Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1910-06-18

son bill of 1894 than under the inordinate-
ly high and greatly protective Mckinley
bill Of 1890, while duties averaged %
per cent. and prices % per cent. higher
under the Dingley highly protective bill
Of 1897 than under the Wilson bill.
Psvnc-AIairich Biws Effect.
Here is remarkable coincidence. IL
has not, to my way of thinking. as yet
been explained away by any report of any
commission on the high cost of living.
Partly through fear that the Republican
party would keep its campaign pledge
and reduce duties at the extra session Of
Congress in 1909, the protected Trusts
and notably the Steel Trust-lowered
prices materially in 1908 and early in
1909. They. however, advanced prices
rapidly as soon as it became evident
that as rule only superfuous duties
were being reduced and that these re-
ductions in nominal duties were being
Offset by advances in effective duties.
Knowing what happened after the pas
sage of the Mckinley and Dingley bills,
it did not take prophet to foretell what
would happen to prices after the passage
of the Payne-Aldrich bill. When this
bill was up in Congress Senator Gore
warned the senate that its passage would
be followed by period of extremely
high prices. That prophecy was fulfilled.
Average prices rose more than II per
cent. from June to December, 1909. The
prices of Steel Trust common stock
more than doubled in six months in 1909.
The high tariff act of 1909, like its
predecessors Of 1897 and 1890, did its
work well-for the Trusts. The work
Of tariff is to raise prices. A tariff
that would not raise prices is tariff
that no Trust or prospective Trust would
want. And we know how much the
Trusts wanted the high prices of the
present tariff.
Costs EACH Family S112 Moro.
The connection between high tariff
and high prices is shown clearly by the
differences between prices in low and in
high tariff countries.
During the last IL years an average of
about $3.50, ,000.0 900 a year of dutiablc
goods were imported, in which an aver
age duty of about AZ per cent. ad valo-
men, or of $3.50, 900. 900 year, was col
lected. Were our tariff duties levied
mainly for revenue, this tariff tax,
great as it is, would have increased the
cost of living only about SO per capita,
or Sl4 per family.
As, however. our duties are levied
much more for protection" than for
revenue purposes-that is. mainly to
keep out foreign competing goods and
to enable our producers to sell their
goods at high prices-it is safe to say
that the tariff tax collected by the
Trusts and other protected interests
was at least eight times that collected
by the United States.
This means that, because of the tariff,
the cost of living is about S24 per
capita. or SIP per family, higher than
it would otherwise be, and that much
higher than it actually is in foreign low
tariff countries.
Considering these simple and palpable
facts, is it not plain that the first thing
to do is to materially reduce all duties
that bear heavily on the necessaries of
life and to levy no duties except those
for revenue purposes, which are neces-
sarily protective If this simple remedy
was promptly applied the cost of living
would decline radically; the purchasing
power of wages and salaries would be
greatly enchanced and the consumption
of goods would be increased.