Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 November 1887 — THAT TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THAT TARIFF.

Let us see; it is getting cold; winter is coming on; the laboring man’s wife wants anew wool dress; she needs it, and must have it. She finds a piece of goods that suits her and the merchant asks 22 cents a yard. On this of goods the duty is 71 per cent. Teat is, for every SI.OO worth of this particular goods the wholesale jobber imports, he must pay 71 per cent, tariff. Now, he has invested $1.71. (This 71 percent, tariff, or tax, goes into the U. S. treasury. But suppose the goods be manufactured in this country, this 71 per cent, tariff, or tax, goes into the coffers of the monopolistic manufacturer and makes him a millionaire, while the employes strike for living wages). U| on this he ought to make 15 per cent., which will make it cost the retail merchant $1.96. Upon this the retail merchant is entitled to a profit of 15 per cent, and the consumer, th 1 ' laboring man’s wife, must pay $2.25. Now, let us examine the same piece of goods with a 25 per cent, tariff. Cost to wholesale jobber $1.25, upon which he must have 15 per cent, which added, makes it cost the retail dealer $1.43. He again must have 15 per cent, upon his investment, and it costs the consumer, the poor man’s wife, $1.65, Now, the difference is 61 cents in favor of the 25 per cent, tariff. This wo’d not be free trade, but it would be freer trade. The duty on salt is 83 per cent. Suppose it was only 25 per cent. Then the laboring man could bu for $1.25 as much salt as he now pays $1.83 for. Yet this is not fr e trade, but it would be freer trade. Then we have common wool cloth, such as is worn by the great mass of the people, upon which there is a duty of 91 per cent.— Let us take for an investment by the importer say of $lO, and 91 per cent, of this was_s9.lo. Upon th.s he must make 15 per cent, which makes the same goods cost the retail merchant $21.96. Again he must have 15 per cent, on his investment, and the consumer must pay $25. 5. Now let us take ten dollars and’ suppose the tariff duty to be 25 par cent, instead of 91. — Now we see the importers have invested $12.50. Upon this he must have 15 per cent, and the retail merchant pays $14.37. Upon this the consumer pays 15 per cent., $16.52, a difference in favor of the laboring man of SB,BI. Again rhis would not be free trade but it would be freer trade.

Ex-Governor Washburn of Massachusetts, says of the Republican proposition to reduce the surplus by taking the tax off whisky and tobacco: “The duties on the necessities of life should be taken off as far as possible. The internal revenue duties on liquors and tobacco sho’d be reduced a penny. These articles should be taxed as high as possible.” That is pretty serious, but what follows is so much mote so, that we do not see how it can be condoned: “I am a Republican still and shall probably remain so all my life, but I am free to say that Mr. Cleveland has made a capable and honest President. He has made good appointments and bad appointments, but the pressure on any president is always tremendous, and I think Mr. C eveland has done what he tho’t was right.” On the subject of the tariff Massachusetts Demecracy declared, “We do not advocate free trade, but favor and desire a revision of the present and burdensome tariff laws,” such as should “cheapen the price of necessaries of life and give free entrance to such imported materials as may be manufactured into marketable commodities.’ Is there a tax payer in Indiana who does not indorse the >bove? If so, he is evidently influenced by a blind adhesion to 1 is party, or is reaping the benefit from the toil of the laboring men of the country. That the present war tariff is an outrage has ceased to be a debata-

ble question. The coming session of Congress will be expected to giva the people substantial relief. —Anderson Democrat.