Little Falls herald., 1913-01-17
TARIFF FAI.LACIEs ANSWERED

IA61E E f4AAEAO4EsSo <AGNSo "o1S4O
The Commoner: The following ques-
tions were submitted to Mr.. Bryan by
a representative of the Boston Tran.
script. The answers will be found fol-
lowing 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 du-
les, raised above the price level in other
countries, it can be reduced by reduc-
ing the tariff.
Second. The possibility that low
cred cost of commodities would be fol-
lowed by lower wages.
Answer. A lowering Of wages would
not necessarily follow lowering OF the
tariff. Wages do not depend upon the
tariff but upon competition between
wage earners. A reduction in the
prices Of the product would naturally
Increase the demand, and an increase
in demand would increase the number
of employees necessary to produce the
larger quantity demanded, and thus the
tendency would be to increase wages
rather than lower them. The protec-
tionists have for generation threat
ened a reduction in wages if the tariff
is reduced, but the threat does not rest
upon an economic basis, and it is evl-
dent that it has failed this year to
make the impression that it has in for
mer campaigns.
Third. The possibility that there
might then be the same discrepancy
between wages and cost Of living.
Answer. This question is hypothe'
tical and it is answered in the answer
to the second question.
Fourth. The possibility that tariff
reduction would entail new: taxation
for revenue which would bear just a.
heavily. -. >.::.a... -
:, Answer. This question seems to as
sumo that q reduction in taxation would
not result in greater: revenue. It is not
only possible, but probable that re"
duction: in the tariff would increase the
revenue BY increasing the imports and
at the same time increase the demand
for labor by incfeasing the domestic
output. Where the tariff Sszis: prohibi-
tory it may result sius placing = heavy
burden upon the consumer without
yielding any revenue satc al. f. is =:
common mistake OF ;protectionists to
measure the, burden borne by the con-
sumer by the amount Of the taxes col;
lected, whereas the people may pay TO
the protected interests many times the
amount that reaches the treasury. If,
for instance, we import one-tenth as
much of a given article as we consume
and the domestic industry collects ap-
proximately the full amount Of the tar
iff, the burden upon the people is ten
times as great as the amount received
by the government in revenue. In
such case reduction in the tariff
might double the revenue and at the
same time compel such reduction in
the price Of the domestic article as to
greatly increase 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. It would. be difficult,
therefore, to find new system which
would not be more just to the masses
than the tax on consumption which
they have 80 long borne system mn
der which the poor man pays more
than his share, and the rich man less
. !.