The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1909-11-13

to the same treatment, or as if there
was a natural right to protection and
that an injustice was done to anyone
who did not receive protection. The
revenue tariff ceases to be a revenue
tariff when it is levied for protection,
and it indicates confusion of mind to
insist that protection has any place in
revenue tariff system. A revenue
tariff ought to be made with the object
of securing the necessary revenue with
out regard to the question of protec-
ton, and a revenue tariff ought to be so
laid as to secure the largest amount of
revenue with the least amount of bur-
den Whenever q tax is put upon a
raw material it is transferred to the
consumer through the operation of a
compensatory duty. The duty may not
be declared to be compensatory. but 1T
is a compensatory duty notWithstand-
ing.
The advocates of q revenue tariff on
hides and leather products, for in
stance, ask why not have a ten per
cent tariff on hides and a ten per cent
tariff on boots and shoes? They would
admit that a ten per cent tariff on
hides would be unfair without duty
on boots and shoes? Why? Because
the tax on raw material would be
burden upon the manufacturer If he
was not allowed to transfer it to the
consumer, but ten per cent tariff on
boots and shoes transfers to the con-
sumner much more than the amount
paid on hides. The raw hide is but
part of the cost of the shoe. If 1t is
half the cost of the shoe ten per cent
tariff on shoes would collect as much
from the consumer as the manufac-
10
then a ten per cent duty on shoes
then 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 oVerShadoWing fact to be re-
mem oered in all discussions of tax
on raw material is that the consumer
has it to pay. The protectionist dem
ocrats try to make it appear that tax
on raw material is burden upon the
manufacturer burden put on him to
compensate the producer of the raw
material for the tax that he has to
pay on the finished product. This ar
gument is entirely fal1acious. The tax
on raw material is always transferred
to 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
a rebate which enables him to sell
abroad more cheaply than he sells at
home The rebate not only helps him
to sell abroad cheaper than at home,
but it compels him to discriminate
against the domestic producer of raw
material inasmuch as he manufactures
for export The doctrine of free raw
material is advanced in the interest
of the consumer. and no answer can
be made to it except from the stand
point of protection. The advocates of
the tax on raw material ought to be
candid enough to admit that they want
a 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, End it can not be
defended on this ground unless one is
prepared to abandon entirely the fight
for a revenue tariff.
The democratic party stands for
tariff for revenue only, and those who
insist upon q tax upon raw material
are just as much opponents of revenue
tariff-just as much the friends of
prOtectiOn-as the manufacturers down
east. Equally fallaciOus is the argu-
ment that q tax taken off of raw ma
terial must be added to the manufac
tured product in order t. secure suf-