HF 
 
 1756 
 
 L93 
 
 1922 
 
 XX 
 
 A 
 
 
 A 
 
 JCS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 J) 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 ONA 
 
 
 
 '~ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 1 
 
 -ACII 
 
 
 =i 
 
 
 
 
 m E 
 
 f||l:;:;F:Riii||;;:tWB^A 
 
 ll/ll)ll^"^llf,T^?.^„9,^V,'^0RNIA SAN DIEGO 
 
 ^^02201526 0318
 
 miT] T 'irrT^ san d,ego 
 
 3 1822015260318 
 
 U L 
 
 Central University Library 
 
 University of California, San Diego 
 Please Note: This item is subject to recall. 
 
 Date Due 
 
 nFH 1 6 1993 
 
 jaa'd APR 2 6*94 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CI 39 (7/93) UCSDLi).
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 Lee Francis Lybarger.
 
 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 A GRAPHIC PRESENTATION 
 OF THE 
 
 FORDNEY-McCUMBER TARIFF 
 
 WHAT IT IS 
 
 HOW IT WORKS 
 
 WHOM IT BENEFITS 
 
 —BY- 
 LEE PRANCIS Ly?AR.GER 
 
 Member of the Hhiiadelph'a 3ar. 
 Lyceum and GhHutaadua ^--epturer. 
 
 Formerly President Inter- 
 national Lyoei'm pnd ChartauQua 
 Atsociaiiou of A'nerica. 
 
 Illustrations by John H. Coakley 
 
 TARIFF PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 1819 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 
 
 Hobson Printiiur Company 
 Eaatoo, Pa.
 
 Gopyighted, October, 1922'.- 
 By. Lee Francis .Ly^arger.
 
 DEDICATED 
 
 TO THE RIGHT 
 
 OF THOSE WHO LABOR 
 
 IN ALL LANDS AND CLIMES 
 
 TO SELL THE PRODUCTS OF THEIR LABOR 
 
 WHERE THEY CAN SELL THE DEAREST 
 
 AND BUY WITH THEIR WAGES 
 
 WHERE THEY CAN BUY 
 
 THE CHEAPEST
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Can a people be enriched by their own taxation? That is the 
 question now confronting the American people. 
 
 If a people can be enriched by the simple process of taking 
 hundreds of millions of dollars annually out of the pockets of 
 the Many, and pouring them into the huge pockets of the 
 Privileged Feic, then the Fordney-McCumber Tariff is the 
 most beneficient piece of legislation in the History of the Re- 
 public. If it be true that a people can be prospered by so 
 simple a method, then will the new Tarifi lift our toiling mill- 
 ions out of the perils of penury and want, up into the happy 
 realm of abundance. 
 
 Were the Tariff Issue so clear and definite as above stated, it 
 would of course have disappeared long ago from our political 
 history. No question about that. But it is not. On the con- 
 trary, it is an issue so complex and involved, so mixed up and 
 confused by the multiplied relations sustained even by the 
 average citizen in the complex financial and industrial life of 
 today, that after generations of discussion, we know but little 
 more about the Tariff than we did at the beginning. 
 
 The heroic and independent spirit.- of our "Sires of '76", 
 would not have considered the toleration of so monstrous and 
 extortionate a measure as the Fordney-McCumber Tariff for a 
 single minute. Their fight was against Taxation : we fight/or Tax- 
 ation. 
 
 But the real facts in the case — and the dire consequences to 
 the consuming public — were far easier to see then than they 
 are today. Amidst the complexities of our modern civilization, 
 the fact as to who pays and who gets — as to who are the Tariff's 
 beneficiaries and who its victims — can now be disguised, con- 
 fused and hidden in a thousand different ways. 
 
 The Author's interest in this subject began far back in boy- 
 hood days, when a student in the High School. More years of 
 my life have been given to the study of the theory and the 
 effects of a Protective Tariff — and of that universal thing, 
 called Trade, which the Tariff seeks to obstruct— than to any 
 other one problem connected with the general welfare.
 
 Added to these years of study and investigation has been the 
 advantage of presenting the Tariff to Lyceum and Chautauqua 
 audiences — composed of men, women and children. Long ago, 
 from this most valuable experience, I learned that the thing 
 most needed by the people in order to understand just what the 
 Tariff is, how it works, and whom it benefits, is not Argument 
 but Analysis — a division into classes of the persons and things 
 affected at each step in the unfolding of the problem. 
 
 The sole aim and purpose of the TARIFF PRIMER is to clarify 
 and simplify the Tariff Issue. The method of working has 
 been simply to analyze, and then classify in opposite groups, 
 all the elements in each stage of the problem — taking them up 
 carefully, just one at a time. A classification once made, or a 
 principle once clearly established, is never abandoned. From 
 the beginning to the end of the book I trust the reader will find 
 that all the lines of reasoning run clear and straight. My 
 endeavor has been to fully and logically tJiink out each problem 
 for itself; seeking always to find the principle involved, using 
 details and statistics only for illustration. 
 
 Thus do we advance steadily from the first chapter to the 
 last, following the definite plan of taking up and discussing just 
 one thing at a time, always striving to so clearly and definitely 
 state facts and conditions that the reader can think them out 
 for himself — and find pleasure and entertainment in doing it. 
 
 The cartoons and illustrations have been carefully designed 
 in order to give the reader the imagery, the mental pictures, 
 the concrete symbols, absolutely necessary for the mastery of 
 the subject. Realizing that at least 80% of all our knowledge 
 comes thru the eyes, an abundance of charts and diagrams has 
 also been used, based wholly on Official Government Statistics. 
 
 With all the vital questions and problems of the Tariff Issue 
 clearly analyzed and definitely stated for the American people, 
 this age-long superstition, this gigantic delusion that a people 
 can be enriched by their own taxation, will go the way of all 
 the other delusions and superstitions of the past. 
 
 Mifilinburg, Pa. 
 October 12, 1922.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. Home Goods, Foreign Goods and the Tariff Wall 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. Motive that Builds Tariff Walls 4 
 
 CHAPTER III. The World Price Level and the TariflF Price Level 7 
 
 CHAPTER IV. Putting Foreign Goods Over the Tariff Wall ... 11 
 
 CHAPTER V. Price-Fixing Inside the Tariff Wall 13 
 
 CHAPTER VI. Monopolizing the Home Market 17 
 
 CHAPTER VII. How Much Is the Tariff Tax? 20 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. Where the Tariff Costs More Than the Goods 23 
 
 CHAPTER IX. Does the "Foreigner" Pay the Tariff? 25 
 
 CHAPTER X. Two Streams of Revenue 29 
 
 CHAPTER XI. The Higher the Rate— The Less the Revenue . . 32 
 
 CHAPTER XII. Who Gets It— Employees or Employers? 35 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. Does the Tariff Protect or Plunder Labor? 40 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. The Farmer and the Manufacturer 44 
 
 CHAPTER XV. The Farmer as an Exporter 49 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. Can the Farmers Form a Trust? 53 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. Does the Importation of Foreign Goods Throw 
 
 Our Own Labor Out of Employment? 57 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. Can We Import Without Exporting? 61 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. Our "Favorable" Balance of Trade 65 
 
 CHAPTER XX. My Two Islands 71 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. Revenue Tariffs vs. Protective Tariffs 79 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 A— Imports and Exports from 1790 to 1921 82 
 
 B — A Study in World Commerce 89 
 
 C— Effects of War on Prices 91 
 
 D— Price History from 1850 to 1920 93 
 
 E — Tariff Rates from Custom House Reports 95 
 
 F — 25 Leading Products Both Exported and Imported 96 
 
 G— Fordney Tariff at Work 96 
 
 H— Wool Prices from 1880 to 1921 96 
 
 I — Payne-Aldrich, Underwood and Fordney Tariffs 97 
 
 J— The Scramble Begins for Still Higher Rates 100
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Home Goods, Foreign Goods and the Tariff Wall 
 
 For untold centuries the word "foreign" has filled mankind 
 with fear, because "foreigner" and "foe" meant the same thing. 
 And the fear that there was some subtle danger, some hidden 
 evil, even in "foreign goods" has continued through all the long 
 and bloody centuries of war and hate and strife. This vague 
 fear and indescribable dread of "foreign goods" still exists — 
 and that, too, among so-called "civilized" nations. If this were 
 not true. Protective Tariffs would have disappeared long ago 
 with the other superstitions of the past. 
 
 On the opposite page our artist has given us the three ele- 
 ments essential to a complete discussion of the Tariff. In this 
 picture we have the whole foundation of the subject. These 
 three elements are: Home Goods, Foreign Goods, and the 
 Tariff Wall between. 
 
 _ Radical and far-reaching as is the distinction which all na- 
 tions make between Home Goods and Foreign Goods, and pro- 
 foundly as does this distinction effect the economic welfare and 
 happiness of all mankind, yet the reader needs to realize at the 
 very outset that it rests upon nothing more permanent and sub- 
 stantial than national boundaries. On this boundary all Tariff 
 Walls are built. National boundaries are wholly a matter of 
 accident and chance, of whim and caprice, of war and treaty. 
 As we learned in geography, national boundaries are not 
 "natural" lines but "imaginary" lines drawn upon the surface 
 of our earth. 
 
 The 49th parallel of latitude forms the larger part of the 
 boundary which separates us from Canada. All products 
 coming in from beyond that parallel are "foreign", and if 
 allowed to come in "free" it is supposed would destroy our 
 great agricultural interests. By all means wheat from Alberta 
 must be kept out. For twenty-four years has Mr. Porter J. 
 McCumber been defending North Dakota from the disasters 
 of such an "invasion". 
 
