raw ma
terial it is transferred to the consumer
through the operation of a compensa-
tory duty. The duty may not be de
clared to be compensatory duty not
withstanding.
The advocates of revenue tariff on
hides and leather products, for in
stance, ask why not have ten per
cent tariff on hides and ten per cent
tariff on buots and shoes? They would
admit that a ten per cent tariff on
hideo would be unfair without a duty
on boots an shoes. Why? Because the
tax on raw material would be a bur-
den upon the manufacturer If he was
not allowed to transfer it TO the cen
sumer, but a ten per cent tariff on
boots and shoes transfers to the con-
sumer much more than the amount
paid on hides. The raw hide is but
part of the. cost of the shoe. If it is
half the cost of the shoe ten per
cent tariff on shoes would collect twice
as much from the consumer as tie
manufacturer pays on the hide, and if
the hide is one quarter the cost Of the
shoe, then a ten per cent duty on shoes
collects four times as much from the
consumer as the duty on hides collects
from the manufacturer.
The overshadowi G fact to be re-
membered in all discussions of tax
on raw material is burden upon the
manufacturers burden put on him to
compensate the producer of the raw
material for the tax that he has to pay
on the finished product, and not only
the actual tax on raw material but
many times that tax.
When the manufacturer sells abroad
he is powerless to transfer the tax On
raw material, and therefore he is given
rebate which enables him to sell
abroad cheaper than at home. The re-
bate not only helps him to sell abroad
cheaper than he sells at home, but it
compels him to discriminate against
the domestic producer of raw material !
inasmuch as he manufactures for ex-
port. The doctrine of free raw ma
terial is advanced in the interests of
the consumer, and no answer can be
made to it except from the standpoint |
of protection. The advocates of the
tax on raw material ought to be cam
did enough to admit that they want
tax on raw material not for the pur-
pose of revenue but for the purpose
of protection. 1t can not be defended |
on any other ground. and it can not be
prepared to abandon entirely the fight ,
for a revenue tariff.
The democratic party stands for a
tariff for revenue only, and those who
insist upon tax upon raw material
are just as much opponents of revenue
tatiff just as much the friends of pro-