a Free Trader In Earnest.
{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6684, "word_count": 1226, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9599000215530396], "ccnet_perplexity": [1759.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
fciynediy believes in the principle and s prepared
TO follow it out through all its consequences-is
man we respect and like 10 argue with a sham
Free Trader-onc who, like Walker or Polk. lays
down premises which inevitably strike at the root
of all duties whatever whether for Revenue or
Protection, and then linches from the necessary
conclusion and pettifogs for a Rerenue Tarl-we
cannot defer TO or coniide in. How any follow
a leader who points the way he dare not travel him
self How any believe mans doctrines sound
when he shows that he does not believe them so
himself OF the former and better class OF Free
Traders is DR.. S. DENTON of Michigan, whose Lee
lures to Laborng Men, published in the Atpaada
ph,a 10cSin, we have quoted from and commended.
On this subject of the Tariff however, are anti
podes. We stand for Protection he for real Free
Trade. Let us compare notes, them and see if we
cannot come nearer each other.


DIR. Denton starts with the assumption that, on
goods actually imported, the duty is charged TO and
paid by the consumer part Of the cost, and not
only charged but il made the basis of farther charges
OF profits, DC. by the importer. iobber and retailer,
so that it fact costs the twice the amount
realized by the Government. Thus, British cloths
10 the amount of 100000 are imported on these
the duty is 40 per cent. making $4,000 The i'm
porter sells to the jobber at Is per cent. profit mot
the 100000 first cost merely, but on the $4,000
duty also to which the jobber adds 20 per cent on
the whole paid by him in selling TO the retailer;
who in turn puts on 33j per cent. on tho total cost
TO him in selling 10 the consumer; so that the cloth
actually costs the consumers S257 600, or S7560O
more than il would have done had il been admitted
free of duty These profits are estimated too high.
hnf No To 11r o1I : E,y
the costs of collection (which should rather be de
ducted from the amount accrung to the Govern
men showing that the People actually pay s75, 600
in order to sc; S37,sO0 into the Treasury-n other
words every dollar obtained by the Government
through the instrumcnality Of Tariff costs the
People just two dollars.


All this it will be seen, is argument against
Protection bu, against Rercnue duties If were
perfectly sound. it would nvadate our position,
which assumes only that duties benefit the produc
and consumers of our country, when they wholly
or in part pyecen importation. But it is not sound
as regard for truth compels 10 show. Dr. D.
has forgotten or Starred over altogether The effect Of
duties the cost Of the goods TO tie importer. By
this error his whole calculation is vitaied He has
assumed without proofthat cloths will be bought
abroad at the same price when import small
quantity under 40 per cent duty as if we were i'm
porting nearly all we consumed in the absence Of
any Tariff He offers not one fact to prove this is
so. while we have acres of them proving The contra
ry. Take these Instances: Coffee was free Of duty
prior TO 1912. The bill first passed in that year
(Which Tyler vetoed) subjected it 10 duty of 20
per cent. When the news that this bill had passed
reached Brazil, Coffee $50 are assured) immedi-
atey fell. a short time after, news reached Bahia
that this bill had been vetoed and another passed cx
empting Coffee from duty as before. On the receipt
of this news, Coffee instantly rose The holders
calculated that the imposition of duty here would
diminish purchases and thus cause clut in the
markets Of the producing country. They acted ac-
cordinSy. So with the rise on the receipt of the
next advices.


Take another case OF which we have the data in
black and white, there can be no mistake about
1t Prior TO the passage OF our present Tariff, all
kinds OF Hardware paid 30 per cent. duty. Under
this Tariff they pay various rates. averaging some
40 per cent. When the news Of the passage of this
act reached Great Britain, the great Hardware Man
uacturers some OF them, al least sent circulars to
their importing customers here en,rea,ing them not
to discontinue their orders because of the Tariff





duty included Accompanying this circular was
schedule, setting forth the old and the prices,
by which an assortment of goods could be obtained
as cheap duty paidl as before,-in fact rather
cheaper. The price Of The carioHs articles ,cGS
daced more or less accessory 70 c0tRtetC CaR
the increased duty See American Laborer Nov
1922 Thus the producer advertised his willing
ness to pay the duty himself rather than lose his
American CUSTOM and doubtless cargo after cargo
has been bought accordingly.


Can any doub, The universally Of this principle
Why do our people desire the repeal OF the British
CoraLawsl Plainly lis i, not ,ha, we may send
more grain to England and get there better price
for it! Then Of course the duty does not enhance
the price in England by its full amount If it did
the price would fall there 10 the extent OF the duty
as soon as the Corn.Laws were taken oil, and We
should gain nothing by the change. But the price
OF Grain seOuld be enhanced in other lands by the
opening OF the British ports, the assumption that
ali the duty levied imported article is paid by
the consumer is not true,


Now hear DR.. Denton on the main question


We know there is theory .hs, taxing goods i'm.
ported does not increase the cost, If this be- ,run we
might NJ our treasury any extent without its costing
any po1y cent This would be like the discovery Of
"A.
sury could distribute is millions per annnm 70 ,Ss 80
pie without any one being hrs, taxed TO obtsn IL Bn,
II taxing goods imported does not add anv .bip, ~ s
cost. hoS very foolish II Is for certain Interests +, nr
the admission OF more than half of our mnorts ,,,
free; for certainly many millions nigh, De aair5 N o
by taxing our free list, which 60 one acce,5i,
10 this theory. would DC called to refund How ver
stupid our Railroad Stockholders hsve been in the uni,3
States to have the tax shated Rsrosd Iron to ,he
amount OF many millions; for according 20 this theory
the treasury has been robbed of this amount without
these stock jobbers having been benefited by one
cent"


The writer of the above like most of his school,
has evidently taken pains 10 inform himself cor
rec1y as TO the positions and views OF Protection
lists He has taken for granted that they absurd
and preposterous. and SO set down, without tronb
ling himself to come where we are to find US Ifhe
were better acquainted with us, he would find US
not SO very stupid after all True, we believe that
some part of the duty in most if not all cases is paid
by the producer, bat we are well aware that there
in calIe tba nj,