Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1910-04-29
INCREASED COST
OF LIVING.

ticle in Review Of Reviews for May,
written by J. Laurence Laughlin in
search Of causes for the present high
cost of living:
B Another cause Of the higher cost
of living-one which is especially oper-
alive al the United States and the
Continental countries of Europe-is
the increasing rates of customs tariffs.
and of taxation due to miIitarism. 1t
| is impossible TO attribute the geuer-
ally higher prices due to the heavy
load of taxation laid upon the con
sumer to a general cause like the
cheapening of gold. In the United
States the enormous sums spent by
cur national government on harbors
and rivers, on pensions. on the army,
and especially on the new navy, must
be paid for somebody; and that some
body is the consumer OF the taxed
goods. On an average imported du-
table goods are increased in price to
the American consumer by over 80
per cent But. to the extent that i'm
portations are impeded, not all of
this tax of over 40 per cent goes 10
the government. but much OF it goes
to the protected interests. The duties
are so high as not to be revenue du-
ties, and our treasury gets only about
$500 900 600 of this tax. or less than
half of its annual expenditure. The
truth is just coming home TO the
mass of people that our extremely
high protective duties have raised the
expenses OF producing many goods.
raised prices. and raised the cost of
living to every family throughout the
length and breadth of the land. This
is one reason why industrial activity
today spells hard times" for the un-
organized consumer.
Some of our public men are not
dealing fairly with the people when
, they direct attention solely TO the
Payne-Aldrich Act of 1909. and assert
that it has in some respects lowered
T duties. Suppose that ii had done SO
as compared with the DingIey Act O
1897. Then, that only transfers thu
cause Of offending to the duties fixe'
by the Dingley Act. which were. oil
u the whole, the highest in our list o
10 high-tariff enactments. 1t is no com
q fort to drowning man in forty fee
re Of water to be told that just back O
u him the water was forty-one fee
* deep. 1t is no comfort to the COZ
n sumner submerged by import dutie
Is Of forty, or a hundred. or severe
81 hundred per cent, to be told that
OF microscope will discover a fraction;
r. charge Of a per cent here and there
e when in fact hosiery, gloves an
Ut clothing bear increased duties. 1t
nc not ingenious to harp on the insi
II nificant changes in the act Of 100
az when the real burden was made heaN
81 in 1857. and only continued in 1870
ID 1T is not fair. of course. to charl
us the increase in the prices Of all gooS
III to the tariff The most pernicio'
10 and the most direct effect of our his
al protective tariff is to be found in Il
ne duties upon raw materials where Il
re taxes on materials unduly raise Il
I'D prices Of finished goods. For instanc
If foreign woods (required in variol
We mixtures of clothing fabrics) be tax
re 40 per cent then. if the wooden man
lp- facturers were TO receive an additio
De al protection Of 10 per cent on the
re finished goods it would be 40 per ce
ne on an outlay increased by the tax {
their materials. Thus by comp
Gated compensatory duties the co
We sumer pays so or so per cent nor
ep in cases where he should pay G
IN wooden goods only 40 per cent pr
:" vided raw materials we're free. A
nt Illustration Of the heavy burden thu
Oh and upon all Of US by the tariff may
% scwud in the case Of wool and wooie
re goods. Wool was made Tree in Il