 And yet the political slogan of an early Presidential cam- 
 paign was: "54-40 or Fight!" They did not get either. But 
 if the parallel of 54-40 had been established as our northern
 
 2 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 boundary, the wheat fields of Alberta and of all northwestern 
 Canada, would now pour their golden harvests into the gran- 
 aries of Chicago and Minneapolis as freely as do the wheat 
 fields of the Dakotas and Minnesota. What makes it injurious 
 in the one case, but beneficial in the other? Merely the acci- 
 dental location of a national boundary. Therefore, it is not the 
 nature of the goods, or the character of the people producing 
 them, but those "imaginary lines", called national boundaries, 
 which divide all the products of human toil into Home Goods 
 and Foreign Goods. 
 
 We are not the only people who have a Tariff Wall, though 
 from Protectionists' speeches in Congress, one would infer that 
 this is our distinctive and exclusive creation. There are as 
 many Tariff Walls on this planet as there are Governments. 
 Canada, Mexico, the Republics of Central America and the 
 countries of South America — all have Tariff Walls. Crossing 
 the ocean. Tariff Walls and lines of fortification mark the bound- 
 aries of all the countries of Europe. Every government on the 
 continent of Africa is encircled by a Tariff Wall. The same is 
 true of Asia, of the distant Orient, and of many of the islands 
 of the sea. In short, wherever there is a Government on this 
 earth there also is a Tariff Wall. 
 
 Nor is that all. "We the people of the United States", now 
 have but one Tariff Wall. But before the formation of the 
 Federal Constitution in 1789, each of the thirteen colonies had 
 a Tariff Wall around it. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 
 York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina — all had Tariff Walls. 
 Wherever there was a boundary line separating two colonies, 
 there also was a Tariff Wall. 
 
 How history does persist in enacting over and over again its 
 ancient follies! The same bickering and haggling and "log- 
 rolling" which occupied the American Congress for nearly two 
 years; also occupied the legislatures of the Colonies. Further- 
 more, the same "arguments" which seek to justify the exist- 
 ence of the one Tariff Wall around the entire Union of 48 states, 
 would also justify the building of a Tariff Wall around each 
 state. Therefore, if these "arguments" of Fordney, McCumber 
 and their followers are true, then we should have 48 Tariff 
 Walls instead of one! 
 
 In Europe, a century or so ago, there was a Tariff Wall 
 around each county, principality, dukedom, and feudal estate. 
 It is said that a French peasant in going from Versailles to Paris 
 with his cartload of garden products had to pass through eigh-
 
 Home Goods, Foreign Goods and the Tariff Wall 3 
 
 teen Tariff Walls, paying toll at each wall, before he reached 
 the gates of Paris — and still had one more toll to pay before he 
 could get inside the Tariff Wall around that city! And so the 
 idea is not modern. It is centuries old. 
 
 Senator Calder, of New York, recently claimed, before a 
 labor audience, that the reason wages are higher in this country 
 than in any other is because we have a Protective Tariff — im- 
 plying, of course, that other countries have not. Nothing 
 more ignorant or deceptive could possibly have been uttered. 
 Whatever the reason, it is not this. Practically all countries 
 on earth have a Protective Tariff. And statistics show that, 
 as a general rule, the higher the Tariff the lower the wages of 
 labor, and the more impoverished the people. 
 
 Thus do Tariff Walls, separating Home Goods from Foreign 
 Goods, exist everywhere — and have existed for centuries. 
 They are as universal as greed; as persistent as Selfishness and 
 Plunder.
 
 4 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 MOTIVE THAT BUILDS TARIFF WALLS 
 
 In the lowest stages of human society all the products which 
 enter into the food, clothing and shelter of the people of the 
 tribe are found within the narrow circuit of their own immedi- 
 ate neighborhood. And nothing better indicates, the steps in 
 the Intellectual Progress of the race than the ever increasing 
 distance, over sea and land, from which their daily supplies are 
 drawn. When we reach the highest civilization we find the 
 articles consumed even by "the common people" are drawn 
 from every country, zone and clime. 
 
 Thus does the March of Progress, through the instrumen- 
 tality of International Trade, enable the humblest citizen or 
 subject in any nation to levy upon the vast variety of products 
 of every sea and land, of every mountain range, valley and 
 plain of the whole round earth, to satisfy the hunger and needs 
 of his life — unless prevented by a Tariff Wall. 
 
 Whoever would form a true mental picture of Trade must 
 encompass the whole earth in his imagination. The compara- 
 tively few whose intellectual development makes such a vision 
 possible, believe in Trade. The unnumbered millions whose 
 narrow and provincial minds make a conception of such mag- 
 nitude impossible, believe in Tariff Walls. It is all a matter of 
 imagination, of mental capacity — of Intellectual Development. 
 
 Back of that towering Tariff Wall, in every nation — under 
 every form of government — are two classes of people: The 
 Producers of Home Goods and the Consumers of both Home 
 and Foreign Goods. In this we have the Motive which in all 
 lands and nations builds Tariff Walls. 
 
 It is quite natural for local Producers everywhere to object 
 to this intrusion of Foreign Goods into the Home Market. 
 And the cause of this universal — and we might say interna- 
 tional — objection of all local Producers to the importation of 
 Foreign Goods is easy to discover. 
 
 It is found in the fact that they must compete with these 
 Foreign Goods in what they would like to consider their own 
 exclusive market. And in order to compete they must keep 
 their prices down to the prices of the Foreign Goods offered.
 
 Motive that Builds Tariff Walls 5 
 
 Otherwise, local consumers will naturally, and rightly, buy the 
 Foreign Goods. 
 
 From this vital fact comes a clear vision of the purpose, the 
 motive, the function, of a Tariff Wall: THE OBJECT IN BUILD- 
 ING A TARIFF WALL AROUND ANY COUNTRY IS TO ENABLE 
 LOCAL PRODUCERS OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS TO COMPEL 
 THE LOCAL CONSUMERS OF THESE PRODUCTS TO PAY 
 MORE FOR THEM THAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY IN THE 
 OPEN MARKET. 
 
 In other words, the Producer has carried his conflict with the 
 Consumers of his products into the Halls of Congress. He has 
 succeeded, by means of campaign contributions and other 
 forms of "influence," in securing from Congress such laws- 
 called Tariffs — as enable him to compel the consumers of his 
 products to pay him more than they would otherwise have to 
 pay — were it not for these laws. 
 
 When we reflect on the matter, however, we see that there 
 is no more reason — in fact, there is not as much reason — why 
 the Producer should have a law compelling the Consumers to 
 pay him more than the Market Price for his products, than 
 that Consumers should have a law enacted by Congress which 
 would compel Producers to sell their products for less than the 
 Market Price. Had you ever thought of that? If not, then 
 here is a chance to do some real thinking for yourself. 
 
 You would not vote to build a Tariff Wall around your town, 
 giving your merchants a monopoly of the Home Market; thus 
 preventing you from going to any other town or city to buy 
 any part of the necessities of life. Nor would you vote to 
 build a Tariff Wall around your county, or even around your 
 state. Since you demand an Open Market for the people of 
 your town, an Open Market for the people of your county, and 
 an Open Market for the people of your state, why do you not 
 also demand an Open Market for the hundred and ten Million 
 people of your nation?
 
 The World Price Level and the Tariff Price Level 7 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE WORLD PRICE LEVEL AND THE TARIFF PRICE LEVEL 
 
 In the illustration on the opposite page, our artist has given 
 us a symbol of the machinery which Congress has put into the 
 hands of the Producer to enable him to get from the Consumer 
 higher prices than the Consumer would have to pay in the open 
 market. It shows how a Tariff Wall raises the PRICE LEVEL 
 of the goods and products it "Protects." The illustration tells 
 the whole story. Look it over and think it out for yourself. 
 
 These billions of dollars' worth of Foreign Goods which 
 every year we ourselves demand, need and consume, flow 
 directly across the ocean to our shores down at the WORLD 
 Price Level. There they are — down there. But we cannot 
 get them — down there. Before we can reach them, or they 
 reach us, they must flow up over the towering Tariff Wall — to 
 the cost-plane of the TARIFF PRICE LEVEL. 
 
 All goods shipped to us from any part of the world— Europe, 
 Asia, Africa, Canada, South America, Mexico, Australia — must 
 pass thru one of the scores of Custom Houses along the bound- 
 ary separating us from the rest of the world, be inspected by 
 custom house officials, and a Tariff Tax levied on them— unless 
 specifically exempted by being on the Free List. 
 
 Therefore, in each Custom House this Taxing Machinery 
 must be set up and a separate Tariff Wall built for each class 
 of articles, in order to compel us to purchase them — not at 
 their normal price in the Open Market — but at the "Price In- 
 creased by the Tariff." 
 
 In order to thus systematically tax everything that labor has 
 produced, our Tariff Makers — beginning as far back as 1883 — 
 have divided all material substances and products which satisfy 
 the desires and needs of human life into Fourteen Classes — 
 called Schedules. 
 
 There is absolutely no form of wealth which the genius of 
 man has created, no product or invention which his skilled 
 hands have fashioned, that does not fall within one of these 
 Fourteen Schedules. A mere enumeration of their titles, to- 
 gether with a few items under each, will give the reader some 
 conception of the vast multitude of products in the huge stream 
 of life's necessities, which it is now proposed shall be made to 
 pass over "the highest Tariff Wall in our history."
 
 8 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 (1) A— Chemicals, Oils and Paints: All forms of medi- 
 
 cines and drugs, perfumes, floral waters, flavoring 
 extracts, porous plaster, etc. 
 
