The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1916-10-03
Does Consumer Pay
II SO, Why Are Foreigners SO Eager
To Break Down Our
Tariff

When the administration through
its Secretary of Commerce proposed
to enact anti.dumping legislation. it
admitted the failure OF the Under
wood Tariff. If Free Trade is a good
thing, anti-dumping legislation is un'
necessary. The purpose Of anti-dump-
ing legislation Is Protection. 1t is
the Democratic idea of Protection. but
under another name.
As near as we can understand the
anti-dumping idea, 1t is to prohibit
foreign manufacturers from selling
their products here at such price
that the domestic manufacturers can
not compete with them. In other
words It proposes a. compel the for
eign manufacturer to take more for
his products than he is willing to
sell them for.
This is good thing for the foreign
manufacturer but highly poor for the
American consumer. Besides, the gov
eminent gets nothing. Under the Pro-
tective Tariff idea, the foreign manu-
facturer has to add to his price the
difference between the cost of man.
ufacture abroad and the cost here.
This difference goes to the govern,
ment, and helps pay running expens-
es
The Democratic idea is to give the
foreign manufacturer the difference in
cost and the domestic consumer is
not allowed to buy any cheaper than
he does under Protective Tariff,
while the government gets nothing.
It has been maintained many times
by the Democratic party that the do
nestle consumer pays the Tariff and
that II the Tariff is taken of, the
consumer saves by just SO much.
This was exploded in the few months
OF 1914 when the Underwood Tariff
was in free operation, but what can
be said OF anti-dumping legislation
which proposes to hand the difference
to the foreign manufacturer without
any compensation to the government?
If the consumer pays the Tariff,
why does not the anti-dumping legis-
lation hit him just as hard?
Those who have an idea that the
consumer pays the import tax known
as the Tariff should have read the re-
port of the recent trial in New York
City printed in these columns some
weeks ago.
In brief 1t was to the effect that the
Italian Fruit Importers Union and
two Sicilian fruit growing societies
raised $4,000 to reduce the duty on
lemons in the Underwood law from
81 20 to $35 cents box. The i'm.
porters raised s105,OOO and the Sici-
liam societies $4,000.
They did it by organizing the Ital-
ian born voters or their descendants
for Woodrow Wilson and when he
was elected with a Democratic con-
gress, the goods were delivered to
them.
If the consumer pays the tax why
was it worth $4,000 to the Sicilian
fruit growers to have the tax reduced
IS cents per box?
II the consumer pays the tax why
did the importers raise 100000 to
have the tax reduced?
The importers and the Sicilian fruit
growers are not philanthropists and
il is safe to say that large proper
tion of the So cents per box which
the Underwood Tariff took away from
the government got no further than
the pockets OF those who paid for
the reduction.
When the Democratic party hands
out it's usual guff about the moneyed
interests who dictate Protective Tar
ifs, there is court record In New
York which Is sufficient evidence that
$4,000 was paid to elect an admin
istration which would hand over to
the importers and foreign lemon grow
ers $l,600,O0O on a reduction in the
single item OF lemons.
In congressional investigation at
Washington, 1t was brought out that
certain importers and European
manufacturers maintained n regular
office in Charleroi, Belgium for the
purpose OF raising large sums to
fight the Payne-Aldrich Tariff bill in
1909.
Why should they care II the con.
sumer pays the bill?-Boston Com