Rensselaer Republican, Volume 21, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1888 — WHO PAYS THE DUTY? [ARTICLE]

WHO PAYS THE DUTY?

It is assumed as an established fact by every advocate of the British dogma of free trade that the American consumer of imported goods pays, in addition to the price of the goods, the full amount of the tariff, whatever that may be. And not only that, but they claim the consumer of like goods manufactured in this country pav 8 . in addition to the cost''of the goods, an amount equal to the tariff, andlhat amount is a bonus of the manufacturer over and above the price at which he would sell thenr at a profit, under free trade. This is a claim which, if true, would be capable of demonstration or even an attempt made to prove it; by any advocate of free trade, who assumed it as one of the premises of his argument. This is no new argument against a protective tariff. It ia as old as the discussion itself, and that is as old as the which authorized Congress to impose duties on imports for purposes of revenue and for promoting the public welfare. It has been proved many iimes that a protective tariff is not a tax that is paid wholly by the consumers of the imported goods upon which it is levied. The very fact that the British manufacturers and importers of foreign manufactured goods have always taken such a lively interest in having our tariff abolished or reduced, ought to be sufficient evidence that they, at least, do not believe this claim, though the doctrine was originally promulgated by British advocates of free trade. But we are not confined to a mere unexpressed admission upon this point. British manufacturers do not hesitate to declare that they are compelled to subtract the amount of the tariff from their own profits. A prominent manufacturer of Bradford. England, tha center of the worsted industry of that country, not long ago said: “The truth is, the higher the foreign tariff the lower we must make our goods, and the less we can afford to pay our laborers. The least possible reduction in the U. S. tariff will be a good thing fer Bradford, but how it will affect the industries of tbat country I need not say. We are obliged to sell our goods in France at the same price we did before they enacted the higher tariff, and the Bradford manufacturers are paying that duty, not the French consumers. I know from practical experience what I am talking about.” What is I rue of French duties in this respectistrneofAmerican duties. It, as this man’jfacturer declares, the manufacturers of Bradford have to sell their goods in France at the same prices they did before the protective tariff in that country was enacted, and we do not doubt it, then the same holds good in reference to this country, and those and other manufacturers are compelled to sell their goods as low here, with our protective duties, as they would with merely revenue or no duties at all. Again, at a recent meeting of the hardware trade at Sheffield, England, an eminent manufacturer, addressing the meeting, inveighed against the American tariff. He said: great care, and such examination has demonstrated that the English manufacturer is paying at least one-half the tariff on all goods exported to America, and we must break down the tariff, at whatever cost, or it will build up American ri ;als to the extent, at least, of supplying entirely their own market; and then England will have to pay the whole tariff, or lose the market, and when that point is reached she will have to compete with the American manufacturer in every foreign market now almost exclusively our own.” The question may well be asked if our tariff duties are not paid, to a great extent, at least, by th e fdfeign manufacturers, instead of the American consumers, why are those manufacturers so much elated over every prospect of a reduction of the tariff, and why are they so willing to make such long ’ and continuous efforts, and even to spend large sums of money to effect that object? Another English manufacturer, a few years since, while lobbying at Washington in favor of the passage of a bill making a horizontal reduction of some twenty per cent, in the tariff, confessed to a free trade Congressman that “the protective tariff duties in the long run came almost wholly out of the foreign producer; that if they only came out of the domestic consumer the foreign manufacturer would not care a button about our tariff laws.” That is undoubtedly the case, and it is perfectly natural, and is common sense. The British manufacturer lays no claim to philanthropic motives in this matter, and his treatment of his own working people would give the lie to it if he did. Could he but break down American competition, which he believes free trade would enable him to do,' he wouldhave no hesitation in making the “domestic consumer” pay twice as much as the percentage of the present tariff, We may safely conclude that British manufacturers are not going to spend millions of dollars and years of effort, as they have already done, to secure a repeal or reduction of our tariff laws solely in the interest of American consumers, if they are securing the full price of their goods In spite of the tariff.. It is only those theoretical politicians who hope to make capital for the Democratic candidate in the coming election who make such a claim, and they find it convenient to make a cloak of assumed anxiety for the poor consumers, in the hope that by an appeal to the cupidity of the ignorant and unthinking they may gain a few votes. There is not a doubt but that the duty on all goods imported into this country, which acts as a protection to domest c manufactures of the same kind, is largely paid by the foreign manufacturer and importer,’and the American consumer is amply compensated for any small portion that may fall to his share, if he is a workingman, in, higher wages and more constant employment; in largely increased demand and consequently higher prices for his products, if he is a farmer, and all classes, workingmen, farmers, manhfacturers and merchants, in the increased prosperity and progress of the country, in the development of its resources and the conversion of its raw material into rnerehantahle wealth bv its own labor. As evidence of the anxiety of English manufacturers in the question of protect tion and tariff legislation in this country, it will be remembered that only a few years since Mr. Thomas Bavley Potter, M. P., and Secretary of the British Cobden Club, spent the summer and fall in this country advocating the cause of free trade and the election of free trade Congressmen. In the following year Samuel