 (2) B— Earth, Earthenware and Glassware: All 
 
 forms of bricks and clays, crushed limestone, watch 
 crystals, tiles, china ware, Portland cement, mir- 
 rors, plate glass, marble, spectacles, tombstones, etc. 
 
 (3) C— Metals and Manufactures of Metals: Nuts, 
 
 bolts and washers, nails, tacks and brads, corset 
 steels, sewing machines, iron and aluminum ware, 
 harness, saws, automobiles and parts, razors, 
 watches, clocks, cutlery, etc. 
 
 (4) D— Wood and Manufactures of: Furniture, porch 
 
 and window blinds, picket pailings, toothpicks, 
 butchers' skewers, casks, coffins, clothes pins, etc. 
 
 (5) E— Sugar and Molasses: Cane sugar, beet sugar, 
 
 maple sugar, syrups, candies and all other forms of 
 confectionery. 
 
 (6) F— Tobacco and Manufactures of: Wrapper and 
 
 filler tobaccos, smoking tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, 
 chewing tobacco, etc. 
 
 (7) G— Agricultural Products and Provisions: Live 
 
 stock, meat, fish, vegetables, milk and cream, but- 
 ter, cereals, fruits, nuts, flours, bread, preserves, 
 seeds, etc. 
 
 (8) H— Spirits, Wines and Other Beverages: Brandy, 
 
 cordials, malt extracts, soda water, mineral waters, 
 cherry and fruit juices, etc. 
 
 (9) I— Cotton and Manufactures of: Cotton staple, 
 
 cotton yarns, sewing thread, tire fabrics, table 
 covers, cotton gloves, cotton clothing, bedspreads, 
 sheets and pillow cases, collars and cuffs, cotton 
 cloth, cotton sheeting, pile fabrics, shoe strings, 
 lace curtains, etc. 
 
 (10) J— Jute, Hemp and Flax: Flax straw, fiber towels, 
 bags and bagging, table damask, linoleum, floor oil- 
 cloth, sheeting, straw mattings, etc. 
 
 ( 11) K— Wool and Manufactures of: Wool and hair of 
 sheep, goats, alpaca and like animals, wool yarn, 
 blankets, robes, webbing, belts, hose, gloves, knit 
 fabrics, underwear, all carpets and rugs, all clothing, 
 wearing apparel, etc.
 
 The World Price Level and the Tariff Price Level 9 
 
 (12)L— Silk and Silk Goods: Sewing silk, plushes, velvets, 
 
 ribbons, gloves, handkerchiefs, hosiery, underwear, 
 
 all wearing apparel, all other silk manufactures. 
 
 ( 13 )M— Paper and Books: Printing paper, letter paper, 
 
 carbon paper, wall paper, paper board, wrapping 
 
 paper, books of all kinds, leather-bound books, 
 
 photograph albums, all other manufactures of 
 
 paper, 
 
 (14 )N— Sundries: Straw hats, tooth brushes, combs, all 
 
 forms of buttons, all manufactures of leather, all 
 
 embroideries and everything else not previously 
 
 mentioned. 
 
 Look about you in your home. There is scarcely a single 
 
 article on which the eye can fall that does not bear a Tariff Tax. 
 
 Even your sewing machine has been taken off the Free List 
 
 and given a Tariff Tax. There is a Tariff Tax on practically 
 
 every article of food on your table. This is true also of your 
 
 dishes, silverware, cutlery, napkins and tablecloth ; as well as the 
 
 table itself, the lighting fixtures above it, and the chairs upon 
 
 which you sit. There is no article of clothing on your person 
 
 down to the minutest detail which does not bear a Tariff Tax. 
 
 The same is true of the house itself and of all the furnishings, 
 
 ornaments, and kitchen utensils which it contains — from the 
 
 cement in the foundation, the carpets on the floor, the paper 
 
 and pictures on the wall, the glass in the windows, the curtains 
 
 and shades, the tile in the fire-place, on up to the nails in the 
 
 shingles on the roof — all bear a Tariff Tax. 
 
 Some rhymester, with a keen sense of the humor and ab- 
 surdity of the whole situation, has stated the case quite fully 
 in poetic form: 
 
 "We are taxed on our clothing, our meat and our bread, 
 On our carpets and cupboard, our table and bed ; 
 On our knives and our spoons, on our fuel and lights — 
 We are taxed so severely we can't sleep o'nights. 
 
 We are taxed on our hats, our shoes, and our shops. 
 On our blankets and stoves, our brooms and our mops; 
 On our rice and our sugar, and when we must die. 
 We'll be taxed on the coffin in which we shall lie. 
 
 We are taxed on all wants by Providence given. 
 We are taxed on the Bible which points us to Heaven; 
 And when we ascend to that heavenly goal, 
 They will if they can, put a tax on our Soul."
 
 Putting Foreign Goods Over the Tariff Wall 11 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Putting Foreign Goods Over the Tariff Wall 
 
 The picture on the opposite page gives us a "snap shot" of 
 the importer of Foreign Goods in the act of shifting the Tariff 
 Tax over on the American Consumer. 
 
 The Tariff Tax of 100%, which we have assumed our Govern- 
 ment had levied on his goods, has already been paid by the im- 
 porter. He had to pay that before he could land his goods. 
 The foreign cost of his goods, by the time he gets them to our 
 shores, is assumed to be $400 per package. Our importer now 
 has $800 capital invested in each package — $400 in the goods 
 and $400 more in the tariff on the goods. 
 
 Now what will he do? We know exactly what he will do. 
 He will add the cost of the Tariff to the cost of the goods — 
 making the price to us $800 instead of $400 — and shove the 
 goods over the wall. He will also add tivo profits — one on the 
 goods, and the other on the tariff. 
 
 This process of shifting the cost of the tariff over on the Con- 
 sumer holds to the last detail of the billions of dollars' worth of 
 commodities which we annually import. In reference to each 
 bill of goods, and each separate item imported, THE TARIFF 
 Tax Levied by the Government Is Paid by the Mer- 
 chant Who Brings the Goods Over— and by Him Is 
 Added to the Cost of the Goods — and so is Paid by 
 THE Consumer of the Goods. 
 
 Thus do we see that it is not the importer, but the Consumer, 
 who pays the Tariff. And on scores of articles, under the new 
 Profiteers' Tariff, the cost of the tariff will be higher than the 
 cost of the goods. But it will not be listed on our bill as a 
 separate item — so much for the goods, so much for the tariff. 
 If this were done, the inordinate rates in the Fordney-McCum- 
 ber Tariff would not last a month without producing a revolu- 
 tion. It is a secret, hidden mode of taxation. The people 
 pay it without knowing that it is being paid. Fordney goes 
 on Shakespeare's theory: 
 
 "He who's robbed, but knows not of it, 
 IS NOT ROBBED AT ALL."
 
 Price-Fixing Inside the Tariff Wall 13 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Price-Fixing Inside the Tariff Wall 
 
 Having shown that on the outside of our Tariff Wall the first 
 act of those who bring over Foreign Goods is to add the cost of 
 the tariff to the cost of the goods, our artist here shows us what 
 is also taking place on the inside of the Tariff Wall. There- 
 fore, no matter on which side of this towering structure you cast 
 your gaze you behold the same little game — Adding THE 
 Cost of the Tariff to the Cost of the Goods. 
 
 The Only Object in Building a PROTECTIVE Tariff 
 Wall Around This Country is to Increase the Price 
 OF Foreign Goods to American Consumers, so that 
 the American Producer Can Also Increase the 
 Price of His Goods to these Same American Con- 
 sumers. 
 
 If it were not for the fact that High Tariffs, by increasing the 
 price of Foreign Goods to American people, also make possible 
 a parallel increase of price in the competing Home Goods, 
 There Would Be No Protective Tariff Wall Around 
 This Country, or Any Other Country. 
 
 Now let us get an exact, scientific statement of the effects of 
 High Tariffs on these two classes of goods. It is this: First, 
 High Tariffs necessitate an increase in price of the Foreign 
 Goods on which they are levied. Second, they make possible 
 an increase of price on similar Home Goods which compete 
 with them. They necessitate the one — they make possible the 
 other. And it is for the sole purpose of making possible an 
 increase in the selling price of Home Goods that all Protective 
 Tariff Laws are passed. 
 
 What other purpose could they have in levying such extor- 
 tionate rates? They are not for the purpose of raising money 
 for the Government. Low-rate Revenue Tariffs do that. 
 Therefore, High Tariffs are levied solely for the purpose of 
 raising revenue for private pockets. And to do this they must 
 increase the price of Foreign Goods, thus making possible a 
 parallel increase of price of the competing Home Goods. 
 
 During the framing of a Tariff Bill, Washington is over-run 
 with the lobbyists and representatives of the different "inter-
 
 14 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 ests." They present to those in charge of the bill a statement 
 showing the percentage rate of increase which they desire to 
 make in the selling price of their products to their American 
 Consumers — and which increase they insist they must have in 
 order to continue to do business. And this BECOMES THE 
 Tariff Rate on their Foreign Competitor's Goods. 
 
 This gives us a broader and truer vision of the full signifi- 
 cance of Protective Tariffs. We have already seen that the 
 whole stream of Foreign Goods, amounting to some five billions 
 annually, must go up over this towering Tariff Wall, with prices 
 increased anywhere from 25% to 150%. Now we are called 
 upon to form a still larger vision of that huge stream of Home 
 Goods — more than ten times greater — which it is the purpose 
 of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff to increase in cost to us 
 Just the Same as if they also Flowed Over the 
 Tariff Wall, Side by Side With Foreign Goods. 
 
