Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 February 1891 — SHALL TEA BE TAXED? [ARTICLE]

SHALL TEA BE TAXED?

THAT IS WHAT A FEW IMPORTERS WANT. A Tax on Tea Wanted to Keep Up Prices —The Consumer Celt Out of the Calculation—Reciprocity -with a Vengeance —Shall the Breakfast Table Remain Free ? Last year, when everybody was trying to get higher protection on every conceivable thing, a movement was underto have a duty put on all tea imported from places west of the Cape of

Good Hope. This was an attempt to revive an old law which was abolished in 1883. This law imposed a duty of 10 per cent, on all tea coming from places west of Cape of Good Hope. The original purpose of the law was to promote the direct shipment of tea from China, Japan and the East Indies to our ports and thus to encourage American shipping. By “places west of the Cape of Good Hope, " the old law meant London and Liverpool. The present demand for the re-enact-ment of this old law comes from a few importers of tea, and it is not based on the idea of preventing direct importation. There is another object in view, an object which is frankly avowed. Out of a total of 79,575,984 pounds of tea imported in 1889, only 4,673.864 pounds came in by way of England. Why should our importers fear this small amount coming from England upon a second shipment and in competition with the bulk of our consumption which is imported direct from China and Japan? The answer to this question inay be seen from an extract from a recent number es Bradstreet's , as follows: “The stock of tea in this country is at present very heavy, and prices ard in consequenco lower here than in England. Hence London merchants are now buying tea in New York. The promoters of the new legislative agitation hope by means of it to buoy up prices and prevent a further decline. But many dealers have been free to predict that no such legislation will be passed by the present Congress. It Js claimed by the advocates of the measure that under free entry London merchants are able to place here large quantities of tea whenever the market shows a tendency to advance. ” The importers of tea who are pushing the measure in question are wonderfully frank. They do not talk about “protection to American interests,” they have nothing to say about increasing anybody’s wages, and do not promise that competition in the home market will make tea cheaper to the American consumer than ever before. They frankly confess that they want this law for their own benefit When they succeed in raising prices here, they will have no tea coming in from London in seven or eight days to bring down prices again. China and Japan are a long way off, and if the importers her;e can raise the price of tea it would take considerable time for other people to get cargoes of tea from those countries into our ports. The few importers here would meanwhile reap extra benefits from higher prices. But the danger of quick importations from London must be got rid of; and hence this movement or a small number of tea importers to get the law affecting “places west of the Cape of Good Hope. ” The New York Merchants' Review denounces the whole thing as “nothing but a scheme to advance prices when conditions arc favorable. * The New England Qrocer of Boston also condemns the proposed tax in stormy language. “It is simply an effort,it says, “pf a few concerns to dictate to 60,00 +,030 of people where they shall buy their teas, no question of protection being involved. Tfye whole effect of such a law would be to advance t"as which would be controlled by a few large concerns, while the smaller dealer, who can oply purchaso small lots, would have to pay higher prices because he would be cut off from purchasing in lots to suit his convenience from English markets, as he can do now Such a law will be an oppression to every retail grocer and every consumer in the United States of America.” Let not the consnmer suppose that these few importers are the only men in this country who stand ready to tax tea and make it dearer to every housewife iu the land. Some years ago, when it first began to be realized that the war tariff was producing revenues in excess of the needs of the Government, the protectionist leaders saw that something would have te be done to get rid of unnecessary taxation, and at the same time “save the protective system. ” Accordingly, the cry of “a free breakfast table”

was raised, and off went the' duties on tea and coffee. Now a new tariff law has been born into this tariff-ridden land. It is a cross between Chinese Wall McKinley and Reciprocity Blaine. In this cross-breed tariff law it is coolly proposed to tax every breakfast table in the land again, unless tea-producing countries shall grant us such reciprocal advantages in trade as shall satisfy the President. This is reciprocity with a vengeance. The tax was removed to lighten the burdens on our .own people. Now our lawmakers stand ready to reimpose that tax upon our people if China and Japan do not grant us such terms of admission to their ports as shall satisfy the President

The Barbed Wire Trust.

The farmers will probably soon have as great a grievance against the barbed wire trust as they have had against the binder-twine trust The barbed-wire trust has* been trying to get all the manufacturers of barbed-wire into it, in order to have complete control of the home market, and to be able to raise prices to the fanners. The trust lias just purchased certain patents for $400,000, and theso are to be used for the purpose of crushing out the manufacturers who are not in the trust, or else to compel them to join it. A member of the trust tolls very frankly what It proposes to do with the patents. He says: “We have purchased the patents from the Washburn-iloen Company for $400,000, and that firm, like any other member of the pool, will bo

compelled to pay a royalty into the treasury of the association to be used as a sinking fund. The royalty per ton will probably not amount to more than 2 cents to members. Up to to-day $1 per ton was demanded It has been as high as sls. But manufacturers not members of the pool will be asked to pay a rather stiff price for the privilege of using the patents now controlled by tho pool. We can charge $125 Dor ton If we want to. This simply means that a manufacturer not a member of the pool cannot do ousiness Ho must come into the fold or quit making barbed wire.” When the “fold” has thus been completed and there are no outside rivals, the farmers may expect to pay high prices for barbed wire. These men have a right to their patent; possibly they have a legal right to combine themselves into a trust. There is at least one thing they have no right to, and that is the McKinley protection duty of $13.44 a ton on barbed wire. The farmers have themselves to b’ame for permitting tho trust to have this duty.