'"pw-"
f-WWfclf,
The Commoner.
6
i&-
I
Klfr
Br
a
r'-
m
i
8
000S)2
0 JOWNVAKI" 11KVISION 0
0 Rising prlcos and now combinations in
restraint of tnulo vorify (ho warnings of
tho opponents of tho Aldrich bill. Tho
0 sham "downward" rovlaion of tho tariff
0 Is illustrated by tho fact that since tho
0 bill was roportod tho value of tho com- 0
0 mon stock of tho stool trust to which tho
tariff prlvilogo Is a most Important asset,
has moro than doubled. On February I,
It was worth ?21 0,000,000; today it is
0 quoted at $450,000, 000. This fact shows
) how "hard tho trust was hit." Another
fact Worth noting is that since tho
0 "downward" revision of tho tariff began,
(?) tho avorago prlco of commodities has
risen 8 por cent, and tho work of "pro-
0 . toction" combinations has hardly com-
0 inonccd. Tho rise In wages has been so ,
slight as to bo negligible. From circular
IsBUod by Tariff lloform Club, Now York.
0
0
A Young Girl's Lesson
A California father showing his daughter
how tho high protectlvo tariff increases tho cost
of, living, points out that on a fifty per cent
duty for every two thousand dollars worth of
goods, tho cost to tho consumer is increased
$2,345,75. Of this amount only $500 goes into
tho national treasury. In other words, tho
treasury gets only $1.00 for every $4.G8 taken
from tho people
Commoner readers will be doeply interested
in tho following letter written by Dr. L. A. Har
oourt of Wheatland, California:
Tho Commoner of July 30, gave tho tariff on
thirtoon different commodities, nearly all neces
sary to tho comfort, health and happiness of
ovory family in tho land, and tho duty on those
thirtoon articles of household necessity ranges
from 58.83 to 1G5.42 por cent, tho average
boing 02.G1 por cent, dropping the extra deci
mals. This atatomont gives tho consumer a
faint, and only a faint, idea of how hG is taxed
for tho benefit of othors. Tho impression left
on his mind is that tho tax is nearly equal to
tho original cost of tho article. This is truo
of the duty alone, but it is not truo of tho addi
tional cost to tho consumor, imposed through
the duty. As a' mattor of fact, tho price paid
by tho consumor is from three to six and in
soino cases, ten times tho original cost. A single
concroto example will make this clear, and it
may bo said that ono concroto fact will moro
cloarly demonstrate tho injustice of a protective
tariff, than would a hundred, indefinite state
ments In tho abstract.
- lTig0t.t?AtACOnCr0t0 fflCt l0t llS tftl0 gOOdS
yaluod at $1,000, purchased in any foreign coun
try, and trace them to tho consumer, showing
all tho additional cost that tho consumer, in
tho last analysis has to pay. Tho cost of trans
portation is omitted, because it can not bo de-
Sn?3, i DOf,r? ,BubmUng figures, let mo
make tho broad statement that for every dollar
;n?nnt0CVV0 t0 Ul offers oftho
nation from two to eight dollars are taken
from tho pockets of tho people. -t
Somo wooks ago tho writer worked out tho
problem, not for publication, not to add to to
literature of tho subject, but to show h s daugh
ter how a protective tariff increases the cost of
;ln'i I?croases th0 C08t of everything one eats
or drinks, or wears; of everything that ono
sloops under or upon; of overytl ingthat ento Js
Into the construction of a house or imrn an
agricultural implement, an automobile or a 'ran
road, and into ovory thing necessary for tho
equipment of any or all of them
Assuming that tho duty is 50 'per centfor
some rate had to be assumedthe comnutaTlnn
showed that for every one thousaiiS TdXf?
worth of goods, foreign or domestic, the con
sumer has to pay $3515.025, or $1171 875 moro
than ho would have to pay without the tariff
But as the consumption of domestic rrnnrVo To
equal to if not greater than that of imSJ2
goods, it follows that $2,000 wortli of goods
one foreign thG other domestic miiJt im ? '
to find tho ratio between the 9kmoiStSftwn
paid and the amount of mo ey take i f , nmd?,ty
people because of tho tariff Let h ,U ,the
stood that no duty is paid on iinmLt! undef
and no revenue derived from Vf estI goods
tho duty on impoloenXTema
facturer to Increase their selling price to that
extent, and tho merchants havo to pay it and
finally tho consumer with all the intervening
profits added.
Under a 50 per cent tariff, tho increased in
crement of cost to tho consumer on $2,000
worth of goods, ono foreign, tho other domestic,
is $2,343.75. Of this only $500 finds its way
into tho national treasury, or one dollar for
every $4.68 taken from the people. A ninety-
two por cent tariff would increase the cost to
the consumer correspondingly, as will be shown
farther on. For convenience in computation,
the decimal .61 is omitted.
Cost to Consumer Under Tariff
First cost to importer $1,000
Duty, 92 por cent 920
Total cost to importer i $1,920
Importer's profit, 20 per cent 384
Cost to jobber $2,304
Jobber's profit, 25 per cent 576
, , i
Cost to wholesaler, 25 per cent. $2,880
Wholesaler's, profit, 25 per cent 720
Cost to retailer , $3,600
Retailer's profit, 25 per cent 900
Cost to consumer ,'.. . $4,500
Cost of $1,000 "worth imported goods to
consumer $4,500
Of domestic goods 4,500
Cost of $2,000 worth $9,000
Cost to Consumer Without Tariff
Cost to importer $1,000
Importer's profit, 20 per cent 200
Cost to jobber ,-. . . . $1,200
Jobber's profit, 25 per cent 300
Cost to wholesaler $1 500
Wholesaler's profit, 25 per cent '375
Cost to retailer $1875
Retailor's profit, 25 per cent 7.7 468
Cost to consumer $2,343.75
Cost to consumer of $1,000 worth im
ported goods $2,343 75
Of domestic goods 2,343.75
Cost of $2,000 worth $4,687.50
From the above figures it will be seen that,
under a 92 per cent tariff, the difference in the
cost of $2,000 worth of goods to the consumer
7iUooa of $2.00 worth without tariff, is
$4,312 50 Of this only $500 is for revenue"
or one dollar out of $8.62 taken from the people!