 The illustration at the head of the chapter might be thought 
 to imply that all commodities can be produced in this country 
 as cheaply as they can be produced abroad. Hence the reason 
 for marking the whole of the increased price of Foreign Goods, 
 necessitated by our High Tariff Wall, as simply so much addi- 
 tional "profit" given to the Producers of similar Home Goods. 
 
 On the other hand, our Tariff Makers have assumed just the 
 reverse. They have assumed that we can produce absolutely 
 nothing in this country as cheaply as it can be produced in 
 foreign lands. The proof that this is their supposition is found 
 in the fact that they have put tariff rates — and on thousands of 
 articles high tariff rates — on practically everything that is pro- 
 duced in this country — everything. Had you never thought 
 of that? 
 
 Thus would Mr. Fordney and his followers have us believe 
 that with all our supposed skill, knowledge, education, machin- 
 ery and inventive genius; that with all our schools, colleges and 
 universities; even the most ignorant, degraded, illiterate and 
 unskilled laborers on earth can produce anything cheaper — and 
 therefore more efficiently — than our own laborers can produce 
 it. And for that reason, undersell us in our own markets. 
 Some tribute to American Labor! 
 
 My answer is this: WHILE THERE ARE MANY COMMODI- 
 TIES Which We Cannot Produce as Cheaply in This 
 Country as They Can Be Produced Abroad, There 
 Are Vastly More Commodities Which We Can Pro- 
 duce, AND Do Produce, More Cheaply Than Any
 
 Price-Fixing Inside the Tariff Wall 15 
 
 Other Country in the World. Therefore, our artist's 
 illustration is true as to principle, and holds as to detail in refer- 
 ence to the big majority of all our productions. 
 
 The proof of the above statement is found in the fact that we 
 exported over $8,000,000,000 worth of goods during 1920. If 
 we could not produce and undersell foreign competitors in their 
 own market, they would not have bought these goods. But if 
 we could undersell them in their own market — after paying the 
 cost of transportation and the tariff in their country — surely 
 we can undersell them here. No sane man will deny that. 
 
 A profound analysis thus enables us to divide all our produc- 
 tions into two distinct classes: (1) Those which we can pro- 
 duce more cheaply than we can buy from abroad. (2) Those 
 which we cannot produce as cheaply as we can buy them; and, 
 therefore, which we cannot produce at all without the aid of a 
 Protective Tariff. 
 
 The question in reference to the first class of productions can 
 have but one answer: THE ADDED PRICE WHICH THE 
 Tariff Makes it Possible for Their Producers to 
 Get from Us Is Simply a Bounty, a Bonus. It is tribute, 
 graft, plunder — extortion. No man or woman with any intel- 
 lectual pride will deny that proposition. 
 
 But what shall we say of that second class of goods and pro- 
 ducts which I myself claim, or admit, can jiot be produced in 
 this country without the aid of a Protective Tariff? To this 
 also there can be but one answer: ANY LINE OF GOODS OR 
 Products Which Cannot Be Produced in This Coun- 
 try Without the Aid of a Protective Tariff — Ought 
 Not to Be Produced At All. And that for the reason 
 that all such goods and products are produced at an absolute 
 economic and financial loss to the country. 
 
 To illustrate, the same amount of labor expended in Louis- 
 iana in producing corn, cotton or any other "native" product, 
 and traded for sugar, would give far more sugar than it now 
 gives by producing sugar direct. Thus by means of Protect- 
 ive Tariffs we are diverting labor to the least productive sources, 
 instead of employing it in the most productive sources. This 
 unfortunate experiment of trying to produce a Tropical plant 
 in the Temperate Zone has been an economic loss of billions of 
 dollars to the American people. And in the new Tariff the 
 stage is again set for the Sugar Trust to collect hundreds of 
 millions more.
 
 Monopolizing the Home Market 17 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Monopolizing the Home Market 
 
 In the picture on the opposite page our artist has given us a 
 new situation, one in which the American Producer does not 
 increase the cost of his goods to the full extent that the Tariff 
 has increased the cost of his foreign competitor's goods. 
 
 In doing this he shows us how the American Producer, by 
 getting a Tariff Wall high enough, can make huge profits and 
 still undersell his foreign competitor — and thus establish a 
 monopoly of the Home Market for his own products. 
 
 In the last picture we saw the American Producer marking 
 up the price of his goods to Consumers to an equality in price 
 with his foreign competitor's goods, thus placing Home Goods 
 up on the Tariff Price Level side by side with Foreign Goods. 
 In the present illustration he takes just the opposite course. 
 
 These two drawings graphically picture to us the two possible 
 alternatives, which a Tariff Wall presents to favored Producers 
 in every country. In the first alternative, prices of Home 
 Goods are boosted clear to the top of the wall. While by this 
 course they will supply only a part of the local demand — the 
 rest being supplied v/ith Foreign Goods — THEY WILL GET 
 More for What They Do Sell. 
 
 The second alternative is that of taking advantage of only 
 a part of the increase of price which a High Tariff makes pos- 
 sible. In the illustration, the Tariff Wall raised the price of a 
 given foreign product from $400 to $800. The American Pro- 
 ducer, by raising his price to only $700, keeps the Foreign Goods 
 out, and establishes a monopoly of the Home Market. WHILE 
 Making a Less Profit on Each Individual sale, yet he 
 has the supplying of the entire home demand for himself. 
 
 Even for the lower prices at which manufacturers must sell 
 their products in the Home Market, in order to "corner" this 
 market, THEY HAVE A REMEDY, and a good one. This ex- 
 plains the terrific and disgraceful scramble at Washington dur- 
 ing the pending of a Tariff Bill to secure high rates. 
 
 The instructions of the Big Interests to the representatives 
 they are sending to Washington during the framing of a Tariff 
 Bill is to this effect: "Get the tariff high enough on our for-
 
 18 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 eign competitor's goods. Make sure of that. Then we can 
 raise prices as high as the people can possibly pay, and still hold 
 a monopoly of the Home Market." Therefore, even tho selling 
 under the foreign price increased by the Tariff, they can still 
 get from the people "All THAT the Traffic Will Bear." 
 
 It makes no difference to us, the Consumers, which course is 
 taken. Either one permits the forming of Trusts and Com- 
 bines. In order to raise the price of Home Goods up to the 
 cost of Foreign Goods on the Tariff Price Level, combinations 
 and "gentlemen's agi'eements" must be made to prevent com- 
 petition among themselves — and thus keep prices up. NO 
 Tariff Wall Can Long Benefit Any Industry With- 
 out THE Aid of Trusts and Monopolies. 
 
 Therefore, if the Producers of any "protected" product are 
 unable to "get-together" and form Trusts and Combines — as is 
 particularly true of the millions engaged in agriculture— then 
 local competition among themselves will hold the price of their 
 product down to the same general level that would exist IF 
 There Were No Tariff Wall. Thus are Tariffs and 
 Trusts inseparable. The Tariff makes the Trust possible — 
 the Trust makes the Tariff useful. 
 
 Mr. Fordney has asserted, over and over again, that he is 
 not seeking to establish a Monopolistic Tariff, but a Competi- 
 tive Tariff. In saying this Mr. Fordney shows himself to be 
 either an ignoramus in economics or a demagog. The reader 
 may choose whichever term seems the more charitable. 
 
 Why do I say this? Because to make a Tariff Bill "competi- 
 tive" — with average rates of between 60% and 70% — depends 
 not on Mr. Fordney, but on American Producers taking full 
 advantage of the 'price- fixing opportunities which he has so 
 liberally given them; by so marking up the price of their 
 goods as to place them on an equality with Foreign Goods at 
 the Tariff Price Level. Then the cost of either will be exactly 
 the same to us. That alone would make a "competitive" 
 Tariff. 
 
 However, if that were done, two very surprising things 
 would happen. First, not only will FOREIGN GOODS be in- 
 creased to us the full extent of the tariff rates on them, but the 
 volume of HOME GOODS, ten times greater, will also be in- 
 creased in cost to us the full extent that the Tariff Wall in- 
 creased the cost of Foreign Goods. And the higher the tariff 
 rates, the higher will be the price of Home Goods. Some con- 
 tribution to old H. C. L.
 
 Monopolizing the Home Market 19 
 
 And yet Fordney, McCumber and their followers have re- 
 peatedly claimed that their tariff WILL NOT INCREASE THE 
 Cost of Home Goods. Let us see if it would not. To make 
 it a "competitive" tariff Foreign Goods must come in. That 
 much is certain. But they cannot come in unless Home Goods 
 are marked up to an equality of price with them; so that whether 
 we buy Foreign Goods or Home Goods, we must get both up 
 on the Tariff Price Level — at the same cost to us. Therefore, 
 The Only Way Normal Competition Can be Re- 
 stored Between Us and Foreign Countries, Under 
 the Monstrous and "Unconscionable" Rates in the 
 fordney-mccumber tariff, is to enormously in- 
 CREASE THE Costs of All Domestic Products to the 
 American People. 
 
 In the second place, if Mr. Fordney's Tariff is what he claims 
 it is — a Competitive Tariff — Foreign Goods would still come in. 
 But he also claims that foreign importations THROW AMERI- 
 CAN Labor Out of Employment. If this Tariff allows 
 Foreign Goods to come in, which it must do in order to be a 
 Competitive Tariff, instead of a Prohibitive Tariff, then it will 
 also throw labor out of employment just the same as he claimed 
 the Underwood Tariff did. The only difference would be that 
 under his Tariff labor will have to pay far more for the necessi- 
 ties of life than it did under the Underwood Tariff. So labor 
 will gain nothing in the way of employment, but will lose tre- 
 mendously by having to pay vastly more for the necessities 
 of life!
 
