Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1910-11-04

TARIFF CATECHISM.

Q. What is tariff?
A. A duty collected on imports.
q. What is protective tariff?
A. Duty imposed upon imports for
the aid of home factories producing
competing articles.
q. What is revenue tariff?
A. A revenue tariff is tariff levied
for the purpose of raising a revenue.
q. What is the difference between
the two kinds of tariff?
A. A revenue tariff is collected for
the benefit of the whole public, and
the government stops when it gets
enough. A protective tariff is i'm
posed for private benefit, may be so
levied as to impose heavy burden
without raising much revenue and
there is no limit to its exactions ex-
cept the greed of the protected in
interests and the patience of the
people.
q. Who pays the tariff?
A. The consumer.
Q. How can this fact be estab-
lished?
A. By reason, by observation and
by experience. If tariff were made
paid by the foreigner it would be no
protection to the home indus try.
Only when the consumer must pay
more than the foreign price for an
imported article can the home pro-
ducer charge more than the foreign
price for the domestic. A tariff paid
by the foreigner would give no pro-
lection to an American manufac-
turer. Then, too, the government
gives rebate on raw material when
the finished product is exported.
Why does the government pay the
rebate to the domestic manufacturer
if the foreigner pays the tariff? But
experience is the best test. TO
abroad. buy in the open market, and
when you return you will pay the
duty and you can rot find any for
eigner to reimburse you.
Q. Is such a tax constitutional
A. 1t violates the spirit of the con-
stitution for it collects from the
many and gives to the few, but as
the protective features are concealed
in a revenue law it is difficult to get
a decision on the principle involved.
Q. Can the wisdom of such tax
be defended ? =
A. No; a policy of favoritism is
never wise in republic. A govern
ment of the people, by the people
and for the people should be admin
istered according to the maxim:
Equal rights to all and special privi-
leges to none.
Q. is the present protective tariff
necessary
A.. No; it is about twice as high as
would be necessary to. cover the en-
tire labor cost of protected manufac-
lures. The fact that we are export
ing an increasing amount of manufac-
lures is proof that our industries do
not need the present protection.
And it must be remembered that our
manufactures have the benefit of the
freight when the foreigner brings his
goods here, while the foreign COM
petitor has the benefit Of the freight
when we export. And it must also
be remembered that the tariff on all
kinds OF material, on machinery and
on food and clothing increases the
cost of articles manufactured here.
If we can now export in spite of these
burdens we could export more if the
tariff were reduced.
@. Does high tariff make good
wages ?
A. No. If it is said that we pay
higher wages than they do in Eng
land-a stock argument with protec-
tionists-it is complete answer to
say that England. with no protective
tariff, pays better wages than Ger
many does under protection. Our
best wages are paid in our unpro-
tected industries and the fact that we
export goods made with our high
priced labor isSpositive. proof that
good wages do not depend on protec-
ton. The labor organizations have
done far more to increase wages than
all the tariff laws.
Q. What about the home market
argument
A. The friends of protection claim
that the farmer can afford to pay
more when he buys because the man.
ufaeturers furnish him home mar
ket. but this is fallacy. The
staples OF the farm are exported and
the price received for the surplus ex-
ported fixes the price received for
the part sold at home. AS the farm
er sells in the unprotected markets of
the world and buys in a protected
market he is constantly drained of
his earnings for the benefit of the
manufacturer and the manufacturer
now shows his ingratitude by selling
abroad cheaper than at home.
Q. How has the tariff been main
tained so long when it is wrong in
principle, unwise in policy and un-
necessary?