Show AN EXPLODED FALLACY REVIVED The thoroughly exploded notion that the foreigner pays the tax is once more patched together and our morning contemporary springs it anew on its readers That is to Bay that the duty imposed upon foreign imports is not paid by the purchaser of the goods but by the person or firm that sends them here 1 The absurdity of the proposition ought to be its own refutation but protectionists it seems still cling to it as an excuse for a high tariff and will not let go of the fracment of it which remains The advocates protection want high tariff continued on certain articles for what purpose If it is not to enable American manufacturers to charge higher prices for their wares where is the protection pro-tection If a foreign made article that without a duty on it could be sold for a dollar bar a duty twentyfive per cent upon It and thus the American manufacturer manu-facturer can charge a dollar and a quarter f jr a similar article who pays the extra twentyfive cents if it is not the purchaser pur-chaser Go to any hardware store in this city and buy an English pocket knife You will find that you have to pay the original cost price with duty added and a percentage per-centage of profit on both So with any other article of European manufacture No truthful merchant wilt attempt tot to-t deny this Tho American made article if any thing like the quality of the English Eng-lish goods costs quite as much of course if not more There would be no protection for the American manufacturer if it were not so That is the object and purpsse of the protective tariff The importer in the first place pays the duty to be sure but the purchaser pays it when he buys and in tho end the foreigner does not pay the tax But an ingenious Canadian casuist supposes a case which ho thinks to foist upon the public as an argument to prove the contrary and the Tribune exults over it as a clear and irrefutable A case It ia this I Suppose a man has 100 acres on the Cant Can-t > adian side of the line and 100 acres on the Amarican side Suppose he grows 1000 r bushels of barley on each of his farms He takes his 1000 American bushels to the American market and gets f 1 a bushel for it He takes his 1000 bushels of Canadian Can-adian barley to the American market and gets only 85 cents per bushel becausDJie has to pay 15 cents duty for taking it across the line How can it in this case be said that the consumer pays the duty It comes out of the pockets of the Canadian farmers Wonderful is it not In the first plnce the barley in Canada was not worth anymore any-more than eightyfive cents a bushel or the farmer would not ship it across the line at a cost of fifteen cents a bushel If L Tie could sell it at a dollar a bushel in f v Canada ho would notship it into this country and lose fifteen cents on every bushel If the barley without the duty oft of-t fifteen cents could be sold on this Bide the line for eightyfive cents but because of the duty consumers have to pay a dollar dol-lar do noi the consumers pay the duty Why even the Tribune dense as it is s ought to be able to see through that piece of Kannckian sophistry Another case is of a shipper of onions from Bermuda who had to pay 38 cents per box duty t and 16 cents freight and sold the onions at an average of 50 cents a C box In this case the shipper paid the duty and if he got rich at the business must have been on the old apple womans theory that she made money by letting r apples go at a loss because she sold so many ul them This Is evidently a mere N t catch case cited to puzzle the ordinary mind The question that arises in reference tot to-t li it is of what use is a duty of 38 cents on onions to protect growers or dealers who J can sell them at 50 cents And why should onion merchants in Bermuda U ship their prod U 1her at a loss of four 1 cents bQJc besides tbe cost of the goods V sV If any protectionist thinks this will go as proof that on general principles the for c < J 1 eigner pays the tax he has a very small oplnion t the intelligence of the public But how will this work on the wool question It is stated that the low price of woo this year is because 1 free trade prices rule That taking off the duty of Ucents a pound it is not taken off by theby McKinleyism being still in operation oper-ation forces down the home market In other words that putting a duty of 11 cents a pound on wool makes it sell for 11 cents more a pound in this market Now if that is true does not the consumer con-sumer pay the tax If not who does Is it the producer or dealer either native or foreign Is it not the western protectionist pro-tectionist theory that putting a duty on wool raises its price in the American market And if so is it not a clear case that the consumer pays that duty Andyet the tricky Tribune endorses the Canadian sophism and the Bermuda nonsense non-sense and declares < < there is alsolutely nothing to say in reply to such demonstrations demon-strations If they are demonstrations of anything they are demonstrations of impudence There is this much to say in reply to them that the great American Ameri-can public have bad their eyes open to the fallacies of protection one of which was that the foreigner pad the tax but which has been dropped by every high tariff advocate with any pretensions pre-tensions to self respect and that in consequence con-sequence of the eyeopeners which such demonstrations have afforded a demand de-mand for tariff reform has been thundered from the people and it must and will be I responded to by the Democratic party placed in power for that very purpose |