 20 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 How Much is the Tariff Tax? 
 
 Your state and county tax runs only so many mills on the 
 dollar for each different item. When it gets as high as three 
 cents on the dollar you begin to protest. You know there is 
 extravagance somewhere. Three cents on the dollar is only 
 3%. The Tariff Tax on any article is seldom less than 25%. 
 That is eight times as much. In many cases your Tariff Tax 
 is twenty-five times as much as your state and county tax. 
 Think of it. And yet you grumble at the one, but are in favor 
 of the other. You know that the one is a burden. But some- 
 how you have the idea that a TAX TWENTY-FIVE TIMES 
 Greater Is a Blessing! 
 
 While the tariff rate usually begins at 25%, it does not end 
 there. It goes to 35%, 50%, 60%, 80%, 100%. It goes even 
 beyond this to 125%, and on up to 200% — and more. The 
 Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 had an average rate on all articles 
 of about 60%. Before his death, Senator Penrose, then Chair- 
 man of the Senate Finance Committee, is reported to have said 
 that some of the rates in the Fordney Tariff Bill, which had just 
 passed the House, would go as high as 800%. 
 
 There are two classes of Tariff duties: Specific and Ad Val- 
 orum. The latter means "according to value." For instance, 
 the McKinley Tariff of 1890 levied an ad valorum duty of 50% 
 on women's and children's dress goods, 60% on ready-made 
 clothing and wearing apparel, 60% on webbings, beltings and 
 ribbons. On Ambussen, Saxony and Brussels carpets, 40%. 
 On woolen cloths— worth more than 40c per pound — 50%. 
 Nearly all of these rates were continued by the Dingley and the 
 Payne-Aldrich Tariffs, and now by the Fordney-McCumber 
 Tariff. 
 
 A Specific Duty is levied, not "according to value", but ac- 
 cording to quantify. For instance, the Tariff of 1872 laid a 
 specific duty of $28 per ton on steel rails! On the articles 
 above mentioned, the McKinley Tariff laid a specific duty of 
 12c a yard on women's and children's dress goods, 50c a pound 
 on ready-made clothing, 60c a pound on webbings, beltings 
 and ribbons, 60c a square yard on Ambusson and Saxony car-
 
 How Much Is the Tariff Tax? 21 
 
 pets, 44c per square yard on Brussels carpet and 44c a square 
 yard on all woolen cloths worth over 40c a pound. 
 
 Both duties are used on hundreds of articles. When so used 
 they are called Compound Duties. In the McKinley Tariff, 
 the Compound Duties on women's and children's dress goods, 
 gave a total tariff rate of 104%; on ready-made clothing and 
 wearing apparel, 80%; on webbings, beltings, ribbons, etc., 
 94%; on Ambusson and Saxony carpets, 69%; on Brussels car- 
 pets, 81% ; and on woolen cloth mentioned above, 143%. These 
 rates were largely preserved in the Dingley Tariff of 1897 and 
 most of them were increased in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909, 
 while the rates in the latter tariff have been perpetuated, and 
 many of them increased, by the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. 
 
 As showing still further the effects of compound duties, the 
 McKinley Tariff imposed a total duty of 112% on cheap woolen 
 yarns, 108% on cheap woolen blankets, 130% on worsted goods, 
 138% on cheap knit goods, and on the lowest grade of pearl 
 buttons, 280%. 
 
 The effect of compound duties is to put the highest tariff 
 rates on the cheapest goods, thus throwing the great burden of 
 Tariff Taxation on the toiling masses of any country. The ex- 
 planation is clear. For instance, if the ingrain carpets, with a 
 specific duty of 22c per square yard, have a foreign value of 
 only 22c per square yard, then the poorer classes who must buy 
 the cheaper grades would be paying a hundred per cent, on the 
 specific duty alone. To this was added a 40% ad valorum duty. 
 It is estimated that the specific duty of 31c per pound in the 
 Fordney-McCumber Tariff on scoured wool, will make a tariff 
 rate of 137% on some of the cheaper grades of wool. 
 
 Before the war our total dye bill was $15,000,000. That is, 
 we used only $15,000,000 worth of dye each year in this country. 
 When the importations of dye from Germany were stopped, we 
 started to manufacture our own dyes, and the Dye Interests in 
 this country made $150,000,000 profit on four dyes alone in six 
 years. In other words, their profit on four dyes in six years 
 was ten times our yearly dye bill before the war. The multi- 
 millionaires back of the Dye Monopoly, fought for two years to 
 secure an absolute embargo. They failed in this, but got a 
 Compound Duty of 7 cents a pound, plus 60% — American 
 Valuation — which practically amounts to an embargo. Noth- 
 ing in the "Tariff' of Abomination" of 1829 can compare to that. 
 There is but little hope for the future of a people who would 
 tolerate such an outrage on human rights!
 
 22 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 To be brief, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff has perpetuated, 
 and increased, the extortionate rates of the McKinley Tariff 
 and of the Payne-Aldrich, both of which were overwhelmingly 
 defeated at the polls in the first elections which followed. 
 
 It is estimated that the Fordney Tariff will enable the Big 
 Interests to take out of the pockets of the people of one single 
 state— New York— a tribute amounting to $330,000,000! 
 
 In the New York World of September 22, the day following 
 the signing by President Harding of the Fordney-McCumber 
 Tariff, I find a very compact summing up of the total cost to 
 the American people of the new Tariff Tax. The article is as 
 follows: 
 
 "WASHINGTON, Sept. 21. — Every American family will pay an average 
 of $160 a year more for clothes, food and other necessities because of the 
 Fordney-McCumber Tariff bill. Treasury experts said today. Although 
 the total cost of living will be increased by $4, 000,000, 000, the bill carries 
 a new provision authorizing the President to increase the rates 50%. if 
 he desires. 
 
 Of the total protection of $6,500,000,000, only $230,000,000 will be paid 
 into the Treasury and the rest will go to the favored interests, according to 
 the experts. 
 
 The following is the estimated amount of protection on principal products: 
 
 Cement, pottery, chinaware, $214,000,000; steel and other metals, $1,- 
 148,000,000; wood, furniture, lumber, $297,000,000; sugar, confectionery, 
 $333,000,000; tobacco, $429,000,000; food, agricultural products, $1,233,- 
 000,000; cotton goods, $807,000,000; wool clothing, $760,000,000; silk and 
 silk goods, $326,000,000." 
 
 The consensus of opinion, to sum it all up, is that the Ford- 
 ney-McCumber Tariff will increase the cost of life's necessities 
 to the American people about $4,000,000,000 annually. 
 
 Thus do we hope to enrich ourselves by our own taxation — 
 and by the most elaborate, detailed and burdensome system of 
 taxation the world has ever known. How such a hope should 
 have gotten possession of the brain of an enlightened people is 
 beyond human comprehension. Other people have fought and 
 died to prevent taxation. We fight to obtain it. Other people 
 have declared it life's greatest burden. We regard it as the 
 richest of blessings. Other people have risen in insurrection to 
 prevent the tax rate from being raised. We express fear and 
 alarm at the mere prospect of the Tariff Tax being lowered.
 
 Where the Tariff Costs More than the Goods 23 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Where the Tariff Costs More Than the Goods 
 
 The reader is probably astounded at the suggestion repeat- 
 edly made that on scores of articles the tariff costs more than 
 the goods; hence that MORE THAN HALF OF THE CON- 
 SUMER'S Money Goes, Not for the Goods, But for 
 THE Tariff on the Goods. 
 
 The custom house records of the past fifty years are strewn 
 with such illustrations. I shall select only a few from a volume 
 issued by the Government entitled "Imports and Duties, 1894- 
 1907," page 889. I shall give the number of the table in which 
 the reader will find the facts and figures as here set down. If 
 facts can convince you then you are going to be convinced. 
 YARNS, MADE WHOLLY OR IN FART OF WOOL 
 (Act of 1897) 
 
 
 Table No. 3562.- 
 
 -Value not more than 30 cents per pound. 
 
 Year 
 
 Foreign cost 
 
 Cost of tariff 
 
 Total cost to Rate of tariff 
 
 
 of goods 
 
 on goods 
 
 Consumer Tax 
 
 1898 
 
 $1,962.30 
 
 $2,803.10 
 
 $4,765.40 142% 
 
 1899 
 
 997.30 
 
 1,770.87 
 
 2,768.17 177% 
 
 1900 
 
 206.78 
 
 352.07 
 
 558.85 170% 
 
 
 Table No. 3563, 
 
 . — Value more 
 
 than 30 cents per pound. 
 
 1898 
 
 $ 89,004.10 
 
 $ 93,040.84 
 
 $182,044.94 104% 
 
 1899 
 
 128,296.06 
 
 131,292.96 
 
 259,589.02 102% 
 
 
 CLOTHS, WOOLEN 
 
 OR WORSTED 
 
 
 Table No. 3588. 
 
 , — Value more 
 
 than 30 cents per pound 
 
 1894 
 
 $3,323.00 
 
 $5,345.63 
 
 $8,608.63 161% 
 
 1895 
 
 3,870.00 
 
 6,384.81 
 
 10,254.81 165% 
 
 Table No. 3589. — Value more than 30 cents and not more than 
 40 cents per pound 
 
 1894 $66,775.00 $97,312.01 $164,087.01 146% 
 
 1895 23,530.00 35,794.51 59,324.51 152% 
 DRESS GOODS, WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S LININGS, ETC. 
 
