Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1913-01-15
ss..:..s-Ssssss-ssss s !! 5 .ssff
T. TARIFF FALLACIES 7.
ANSWERED
's''''s''s' '''s'''s''s' .se.s''s's.s'.s''s'.s'!'

The following questions were sub
mitted to VIM. j. Bryan by repre-
sentative OF the Boston Transcript.
The answers will be found following G
the questions:
First. The possibility of lowering
the cost Of living by tariff reduction
Answer. Tariff reduction can
lower the cost of living to the extent
that tariff duties have increased that
cost. Where the price level in this
country is, through the operation Of
tariff duties, raised above the price
level in other countries, it can be
re ~uced by reducing the tariff.
Second. The possibility that low
cred cost of commodities would be
followed by lower wages.
Answer. A lowering of wages
would not necessarily follow Il low
ering Of the tariff. Wages do not
depend upon the tariff, but upon COM
petition between wage earners A
reduction in the prices Of tho pro-
duct would naturally increase the de-
mand, and an increase in demand
would increase the number of en-
ployees necessary to produce the
larger quantity demanded, and thus
the tendency would be to increase
wages rather than to lower them. The
protectionists have for a generation
I'm, 20
the tariff is reduced, but the threat
does not rest uDon an economic basis,
and it is evident that it has failed
this year to make the, impression
that it has in former campaigns.
Third. The possibility that there
might then be the same discrepancy
between wages and cost Of living.
Answer. The question is hypo-
thetical and it is answered in the an
swer to the second question.
Fourth. The possibility that tariff
reduction would entail new taxation
for revenue, which would bear just
as heavily.
Answer. This question seems to
assume that a reduction in taxation
would not result in greater revenue.
1t is not only possible, but probable
that a reduction in the tariff would
increase the revenue by increasing
the imports, and at the sar"a time in
crease the demand to- la n by in
creasing the domesr'c outl jt. Where
the tariff IS prohibi;or, # tay result
in placing a heavy Durdey upon the
consumer without yi.l"ng any reye-
nue. at all. 1t is a gommca mistake
Of protectionists to moasuI,. Tho bur-
den borne by the cuuau5ipr By the
amount Of the taxes cuii2.tyd where
as the people may pay 90 to pro-
tected interests Lauy tines the
amount that reaches tie I.asury.
If, for instance, we lmp,.J ou.- tenth
as much Of P given a,t.cl, as 80 con-
sumo and the domestic .odus. col
lects approximately n, fulI .nount
of the tariff, the buI den >-uu . peo-
pie is ten times as grrat o.. the
amount received by the government
in revenue. In such a case a reduc-
ton in the tariff might double the
revenue and at the same time compel
such a reduction n The price Of the
domestic article as to greatly in
crease the demand and thus aid the
consumer and the laborer.
The fourth question permits Of an
additional answer, namely, that no
new form of taxation would be likely
to bear as heavily upon the masses
as tariff taxation, for there Is no other
form that bears more unequally upon
the public. 1t would be difficult,
Therefore, to find a new system which
would not be more just to the masses
than the tax on consumption which
they have so long borne-a system
under which the poor man pays more
than his share, and tie rich man less
than his share.
Every man has a notion that his
principles" are better than those Of
other people.
nf hn %