P. Morley, M. P., and a prominent member of the Cobden Club, spent the season here on the same mission, delivering frequent addresses in favor of free trade and against the policy of protection. He went so far as to threaten the people of the United States that if they persisted in compelling the manufacturers of Great Britain to pay a high tariff on their exports to this country, they would have to retaliate by imposing a tariff on American breadstuff's and provisions. These members of the British Parliament, finding that the American people were becoming disgusted with their interference with the political and financial affairs of this country, and tbat they were probably doing tbe cause of frea trade more harm than good, finally withdrew from the canvass, and for a few years they nave not taken a uersonal part in our elections, but English editors and writers continue to advocate the Democratic cause from their side. It will thus be seen that the people of great Brittan—that is, the manufacturers and exporters—are more interested in this question of free trade, or tariff re4 uctionJn thig country .than .we., ai e. simply because they are compelled to pay the whole or a large portion of the tariff themselves. They know that any reductian in our tariff will be added to their profits, and hence their anxiety to aid in the success of the Democratic party in this coming election. They know that if the Mills bill will cut down $60,000,000 annually it will put the lion’s share of that amount into their pockets instead of into the Treasury of the United States. Whether tha consumers of this country save anything by this measure or not is of the least concern to them, so long as they reap their share of the advantage. It is strange that there should be a man in the United States, whether he be Democrat or Republican, who can not see the merits of this case—or rather its demerits, so far as this country is concerned. While there is little prospect of more than a nominal reductionini tße prices of competing imported and domestic • manufacturefl goods, it is certain that the enactment of the Mills bill would be followed by a very large increase of imports, which would necessarily displace the same amount of domestic products; even though no reduction in price took place, and there would be just to that extent a reduction of domestic production, requiring not only the discharge of thousands of operatives in the industries affected, but a consequent reduction of the wages of those retained. Every ported manufactured goods deprives one thousand American workmen of a year’s employment. It will therefore require but a comparatively small increase in imports to turn a hundred thousand workmen out of employment which could have but one result, and that would be a reduction of wages to all the wage earners of the country, whatever may be their empltmnent, .whether in so-called protectea or unprotected branches of labor. The success of the Democratic party in the coming Presidential election meanz the final passage of the Mills bill, or something worse, and that means some tens of millions of dollars from the United States treasury into the pockets of British manufacturers, not only without any adequate compensation to consumers in this country, but at the actual reduction of wages, and the total or partial closing of hundreds of manufacturing industries. There is not a product of our manufacture to-day but would be disastrously affected by this concession to British importunities; that is exorbitantly high, in comparison with the wages of labor, or as high, by such a comparison as are the same goods in England. There is not an article 4hat would be affected by theeontemplatecl reduction of the tariff whose price will be reduced twenty-five per cent., and yet.it is almost certain that wagez will be reduced at least fifty per cent. Where then would be the advantage of the sacrifice, except to the British producer? This is in every respect a moderate and conservative statement of the whole case. An Open Letter to President Cleveland. Honored Sir—ln vour late message

A. G. CHASE,

you say: “i suppose it is needless to explain that all these duties and assessments ("tariff duties! are added to the price of the articles upon which they are levied.” If this be true, I would ask why the tariff is not a good thing for the farmer? I have taken some pains to inquire among my farmer friends as to the amount of their annual sales from the farm, and I find that the tariff is of material benefit to them. The first column is the amount of produce sold; second, the tariff on the same; third, the amount the farmer receiyes by reason of the tariff over and above what he would receive if his produce was admitted free. Hay, 10 tons st 12 per ton 2 >,CCO Wheat. 500 bush, at 20c per bu5h........ 100 00 Corn. 400 “ at 10c “ " 4> 03 Oats. 400 •* at" “ •' 40>0 Hairs 200 lbs. st 2c per lb ..4 00 Bacon, 100 lbs. at 2c “ “ ~. ......2 00 Hogs. 10 bead. (800 lbs) at 2c per lb 6f 0* Butter. 153 lbs at. 4c rei lb i6ou Lsrd. 100 lbs at st 2c • “ 2»n Potatoes, 150 bush, at ;isc per bu h.... 22 50 MMhO If you are correct then the average Kansas farmer is benefited nearly S3OO by reason of the tariff. This is equal to the whole amount the average farmer spends annually for clothing and groceries, etc., so that it seems to me the farmers of the country are directly interested in keeping the tariff as it is. I see, however, that by the “Mills” bill, which the country understands you to favor, the tariff is taken off of the most of the farmer’s products entirely and greatly reduced on all of them. Is this fair? Is it right? It looks to me like the same old effort of Southern free traders to degrade farm labor. His wheat, hay, corn and hogs are the finished product of his labor, as much as much as the steam engine of the machinist or the railroad iron of the furnace. With great respect for the office you hold, but abhorence for your principles,

Millwood, Kan., Sept. 29, 1888.