 Table No. 3612. — Value not more than 40 cents per pound 
 
 $2,268.59 $3,688.59 159% 
 
 1,640.62 2,754.62 149% 
 
 579.67 947.67 157% 
 
 444.35 709.35 167% 
 
 1898 
 
 $1,420.00 
 
 1902 
 
 1,094.00 
 
 1905 
 
 368.00 
 
 1906 
 
 265.00
 
 24 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 PLUSHES AND OTHER PILE FABRICS 
 
 Table No. 3641. — Value not more than 40 cents per pound 
 
 Year Foreign cost Cost of tariff Total cost to Rate of tariff 
 
 of goods on goods Consumer Tax 
 
 1898 $ 89.00 $162.64 $251.64 183% 
 
 BLANKETS 
 Table No. 3571. — Value not more than 40 cents per pound 
 
 1903 $ 371.00 $ 677.86 $1,048.86 183% 
 
 1904 1,016.00 1,447.51 2,463.51 142% 
 
 1905 507.00 807.74 1,314.74 159% 
 
 1906 561.50 1,013.68 1,575.18 180% 
 Enough has been given to show at least the basis of the con- 
 clusion which every honest and enlightened thinker must reach 
 in reference to "protection," and that conclusion is that it is 
 THE MOST COLOSSAL AND OPPRESSIVE SCHEME OF PLUNDER 
 WHICH THE GREED, CUPIDITY AND BRUTE SELFISHNESS OF 
 MAN EVER CONCEIVED. It has taken its millions and hundreds 
 of millions out of the pockets of those whose poverty compels 
 them to purchase the cheapest quality of goods. This is one of 
 the mighty reasons why the millions are poor. They have been 
 plundered into poverty by a long line of thieving Tariffs. 
 
 You will observe, for example, that in "ya-rns, made wholly 
 or in part of wool," the tariff rates on those having a value of 
 30 cents, or less, go as high as 177%; while those having a 
 value of over 30 cents a pound, have tariff rates of only 104%. 
 The 104% is paid by those in comfortable circumstances, while 
 the 177% Tariff Tax is paid by the poorest of our poor. This 
 scheme of putting the highest Tariff on the cheapest goods will 
 apply to the Fordney-McCumber Bill the same as it did to the 
 McKinley, the Dingley and the Payne- Aldrich. 
 
 I can see how such an economic policy could, and does, 
 plunder, impoverish and despoil the multiplied millions of our 
 own countrymen who must consume the cheaper grades of 
 goods. But I cannot see how it can enrich them. I cannot 
 see how it can lessen their burden of toil by increasing the cost 
 of their necessities of life. Can you? 
 
 Any policy which makes it possible, even in a single instance, 
 to take from the toiling m.asses MORE THAN HALF of what 
 they expend for the necessities of life to pay the Tariff on these 
 necessities, deserves the righteous wrath and condemnation of 
 any so-called "free" people. If it really be true that people 
 are "prospered" by being plundered, then great should be the 
 prosperity of the toiling multitudes of America!
 
 Does the ''Foreigner'' Pay the Tariff? 25 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Does the "Foreigner" Pay the Tariff? 
 
 For generations Protectionists have used as one of their vital 
 arguments to defend their acts in increasing the cost of the 
 necessities of life that "THE FOREIGNER PAYS THE TARIFF". 
 When the people would protest against exorbitant tariff rates, 
 the answer was, "What does it matter to you? The foreigner 
 pays the tax." Nor did this baseless subterfuge originate in 
 this country. It was used in England long before the "Repeal 
 of the Corn Laws" in 1846, and is still employed by Protec- 
 tionists in Europe. 
 
 The suggestion that "The foreigner pays the tax" has a 
 deeper significance even than appears on the surface. It is a 
 vague suggestion that the people of one country, by means of 
 the Tariff, can tax the people of another country; and thus 
 compel them to pay the expense of the government of the 
 people levying the Tariff. The idea dates back to foreign 
 wars and conquests. It is the old thirst to tax and plunder 
 "foreign" nations. 
 
 For example. Senator McCumber gave this as his excuse for 
 levying a preposterous rate on some product: "We have 
 taxed the people all they can pay with our income tax, corpora- 
 tion tax, etc. We still need more revenue. And so I thought 
 I would collect the extra amount needed at the custom house." 
 The implication being that these "extra millions" would not 
 come out of our pockets, but out of the pockets of the "for- 
 eigners." This belief is universal. 
 
 When a college student at Al<Ton, Ohio, I heard William 
 McKinley give expression to this remarkable proposition — and 
 yet one that has been repeated in various forms in every Tariff 
 Debate in Congress, and in every political campaign in which 
 the Tariff was an issue. In an impassioned climax he said: 
 "I Am Opposed to Taxing Our Own People to Meet 
 THE Expense of Our Govep.nment So Long As There 
 Are Foreign People to Be Taxed." The suggestion was 
 gi'eeted with tremendous applause! It was evidently regarded 
 as a noble sentiment and the expression of real statesmanship. 
 And yet, just as a matter of fact, he would not have done this
 
 26 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 if he could, because of the low morals involved; and could 
 not if he would. 
 
 However, Mr. Fordney — of whom we can say what Macau- 
 lay said of George, the Third: "He never learned anything nor 
 forgot anything" — made this ignorant statement: My CON- 
 TENTION Is— AND I Believe Time Has Proven It— That 
 A Protective Tariff on the Imported Article Is 
 NOT A Tax Imposed on the Consumer. Nine-tenths 
 of the Duty Is Paid By the Foreigner." 
 
 In the illustration used by our artist it was assumed that the 
 cost of the goods to the merchant who brought them over — 
 whether he was an American or a foreigner matters not in the 
 least — was $400. Upon this we assumed a tariff tax of $400. 
 That made the total cost to him of the goods up to that point, 
 $800. Now the question is: did he sell those goods in this 
 country on the basis of $400 only? If so, then he himself paid 
 the Tariff Tax and did 7iot pass it on to us. But if he added the 
 cost of the Tariff to the cost of the goods — and we know as a matter 
 of every-day experience that he did— then we paid it. 
 
 Let us get a clear understanding of just what the issue is. I 
 gave one item in the last chapter from the records of the U. S. 
 Custom House, in 1898, in which the original cost of the goods 
 was $89. Upon this our government levied a Tariff Tax of 
 $162.64. Now suppose that this goods was imported by 
 our distinguished "Merchant Prince", Mr. John Wanamaker, 
 of Philadelphia. The question is this: At what price, plus his 
 profit, did Mr. Wanamaker sell these goods to his patrons? 
 Did he sell them for $89. Or did he sell them for $251.64? 
 Which price do you think he charged? If the first, then it 
 evidently would have been more profitable for him to have 
 made us a present of the goods, but charged us for the Tariff! 
 
 In addition, we know that he added his profit not on the $89, 
 but on the $251.64. That is, we pay two profits — one on the 
 Goods and the other on the Tariff. And each succeeding pair 
 of hands thru which they pass will keep on "pyramiding" the 
 profit on the Tariff as well as on the goods. 
 
 Or if John Wanamaker did not bring them over, but bought 
 them direct from the importer, how could the importer sell 
 them to John Wanamaker for $89? Aside from what he paid 
 for these goods, he paid $162.64 tariff on them. But if Mr. 
 Wanamaker paid the importer $251.64 for the goods, we know 
 that he did not sell them to the public for $89. Nothing more 
 ignorant or absurd was ever attempted to be palmed off on the
 
 Does the "Foreigner" Pay the Tariff? 27 
 
 credulity of mankind. The proposition that "the foreigner 
 pays the tariff" stultifies the intelligence of any man or woman 
 who makes it. 
 
 Furthermore, in saying that "nine-tenths of the duty is paid by 
 the foreigners," Mr. Fordney did not realize that if what he said 
 were really true, IT WOULD DESTROY His WHOLE SYSTEM 
 OF Protection. It would make all his work in building a High 
 Tariff Wall useless, and his promise of benefiting the farmers 
 and laborers of this country nothing more than empty air. 
 
 Now let me prove this proposition to you. 
 
 Referring to the illustration on page . If the importer 
 did not add the cost of the tariff to the cost of the goods,then 
 they would sell right here in our markets, not at $800, as the 
 artist has indicated, but at only $400 — their foreign cost. In 
 other words, they would be sold just as "cheap" to us as they 
 would if Mr. Fordney and his associates had not spent nearly 
 two years in building their Tariff Wall. 
 
 Therefore, the only way his High Tariff, "the highest in our 
 history," will benefit American Producers is by the "foreigner" 
 not paying the Tariff Tax. Or, rather — to be more exact — by 
 his paying it first, and then ADDING THE COST OF THE TARIFF 
 TO THE Cost of the Goods. 
 
 Here, then, is a gigantic contradiction. Either the importer 
 does add the cost of the tariff to the cost of the goods — or he 
 does not. If he does not,^ then it will yield no "protection." In 
 other words, it would yield revenue for the Government, but 
 none for Private Pockets. That would m.ake it purely a Reve- 
 nue Tariff. But Mr. Fordney has been trying to build a Pro- 
 tective Tariff. Heaven knows he has built it high enough to 
 make it "protect." Now is he about to be foiled in his purpose 
 by having the "foreigner" do the very thing which Fordney 
 says he does do? And yet his work is useless unless the high rates 
 he has levied on Foreign Goods are actually ADDED TO THEIR 
 Cost when sold to American Consumers — thus making pos- 
 sible a parallel increase of price in the competing Home Goods, 
 
 On the other hand, if the cost of the tariff is added to the Cost 
 of the Foreign Goods — and we know that it is even if Mr. Ford- 
 ney does not — in order to make possible a parallel increase of 
 price in the competing Home Goods— THEN THE WHOLE CON- 
 SUMING Public Must Pay the Tariff on Foreign Goods 
 — the higher the tariff rates the more they will have to pay. And 
 this same consuming public will have to pay the "Price increased 
 by the Tariff" on the ten-fold greater volume of Home Goods.
 
