, 1921-12-10
rouALIzlNo THE DIFFERENCE.

RI. .rounent that the United States cannot nope
70 continue to export goods to other countries uhies
,ba inports goods from them Is perfectly SOUND ~
.,.r axionatic. But it is no argument against a
nro.sctiv. tariff and never has been. A prohibitive
tariff is entirely something else. That would Dc =
foolish tariff in this day and age and out of tune win
the times. A Republican tariff is not designed to keep
ont foreign goods entirely but to compel the import
err TO nay a duty that would equalize the diherehee III
cost Of production in this country and the toresn
country where cheaper labor and a lower scale OF nv
ing obtain. A..
The American producer pays a large tax 10 'e
limited States treasury and to the treasures OF state
,oyn,v and CITY. The federal tax, in the case of some
Of the large producers amounts to all the way from
20 to 70 per cent of the total net income, and under
the new revenue law 1t will amount to a maximum Oh
so per cent. Why, then, should n foreign producer
be permitted to ship his goods into the American mar
let and pay only the small average tax imposed by
the Democratic tariff law?
But we are not basing our argument solely on the
nroposition that the foreign producer, who sells here,
ahouId nav a tax. That is the Democratic doctrine,
though the Democrats enacted a law that produced a
lower revenue and a lower rate of revenue than the
Republican law which they repealed. We are basing
our argument chiefly on the proposition that an Amer
lean is entitled to first chance in his home market
without reducing his standard Of living in order to be
able to compete with the foreigner.
Any number of specific instances can be cited to
show that under free trade or a very low tariff rate
the foreign producer can ship his goods to the United
States and sell them at such a low price that the
American producer is put out of busi-ess. 1t Is not
necessary to cite specific instances for the import and
export statistics Of the government show the facts.
Following the enactment of the Wilson-Underwood
tariff law in 1913 our imports increased from month
to month and our exports decreased. That Democratic
law went into effect in October, 1918, when we had a
monthly trade balance in our favor. That balance
decreased from month to month until April, 1914,
when the balance was on the wrong side of the ledger
and we were buying more goods than we were selling,
No one needs to take the assertion of a Republican for
this fact; he can get it from the records of the Demo-
cratic administration. The unfavorable trade bal
ance continued against US until the outbreak of the
war which cut off imports and created a new demand
for our goods. For ten months prior to the outbreak
of the war, the Democratic tariff law was in full op-
Grafton and every month of that period was a demon
stration of the unsoundness of the non-protective
policy.
Some Democrats tried to defend their law by call
ing it a competitive tariff, y implying that ii put the
American and foreign producers on n competitive ba-
sis. If it had put the two on a really competitive bG-
sis, there would not have been so much reason to COM
plain, but the results showed that it was not COM
petitive but destructive. Foreign goods were admit
ted at such a low duty, or at no duty at all, that the
American producer could not meet the competition
and closed his shop. With the closing of the fac
tories, men were out of work, their wages were dis
continued, their buying power was destroyed and all
lines of business suffered.
What the American people want now is not the en-
actment of a prohibitive tariff, but return to the prin-
ciple of a protective tariff which will put the Amer
lean producer on an equality with his foreign rival in
our home markets. When that equality is established
the American producer will take care of himself.