The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1915-06-10
BUSINESS DEPRESSION
AND THE TARIFF
Walter S. DiCkey Of Kansas
City Replies to the Editor OF
the ST, Louis Republic

pUllS Ntchb dSO lIC ChltOI VI thN
St. Louis Republic, under the caption
"The Tariff and Business Depres.
sion," addressed an open letter to
Walter S. Dickey in column and a
half article on the editorial page and
asked a number of questions and pre-
sented some arguments with regard
to the effect OF the Underwood tariff
law upon business. Here follows Mr
Dickey's reply:
Kansas City, Mo, May 81, 1915.
Editor of the Republic,
st. Louis, Mo,
Sir: Somo time ago while travel
Ing in the Pacific coast country
telegraphed you from Niles, Cal, that
would answer your courteous com
municatlon. My visit was prolonged
and since returning circumstances
have prevented earlier attention.
Not having at my command well
organized, cross indeXed newspaper
library, morgue, etc. etc, | Will not
attempt to reply in detail to all Ques'
tions. But in general let me say that
as coming events cast their shadows
before so the mere prospect of a
tariff for revenue only, in this great
country OF ours, sent a shiyer through
the land, causing business to langush
and employment for the artisan to
be diminished, and the actual real
ization of such a tariff has wrought
havoc to all our institutions. Our
purchasing and consuming power as
a nation has already been enormously
automatically contracted.
You express surprise that imports
covered by certain schedules were less
during 1914 under the Underwood bill
than during the previous year under
the Payne-Aldrich bill. am not sur,
prised.
We always import less dollars
worth Of merchandise per capita un'
der Democratic free trade tariffs than
under Republican protection tariffs
when each is in full swing and opera
ton. This, of course, will not sur
prise you, for you give evidence that
you examine records.
With great respect to you and all
Kindness to others, | am forced to
believe that this Is unusual on the
part OF the ordinary spellbinder, for
whom you show some contempt, as
we'll as on the part OF many writers.
would he glad II you would print
for the edificat!on OF your readers
the per capita importations during the
fiscal year closing June 30, 1892
when the Mckinley tariff was in full
swing, and a comparison with the per
capita impOrtations during the like
period closing June so, 1896, when the
Wilson-Gorman bill was in effect. or
course importations multiply in an
ticIpation OF a higher tariff. and are
suspended In anticipation OF a lower
tariff. No fair comparison, therefore,
can be made except during periods
unaffected by recent or anticipated
legislation. The reason for this Is
manifest. Whenever we are prosper
Gus we consume everything in sight.
and import everything we can hear
OF. When we are depressed we have
much surplus to sell, for we consume
little and import less. Unfortunate
", however, a large surplus with
Democratic prices never makes us
rich. To illustrate: During the cal
endar year 1896, our per capita con-
sur, ption Of wheat, including seed,
had decreased from nearly six bushels
per capita during the Mckinley tariff
to less than four bushels per capita
during the Wilson-Gorman tariff. This
increased to seven bushels per capita
under the Dingley tariff.
You will agree with ME, OF course,
that IL all labor we're ont OF employ
ment, If all factories were closed, and
all business ruined, we would import
nothing. | do not think the Under
wood bill should have credit for the
disastrous effects wrought. think,
my dear Mr.. Editor, that your book
keeping Is erroneous. You should put
loss OF business on the debit side.
In reporting this bill, which became
a law, Mr.. Underwood expressly stated
that II was the intention Of the
trainers that no industry should be
able to claim exemption from compe-
tition with all the world. He did not.
however, give an estimate Of the an
ticipated increase in imports.
In reporting a revision of the metals
schedule during Mr.. Taft's admins
tration, when the Senate was Re-
publican, and when Mr.. Underwood
therefore knew that his bill could not
pass. he did give an estimate over his
signature OF the probable effects Of
the bill. He predicted that imports
from manufacturers from the metals
would increase from s5l.500,0O0 to
SIS. 100000 or s23,500,OO0. The aver.
age duty which his bill proposed was
22.i per cent. Therefore, when this
,ss OF imports reached the customs