 
 
 OJ 9 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 y^^. 
 
 ^'^i
 
 Two Streams of Revenue 29 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Two Streams of Revenue 
 
 Who Gets the Increased Price of the Necessities 
 OF Life Which the Tariff Produces? Our artist has 
 clearly answered the question on the opposite page. You can 
 see the answer with your own eyes. No man on earth can deny 
 the facts there pictured. 
 
 As he has shown us, the answer is this: THE INCREASED 
 Price of Foreign Goods, Due to the Tariff, Goes 
 Directly into the Public Treasury. The Increased 
 Price OF Home Goods, Due to the Tariff on Foreign 
 Goods, Goes into Private Pockets. 
 
 Thus while a Revenue Tariff raises revenue for the Govern- 
 ment, a Protective Tariff raises revenue for Private Pockets — 
 and for these only. In other words, the Revenue Branch of 
 the Tariff goes to the Government. The Protective Branch 
 of the Tariff goes into Private Pockets. Not some of it, but 
 all of it, goes into Private Pockets. Your miind m.ust be abso- 
 lutely satisfied on that point. 
 
 Therefore, when we are considering the matter of raising 
 revenue for the support of the Government, we are dealing 
 wholly with a Revenue Tariff. It is only when we are planning 
 and scheming to raise revenue for the support and enrichment 
 of Private Individuals that we give our thought to a Protective 
 
 Tariff. Get this: THE One and Only Purpose of a 
 Protective Tariff Is To Raise Revenue for Private 
 Pockets. 
 
 Now that part of the increased cost of life's necessities, due 
 to the Tariff, which goes to the Government, is justified. But 
 what is the justification of the part which flows directly into 
 private pockets? By what right are we taxed for the support 
 and enrichment of private individuals? Unless you can justify 
 that, you cannot justify a Protective Tariff. That is what it 
 is for — and all that it is for. 
 
 It is safe to say that the most bigoted, partisan and hide- 
 bound Protectionist is such only because he does not know that 
 the thing for which all his life he has been voting, is simply A 
 System of Private Taxation Publicly Enforced.
 
 30 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 To consider the merits of Protection we must consider it 
 wholly independent of the Government's need for revenue. 
 Aye, more than that. If there were no need for public revenue, 
 if governments had no expenses whatever to be met; still if 
 Protection be right— if certain Producers are "entitled" to get 
 higher prices for their products than they can get in the Open 
 Market — then it would justify levying a tax for the support of 
 these private individuals. But would you favor it? 
 
 You would not only rote against it, but you would fight 
 against it. You would shoulder a musket and swear that you 
 would shed your last drop of blood before such a law should be 
 fastened on you and your children. If you did not, you would 
 be unworthy to be called an American. And yet that is ex- 
 actly what the Protective Branch of the Tariff is for, and all 
 that it is for— To TAX ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE Necessi- 
 ties OF Life in Order to Benefit and Enrich the 
 Privileged Few. 
 
 Public taxation of all the people for the support and enrich- 
 ment of some of the people belongs to a Despotism. But we 
 have perpetuated it in a Republic, and at a rate of taxation 
 never dreamed of in an Absolute Monarchy — because of the 
 fear of a revolution. There is nothing new about taxing the 
 Masses for the enrichment of the Classes. It is as ancient as 
 Theft. 
 
 It is simply the old system of taxing and plundering the peo- 
 ple for the support of the nobility, royal families and Privileged 
 Orders, carried into our modern Twentieth Century Civiliza- 
 tion. The man leaning on the vault in which Labor is shovel- 
 ing his income from the Tariff represents the Privileged Classes 
 of today. For him and his class the whole consuming public 
 is again to be taxed, plundered and impoverished by this new 
 monstrosity of greed and oppression, known as the Fordney- 
 McCumber Tariff. 
 
 Since October 3, 1913, we have had the Underwood Revenue 
 Tariff. It yields but little revenue for private pockets — some 
 but not much. Practically all that it takes out of the pockets 
 of the people, by taxing them on the necessities of life, goes 
 into the public treasury. In 1920, about 61% of all our im- 
 ports came in on the Free List. The average rates at the cus- 
 tom house on the 39% which was taxable was only 16%. Even 
 with these low rates it yielded some "protection," a1 least to 
 cotton and woolen goods. Furthermore, it raised $325,000,000 
 for the Government — more than the new Tariff will yield, un-
 
 Tiro Strea7ns of Revenue 31 
 
 less Trusts and Combines jack up the prices of Home Goods to 
 the Tariff Price Level of Foreign Goods. But it poured but 
 little revenue into the vaults of the Privileged Classes, for 
 whom Protective Tariffs have taxed billions of dollars out of 
 our pockets in the past. 
 
 Such a state of things their greed and cupidity could tolerate 
 no longer. And now comes along Fordney, McCumber and 
 their followers — the agents of that "Invisible Government" 
 maintained by our mighty rich — who declare that this must 
 be changed, that in order for our country to "prosper", a 
 Tariff Wall must be built so high that it will yield some revenue 
 for the government, but vastly more revenue for our Privileged 
 Classes who are always the big contributors to campaign funds. 
 The Fordney-McCumber Tariff stands wholly for the second 
 stream of wealth which flows into private pockets. It is built 
 to multiply a hundred fold the revenue which the Underwood 
 Tariff has been yielding for private pockets. It was built 
 wholly for that increased price of Home Goods, all of which — 
 not some but all— Goes INTO PRIVATE POCKETS. 
 
 No issue could be clearer than this. No fact could be better 
 established in any branch of Science than the fact here estab- 
 lished — namely, that while the increased price of Foreign Goods, 
 due to the Tariff, goes into the Public Treasury, the increased 
 price of Home Goods, due to this same Tariff on Foreign Goods, 
 Goes into Private Pockets. It could not go to the Gov- 
 ernment. The Government has nothing to do with Home Goods 
 
 Your reaction against this fact — the fact that the whole of 
 the Protective Branch of the Tariff goes into private pockets, 
 and is designed wholly for the enrichment of private individuals 
 — depends wholly upon the degree of your personality, wholly 
 upon the extent to which you are a real, red-blooded, 100% 
 American. If the "yellow streak" of the slave, of the servile, 
 the cowardly and the base, is still too strong in your nature; if 
 you have not evolved far enough into the realm of independent 
 personality; then you will go on voting and working and talking 
 for the Protective Branch of the Tariff. 
 
 That is the issue. Now just what is your response? Is it 
 the response of a freeman, of a real American, whether man or 
 woman— or is it the response of a cowering, abject serf and 
 slave? I have done my part as an American citizen by giving 
 you the facts, the undeniable facts. The rest lies wholly with 
 you. What will be your answer at the polls? For the polls 
 are the real test of personality.
 
 32 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The Higher the Rate— The Less the Revenue 
 
 When I call a man's attention to the fact that there has been 
 a tendency to increase the rate with each successive Tariff Bill, 
 he says, "Well, the expenses of the Government are increasing 
 all the time. And so they would have to raise Tariff rates in 
 order to raise more revenue," 
 
 To which I answer: To INCREASE THE TARIFF RATE 
 Does Not Increase the Revenue. On the contrary, it 
 diminishes it. The whole truth is that the higher the tariff 
 rate — after you get beyond a certain point — the less the revenue 
 it raises — for the Government. If the tariff rate is made so 
 high as to becom.e prohibitive — as is the case on scores and 
 hundreds of articles under the Fordney-McCumber Tariff — then 
 it yields no revenue at all. That is, it will yield no revenue for 
 the Government, Tho IT MAY YIELD HUNDREDS OF MILL- 
 IONS FOR Private Pockets. 
 
 And so there is a direct conflict between Protection and 
 Revenue. It is a conflict that exists not simply in the minds 
 of men. IT Is A FACT OF NATURE. It is grounded deep in 
 the industrial order. Each system of Tariff, to the extent that 
 it is applied, excludes the other. This seems to be the law: 
 To THE Extent that Any Tariff Yields Protection, 
 It Does Not Yield Revenue. To the Extent That 
 It Yields Revenue, It Does Not Yield Protection. 
 
 Suppose, for example, that the Tariff on a given product in- 
 creases its cost to the people one hundred million dollars. Let 
 us call this our "Tariff Fund." Now comes the question: 
 What portion of this hundred million dollars will go into the 
 Public Treasury, and what portion will go into Private Pockets? 
 
 The answer is this: If the Tariff be levied on a product not 
 produced in this country, then all of it will go to the Govern- 
 ment. But if it be levied upon a foreign product competing 
 with a similar home product, Then THE DISTRIBUTION V;'lLL 
 Depend on the Part of the Total Demand Which 
 Is Supplied By Each. 
 
 For instance, if three-fourths of the demand for the given 
 product be supplied by foreign producers, then $75,000,000 will
 
 The IligJier the Rate — the Lens the Revenue 33 
 
 go to the Government, and the remaining $25,000,000 of the 
 increased cost of this product to the people — due to the Tariff — 
 will go into the pockets of the American Producers of that com- 
 modity. If only half of the demand is supplied by the foreign 
 product, and the remainder by the competing home product, 
 Then One-half of This Tariff Fund Will CxO As a 
 Bonus to the American Manufacturers and Mine 
 Owners. 
 
