Bismarck daily tribune., 1912-03-27

rates. was forced to delay further OF.
fort to respond to the protests of the
American people"
The message of the president sub.
mitting the report Of the tariff board
and his recommendation that the
boards findings be used as a basis for
a reduction of rates, is then quoted,
and the committee comments:
"The committee has made careful
analysis of the report of the tariff
board in order to interpret the find
ings and to discover In what 1articu-
lars the committees bill of the last
session was defective, or failed to
adjust the duties in an equitable and
proper manner. This analysis has
failed to reveal anything that requires
single change in the rates fixed in
the committees bill, and the commit
tee is constrained to present again
the results Of it's Investigations of las
summer, as embodied in the bill pre-
sented to the house at that time.
"As shown in the analysis, the data
of the report of theStariff board have
been to diffuse and unsystematic, to
present insignificant nndings and, as
stated to afford the committee no
valid reason for any change in its
recommendations of last session with
regard to the rates of Schedule K"
The report of the committee fur
ther states that the tariff boards re-
port largely consisted Of a study of
what is called Comparative cost Of
production of woods and manufactures
of wools in various countries, and OF
this it says:
"The view, that the proper basis
for tariff duties is found by comparing
money costs of production, rests up.
on the opinion that money costs repre-
sent relative degrees of sacrifice in
volved in turning out commodities of
a given kind in various countries.
Fer instance, it it be assumed that if
a given unit of certain commodity
can be produced in England at one
dollar, or the equivalent of that sum,
while in the United States the money
expenses of production at $1.25, it is
necessary to have tariff duty equal
to the difference in these expenses
difference in money expenses minus
the allowance for variations in freigh4
rates, in order to produce the pro-
ducers in the two countries upon an
equal market footing. If this is not
done, it will be possible for the pro-
ducer in the country where the money
expenses are lowest to drive out of
business tahe producer in the coun-
try where money expenses are high.
est. This assumption is based upon
an erroneous view Of international
trade, and finds no warrant whatever
in economic reasoning"
The democratic report discusses
this matter at great length, and points
out that in every country there is a
great range of difference in cost.
Beside these considerations" the
report says, 1T should be noted that
in every country there is great range
of difference in cost of production.
Scarcely any commodity can be said
to have uniform cost of production.
There is more difference, as rule,
between different factories in the
same country, than there is between
the best and poorest factories in one
country and those of corresponding
grades in another This has been
amply illustrated by the work of the
tariff board itself. In its difference on
pulp and paper, the board found little
difference in money cost Of produc-
ton between the United States and
Canada in the best mills, but it did
find very great difference in expense
of production between the best and
poorest mills in the United States.
The Indication would have been, there
fore, thta while protection was not
needed by the best factories in the