The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1913-01-07
Tariff fa|IaCIeS Answered.

ue lOlfOWIuS QuSSliouo "ciO ouo-
united to Mr.. Bryan by a represen-
tative of the Boston Transcript. The
answers will be found following the
questions:
First. The possibility of lowering
the cost of living by tariff reduc-
ton.
Answer. Tariff reduction can
lower the cost of living to the ex-
tent that tariff duties have increas-
ed that cost. Where the price level
in this country is, through the OPP
GRAFTON of tariff duties, reased above
the price level in other countries, it
can be reduced 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 a low
ering 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 en-
ployes 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 gen.
GRAFTON threatened a reduction in
wages if the tariff is reduced, but
the threat does not rest upon 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. This question is hypo-
thetical and it is answered in the
answer to the second question.
Fourth. The possibility that tariff
reduction would entail mex taxa
ton for revenue which would bear
! just as heavily.
Answer. This question seems to
assume that reduction in taxation
would not result In greater revenue.
It is not only possible, but probable,
that a reduction in the tariff would
increase the revenue by increasing
the imports and at the same time
increase the demand for labor by
increasing the domestic output.
Where the tariff is prohibitory it
may result in placing heavy bur-
den upon the consumer without
yielding any revenue at all. 1t is a
common mistake of protectionists to
Ipeasure the burden borne by the
----zrcz-- - sA-->~-@-4..sss4--e---A IL, o
taxes collected, 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 CIV
Gil S1IIACIc DIS We COuSuuNc dAu LHC
domestic industry collects approx
mately the full amount of the tariff,
the burden upon the people is ten
times as great as the amount re-
ceived by the government in reve-
nue.. In such case reduction in
the tariff might double the revenue
and at the same time compel such
a reduction dn the price of the do
mestic article as to greatly increase
the demand and thus aid the con-
sumner 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 the rich man less
than his share.-The Commoner.