Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1911-04-05
TARIFF NOT NEEDED
HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT FIGURES IN
PULP PRODUCTION.
Arguments Of "standpat" Statesmen
Clearly Refuted-Few Industries
of the United States In Real
Need Of Protection.

The report Of the tariff board on the
comparative cost of producing pulp
and print paper in this country and
Canada shows very clearly that we
need no tariff at all on these products
for the purpose of protecting our la
Dor. since the labor cost is about the
same in Canada as in this country. In
mills in which the cost OF production
is lowest there is practically no DIFF
ference in total cost. The figures on
print paper. for instance, are $25.38 a
ton IN this country, az against $25.17
In Canada. The labor cost in Canada
IL the higher. There IL considerable
dinerence as against US in the mills
In which the cost Of production is
highest. And the effect is to make an
average cost that is greater in this
country than in Canada. But labor
cost has little or nothing to do with
It Where Canada produces more
cheaply 1t is because of her greater
command over raw material an ad-
vantage which, under reciprocity, she
VIII share with III. The average labor
cost OF producing print paper is pre-
cisely the same In both countries. We
lose almost exclusively on raw mate
rails. Our average labor cost is lower
for sulphite pulp. slightly higher for
wood pulp. and the same as that Of
Canada on print paper.
Surely we should all be able to see
how useful may be the reports of a
tarin commission. Here we have q
clear demonstration that we need no
tariff on these products. There is no
necessity for protecting labor, which
stands even shouldered with Canada.
AS for the other differences in cost all
that is needed to level them is freer
access to stores of raw material On
such showing as this it would be
difficult for even the most determined
standpat statesmen to convince the
people that any protection was needed
by these industries. Another thing is
made clear, and that is that in many
cases the cost of production is much
higher than 1t ought to be. The differ
ence is not in wages, at least not en-
tirely. The great discrepancies can
be explained only on the theory that
the mills are old and out-of-date, or
badly located-perhaps both. And the
question Is as to how far we should
go in protecting industries whose cost
OF production is high only because
they do not keep up with the march Of
progress.
We know that extreme protection
does tend to check the modernization
of plants. As long as men can make
money with old machinery, as, Of
course, they can If protection is sufi-
GENTLY high, there is no reason why
they should put In new. Men learn in
lime to rely on the government rather
than on their own energy and re-
sourcefulness. All that the paper and
pulp men seem to need is cheaper and
more abundant raw material, and
really progressive management. Reel
procity will do much to help them.
With that 1t is not probable that
there will be any considerable differ
ence in the costs Of production in the
two countries. The facts as given in
this report Of the tariff board are pref
~ good anamunltioh for the tariff re-
visers. Their official character, and
the fact that they were compiled by
a board appointed by Republican
president give them significance that
can hardly be missed. A careful in,
quiry by any honest, fairminded and
capable men, no matter what their
tariff theories, could not fail to show
that mighty little protection is needed
by any industry In the United States.