Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1910-09-21

1894 .................. 4S.66 2236 1886
Wilson. lS95-1S97 ..... 41.29 2O93 6.4153
Dingley. 1S3S-190S go. 47.47 2615 1866
Payne A!drich, 1910. 800. ..... 923l0
From these figures it appears that
the duty on all imports averaged Z per
cent and prices Is per cent lower un-
der the Wilson bill than under the
Mckinley bill and duties 25 per cent
more and prices % per cent higher
under the Dingley law than under the
Wilson. These are strange coinci-
dences if the tariff has no effect on
prices of commodities. These tables
show close relation between tariffs
and prices that corroborates the Re-
publican theory when they are franz
ing tariff bills"
AS to President Taft's statement that
the Payne-Aldrich bill meant revision
downward. the report says:
The president was misled into stat
ing in his Winona speech that because
the duties in more items had been re-
duced than increased there had been
revision downward. This has been
clearly demonstrated by Hon. Champ
Clark in speech in the house on June
%. 1910. He said:
The Dingley tariff consisted of items 2,0A
or these there were unchanged ...... 1,15O
Leaving changes in NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. 874
VI these there were raises in ...... 220
OF these there were reductions in. 654
84
THE president argued that inasmuch
as 654 items We're reduced and 22O in
creased there was a revision down.
ward. 1t is an argument based on
numbers. not results, and is fallacious.
The 1904 items Dingley law
yielded duties amounting to. .. 1929, 100 342
Under the Payne-Aldrich laws:
The 220 items will yield
duties amounting to. s13, PSI 1868
The 6o4 items reduces
duties ..."............ 7,63S,330
SO the net Increase is.............. S, SAB Q38
This is forcibly shown in the cotton
and hemp schedules, where 200 Of the
654 items reduced are found, nearly
80 per cent Of ALL"
OF the greed Of the protected inter-
ests the minority say:
Experience shows us that the more
they receive the larger and more in
sistent becomes their demand. Take,
as a good illustration. our knit goods
industry. Our imports of stockings
for the last ten years have never equal
ed an average of per cent of our con-
sumption. Less than per cent Of the
cheap foreign goods Of pauper labor
could float over the American tariff
wall, and yet in spite Of this fact and
the fact that already they had pro-
tective tariff Of from 81 to 81 per cent
they demanded last year and received
an increase to SO per cent on that class
of goods used mostly by our citizens
of moderate means or small income"
The majority had made the state
ment in their report that foodstuffs
such as bacon. beef, mutton. wheat
and corn were vastly dearer in Great
Britain in 1900 than in the United
States The minority give the lie to
: this statement. They show by adding
the freight rates to the American
prices that no such difference in the
price levels is possible. They add:
Nov. to say that the American ex-
porter sold his wheat here at 70 cents
a bushel instead of shipping to Liver
pool at cost of Is per cent. where he
| could get an advance of 36 per cent, is
| absurd, or that he sold his corn here at
80 cents when he could land it in Liv-
erpool at a cost Of 26 per cent and
there obtain an advance of 81 per cent,
or that he sold mutton here at $7.27
when he could land it in Liverpool at
cost of 8 per cent and there get an
advance of 105 per cent, or sold his
beef here at $500 when he could ship
| to Liverpool at cost of less than 8
per cent and get an advance of 80 per
cent. All this is asking US to believe
some very unbelievable statements"
J Agricultural readers who think they
derive an advantage from the tariff
will be interested in the following:
"Whenever we produce any commod-
ity largely in excess of the home de
mand the surplus must find a market
in open and free competition with the
producers Of that article all over the
world. This foreign market fixes the
price of that commodity for the whole
world and no tariff we may impose
Local G.. N.