Do not these figures demonstrate tho proposi
t on that for every dollar of revenue a protec
tive tariff brings into the national treasury, from
two to eight are taken from the people? Anv
system of taxation that takes eight dollars from
oJethimer f(?ri?e U brings lnt0 th treasury
of the state, violates every principle of politi
cal economy as well as every principle of equity
honesty and fair dealing. It is a cunningly d
vised scheme to tax one man for the benefit of
another, the many for tho benefit of the few
and to enable the privileged few to appropriaYe
to their own use the products of other men's
alollshef Ut COmPensation' " ought l
L. A. HARCOURT, M. D.
IOWA DEMOCRATS AND THE LIQUOR IN
TERESTS This interesting editorial appeared in
Waterloo (la.) Times-TribunerdemcraUc
Coincident with tho activity of tlm nnti .o
forces in Iowa comes the 'VortthatnT10?11
favor the saloon and regulator 0 if are to ?i2r
in various places in the state and gve !?
sion to their views. It may be said thJSs"
that the campaign for resubmission of thta J?PeJ
question has already begun in Iowa gFeat
The brewers and liquor Interests thv
heir control of the republican pany g
state, have succeeded in keeplnir the niioafi
from going before the people un to thl? lon
How long they can continue to hold ill? '
hand remains to be seen Tin to 3M e,whIp
crats have been counted ihofriendsTf St ?,emo
interests. When matters which affect tifUOr
were before the legislature fit I recalled thS
those interests would count all the noses of ?h
democratic legislators and then set about get!
VOLUME 10, NUMBER. S
ting sufficient republican support to make them .
secure. The democrats were counted as so many
cattle. "They are all right, anyway. No use
seeing them." And for a quarter of a century
this has gone on.
The democrats have had, all through these '
years, to bear the burden. It has been known
and branded as tho "whisky party.'.' It bore
the odium of this in every campaign. And what
did it receive? The worst of it all around.
Temperance people flocked to the republican
party; know ye, the democratic party could, do
them no good, being in the minority," therefore
they saw to it that the majority party was given
their help secretly if possible, openly if neces
sary. The worm is about to turn. The time has
come when the democratic party must refuse to
be considered under the thumb of the liquor
element) the time has come when their repre
sentatives must refuse to be counted as so many
cattle when there is dirty work to do. The
liquor interests have been since Horace Boies'
time conniving in the defeat of democrats. They
defeated Claude R. Porter for governor, giving
$10,000 to the Cummins campaign fund, it is
reported on good authority, in one lump, the .
money passing to a Cummins henchman at a1
meeting in Fort Dodge, and the work they did
for Cummins in the campaign is known .of all
men who had to do with Mr. Porter's interests
at that time.
The democratic party is a party of individual. -effort,
of equal rights and opportunities, of per
sonal liberty, and while this is true it must al
low it to be known that it is not made up of a
lot of cattle who can be driven about at the '
crack of the whip. The democratic party has
always believed in majority rule. All the liquor
legislation we have was given the state by the
republican party. And yet the democratic is
the "whisky party" While democrats believe
in local option and local regulation, they want
that local option by secret ballot and regula
tion under a police law. And right now it is
the political duty of democrats to allow the
liquor interests to fight out the matter of their
preservation with the party they have been as
sisting to office. They should deal directly with
their partners and close associates. The old
game, the Times-Tribune hopes, is played out.
Waterloo Times-Tribune. "
FAKING STUPIDITIES IN REGARD TO Mpj
BRYAN
That Daniel Kiefer was right when he assert
?L Ccinnati Times-Star his disbelief in
the authenticity of an announcement of Mr
Bryan a candidacy for the presidency in 1912
purporting to come from Richard L. Metcalfe
associate editor of The Commoner, is shown by
the unequivocal denial of the announcement
which appears in The Commoner of JanSar?28.
Mr. Metcalfe quotes the candidacy announce
ment as it appeared in "the Cincinnati EnaufrS
and other newspapers," and says: "There la
no truth whatever in this statement. It ?s a
raw, unadulterated fake." The Public, Chicago
TWO DISCONSOLATE REPUBLICANS
n7neJ ma succeed Cannon as speaker "
says the New York Sun. We may safelv iu
SioCire, ournT
0(g
EVEN ON THE BIBLE!
Republican Tariff Responsible for 20 Per ' I
Cent Increase in l.w LCr
. -jv. A riTO 01 tUo
Bibles will BoZ Zt
branches in oTn,.innH ul?...?.
San Francisco. The cause 7, t,y ma
vance is the enfor?emPnf Z? na
tariff en imperfed iSer' and "Z"
"Bibles are now about ?n i r
higher than they have ever brlA, Cent
said a member of the firm beeVTbore'M
sfhK 222 veoneTp
that we can not afford to con Ce T
our output at nrW " V. ."?He to sell ?
x w iiuy iiBl,tja" jv
JWWWMWjtir?;
,rWS
Kaggm
J-iidfiitoiMj&4
,