Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 November 1890 — YES, THE TARIFF IS A TAX, [ARTICLE]

YES, THE TARIFF IS A TAX,

AND CONSUMERS HAVE TO PAY IT Some Object Lessons Taught in Indianapolis Stores—Some Further Practical Illustrations of the Workings of the McKinley Law. [lndianapolis Sentinel.] Yesterday a Sentinel reporter had occasion to make a few purchases, and enteringlone of thelmost extensive china-ware stores on Washington-st. found the proprietor engaged with a N. Delaware-st. resident fixing the price on a china set, $175 being thejowest figure offered by the merchant. “I like the set,” said the N. Delawarest. man, “but I cannot buy it unless yon make some reduction.” “I would be glad to do it,” replied'the merchant, “but I had to pay 60 per cent, duty on the set and I must get that back from somebody. If the tariff should be reduced I would lower the prioes_accordingly.” “The only way to reduce the tariff is by voting the democratic ticket, audyou wo’d not do that, would you?” answered the would-be purchaser who thus declared his republicanism. The merchant promptly replied: “I want to see the tariff reduced. I find the only party in favor of reduction is the democratic party. Democratic success means ultimate reduction; republieau success means no reduction. My conscience tells me to stand by my convictiens and to let reason, not prejudice, control my action.” “I shall certainly vote for reduction.” “ Well, I can see that the consumer pays the tariff, but it is bard to go back on the old party.” “But can’t you come down on this set?” “I could not unless I smuggled in my goods,” was the reply. “Well, supposing',that a set like this could be smuggled would it cost 60 per cent, less than this duty taxed set?” “If no duty was paid on this set I could sell it for more than 60 per cent, off,” the merchant e nd. “How is that? I will explain. Suppose that I import SI,OOO worth of chinaware. When the goods arrive here I have to pay S6OO duty to deputy Collector Hildebrand making the goods cost $1,600. But I forgot to state that I have also to pay duty on the packages, which amounts to at least sper|cent. This duty on wrappers and boxing, you remember, is added on account of another McKinley bill called the administrative law, passed last spring.— The duty on the boxing and wrappers will cost me SSO more, making the SI,OOO worth of goods cost me $1,650 whejn deposited in my store. Do I base my .profits on the original cost of the goods#' I have invested $1,650 and I add my percentage on that sum. So you see that the consumer not only pays the tariff bat pays the merchant’s profiCpn .the tax say for examhfe, 20 pvt cent.,(which wo’d be S7BO that the consumers would not pay if we had free trade in chinaware. ” “Well I’ll be hanged. I never thought of this before. I thought the tariff question was too deep for me, but I can understand it now. I guess I’ll wait till the tariff is reduced before I take the set,” and away he went. “You may think that I am taking advantage of my customers in raising my prices,” said the merchant to the reporter. “Well, read these letters and circulars if you don’t believe that the tariff is a tax.” “But I buy cheap china, and, of course, I do not pay much tax,’’replied the reI orter. “You pay 55 per cent, on all white cheap china. The cheapest white goods, with a slight decoration, pays 55 per cent., and understand that the cheap grades are more bulky and pay more tariff on boxing and wrappers than valuable merchandise.— There Is not an article in this store that is not affected by the tariff. But suppose that the white goods or the china that most people use should not be taxed, that such china is all made in this country, which is not the case, now what would I have done with the gentleman who has just left without buying that $175 set? I would have allowed a reduction and made it up by raising the prices in goods not affected by the tariff. So that the poor man would eventually pay part of th, rich man’s tax. Business is business, and there is not a merchant who would not do it. We must distribute the tax. If one article pays too much we make one that pays less duty come to the rescue.” On his way to the postomce the reporter met a young republican friend and the subjeot of the campaign brought on a discussion of the tariff in which the y. r. f. offered to pay for the cigars if one merchant on Pennsylvania-st. could be found to say that the consumer’pays the tariff tax. music store, being the nearest business house of importance, was entered. The proprietor was encountered and the question stated. “Of course the consumer pays the tax; who else would? Take a cornet that cost me SIOO in Germany. Before I can get it out of the custom-house I hereto pay $45 duty on it. Do you think the German manufacturer pays this tax back to me? Not much. I mark the cornet $145 plus my profit of say 20 percent.” “Twenty-five per cent, on the manufacturer’s price of $100?” put in the y. r. f. “Oh, no; did I not invest $145, SIOO for the cornet and $45 for taxes? Well, I add the 25 per cent, profit and I mark the cornet $181.25. If we had free trade in musical instruments I would add 25 per cent, profit on the SIOO investment and sell the cornet for $125 instead of $181.25 as under the McKinley tariff." This explanation, which is as plain as ABC caused “free cigars ” for the reporter at least. Here it might not be amiss to state that the largest band instrument manufacturer in |the world, ex-Representative E. G. Conn, of Elkhart, Ind., is the president of a club which is sending out free trade literature, and that Mr. Conn is the backbone of the club.