 But if the tariff rate should be so high as to largely prohibit 
 the foreign product, so that it supplies only one-fourth of our 
 demand for the particular goods, then only TWENTY-FIVE 
 Millions out of the One Hundred Millions of the in- 
 creased cost to the people — because of the Tariff — would go to 
 the Government. The remaining Seventy-FIVE MILLION 
 Dollars will go into the pockets of the American Producer. 
 
 Go on up with the tariff rate. Make it so high that no For- 
 eign Goods of this particular class can come in. Then of the 
 hundred millions increased cost of this product to the people, 
 because of the Tariff, not a dollar will go to the Government. 
 The whole of it will go into private pockets. AND HERE WE 
 See One of the Methods At Least By Which Mill- 
 ionaires Are Made. 
 
 Thus do high tariff rates, instead of yielding more revenue 
 to the Government, yield less. In fact, there are two condi- 
 tions under which the Tariff will not yield sufficient revenue to 
 the Government. One is to make the rate so low that it is not 
 adequate for the quantity of Foreign Goods coming in. The 
 other is to make it so high that it shuts out all Foreign Goods, 
 thus yielding no revenue at all. And this will be practically 
 true of the Tariff Wall just built, the highest in our history, un- 
 less Trusts and Gentlemen's Agreements enable our manufac- 
 turers to boost the cost of Home Goods to us up to the Tariff 
 Price Level of Foreign Goods. 
 
 This fact annihilates another delusion heard on every hand. 
 When we call attention to the enormous taxation of the people 
 thru the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, some one answers: "But 
 we are a patriotic people and are willing to be taxed to support 
 our government, and ought to be taxed to support it." 
 
 To which I answer: Quite true. As patriotic citizens we 
 ought to be willing to be taxed for the support of the Govern- 
 ment, wisely and economically administered. But this does 
 not all go to the Government — not half of it, or even a fourth 
 of it goes to the Government. In fact, about nine-tenths of
 
 34 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 the hundreds of milhons of dollars which the Fordney-McCum- 
 ber Tariff will tax out of the pockets of the American people 
 will go, not to the support of the Government, but to the sup- 
 port and further enrichment of those whom the Protective 
 Tariffs of the past have already made rich. 
 
 These statements as to the fractional part of the millions the 
 Fordney-McCumber Tariff will filch from our pockets that the 
 Government will get, are far from being fanciful. They 
 are based on the fact that, according to Mr. Fordney himself, 
 only 8% of all that we consume in this country is imported from 
 abroad. The remaining 92% of our consumption we produce 
 directly for ourselves. Therefore, about nine-tenths of the in- 
 creased cost of the necessities of life to us, because of a High 
 Tariff Wall, goes into the pockets of our Tariff Barons — one 
 dollar for the Government, nine for them! No wonder they 
 are willing to contribute so liberally towards the election of the 
 men who made these "blessings" of Protection possible /or them. 
 
 In other words — looking at the grand total of the loot to be 
 gathered in by this colossal Scheme of Plunder — the Fordney- 
 McCumber Tariff, in order to raise some $300,000,000 for the 
 Government, will take from the people every year about ten 
 times this amount, or $3,000,000,000! Of this three billions 
 extorted from the people in the increased cost of the necessities 
 of life, only about $300,000,000 will go to the Government. 
 The remaining $2,700,000,000 will go into Private Pockets. 
 And even these figures are far below those made by the experts 
 of the Treasury. Nothing more heinous and damnable than 
 that, in principle, has ever been enacted in the history of the 
 world. 
 
 Thus are we being plundered, oppressed and impoverished by 
 the inordinate and extortionate rates of the Fordney-McCum- 
 ber Tariff — taxed on practically everything we eat, drink or 
 wear — not for the support of the Government, But FOR THE 
 Support and Enrichment of Private Individuals.
 
 Who Gets It — Employees or Employers? 35 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Who Gets It — Employees or Employers? 
 
 We have thus far established four great and cardinal truths, 
 four vital facts: 
 First: that a tariff "protects" by increasing the cost of those 
 
 material products which mankind must consume in 
 
 order to live. 
 Second: that this increased cost is paid by the consumers of 
 
 these products. 
 Third: that the increased cost of Foreign Goods, due to the 
 
 Tariff, goes into the Public Treasury. 
 Fourth: that the increased cost of Home Goods, due to the 
 
 Tariff on Foreign Goods, goes into Private Pockets. 
 In these four propositions we have a basis for our reasoning 
 as definite and valid as any proposition in Geometry, as con- 
 crete and tangible as any rule of Arithmetic. 
 
 The increased cost of Home Goods — like the increased cost 
 of Foreign Goods — is paid wholly by Home Consumers and 
 goes into Private Pockets. That much is certain. Now comes 
 the question: Whose pockets? In other words: Who gets it? 
 That contented and prosperous-looking gentleman our artist 
 has sketched for us, and into whose large vault labor is shovel- 
 ing the gold which the Tariff has brought him — just who is he? 
 Is he a farmer, blacksmith, banker, manufacturer, coal miner, 
 section hand? Just who is he? 
 
 Perhaps we can get at the matter more directly by asking: 
 Whom does he represent? Whom do you think he represents? 
 This is your problem just as much as it is mine. Think it out 
 for yourself. Do you think our artist designed him to repre- 
 sent labor — the tens of millions of American people who toil 
 and serve for wages and salaries? Or does he represent the 
 employers of labor? He cannot possibly represent both. There- 
 fore, he must represent either the Employing Classes or the 
 Working Classes: Which is it? 
 
 If he represents the Employing Class, then the next question 
 is : Does he represent all who are the employers of labor, or only 
 certain groups of them? And if the latter, then which group 
 of employers does he represent?
 
 36 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 Wealth consists of food, clothing, shelter, luxuries and all 
 other material things which satisfy human desires and minister 
 to human needs. In reference to all these things, and to all 
 other material products which go to make up what we call "the 
 necessities of life," all mankind are Consumers. 
 
 But while all mankind are the Consumers of wealth, and while 
 all forms of wealth are the products of human toil, not all, or 
 even half, of mankind are specifically engaged in the production 
 of Wealth. In other words, while the whole of our 110,000,000 
 people are Consumers, they are not all Producers. 
 
 In reference to the actual production of wealth, the American 
 people — and all other peoples — can be divided into two distinct 
 classes: Producers and Non-Producers. I am not saying that 
 those here classed as Non-Producers — do not earn the food, 
 clothing, shelter, comforts and luxuries which they consume. 
 I am simply saying that they do not produce them. All are 
 Consumers of wealth; only a comparatively few are Producers 
 of wealth. 
 
 The Non-Producers of wealth fall into two classes: (1) 
 Those engaged in various forms of professional service — law- 
 yers, doctors, editors, teachers, preachers, writers, lecturers, 
 musicians, servants, entertainers, nurses, etc. (2) Those not 
 engaged in any "gainful occupation," but living on fixed in- 
 comes derived from various sources. The Non-Producers of 
 wealth constitute over half of our 110,000,000 people. So far 
 as the necessities of life are concerned, they are not Producers 
 but Consumers. Therefore, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff 
 cannot possibly be of any direct benefit to them. They have 
 no products whose price it can increase. To them it means not 
 "protection" but plunder, not a blessing but a burden, by in- 
 creasing the cost of the necessities of life; thus reducing their 
 salaries BY REDUCING THEIR PURCHASING POWER. 
 
 Of the four classes into which Wealth Producers can be logic- 
 ally divided, the millions engaged in merchandising, banking, 
 and general commerce — including both Employers and Em- 
 ployees; and the millions more engaged in railroading and trans- 
 portation, from the President of the company down, cannot 
 possibly receive any direct benefit from Mr. Fordney's High 
 Tariff. 
 
 There are two reasons why it cannot benefit them. First, 
 because the tendency and purpose of all High Tariff Walls is
 
 Who Gets It — Employees or Employers? 37 
 
 to obstruct and prevent trade, while their business is trade, com- 
 merce — Exchange. Second, because they produce no goods 
 whose price the tariff enhances. It increases the price of all 
 the goods and products which they must sell and transport to 
 the people. To that extent it diminishes the amount of goods 
 and products the people will, or can, consume — hence it dimin- 
 ishes the volume of their sales and so of the goods to be trans- 
 ported. 
 
 Furthermore, since it increases the cost of the necessities of 
 life which these millions of our people must consume, both em- 
 ployees and employers, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff means 
 to them also only taxation and plunder. 
 
 A very little reflection of the subject ought to show any in- 
 telligent man or woman that the direct benefits of High Tariffs 
 are necessarily limited exclusively to those WHO PRODUCE 
 Goods to Sell. It must act To the Detriment of 
 Those Who Have Goods to Buy. 
 
 This makes it necessary to divide the 25,000,000 of our people 
 • — according to the census of 1920— directly engaged in the pro- 
 duction of agricultural, manufacturing, forest and mineral 
 products into two classes: Employers and Employees. 
 
 While the millions of workers, of employees, in these two 
 classes of Wealth Producers are directly engaged in the produc- 
 tion of wealth, THEY HAVE NO WEALTH TO SELL. _ They 
 have it to Buy. The only thing they have to sell is their labor 
 —which is not sold in the GOODS MARKET but in the LABOR 
 Market. And for the Labor Market there are no Tariff Walls. 
 They are built exclusively for the GOODS MARKET. 
 
 Therefore, in reference even to the thousands of forms of 
 wealth which their own brain and hand have fashioned they 
 are not sellers but buyers. The products of their toil pass at 
 once out of their hands into the hands of their employers. 
 Hence, commercially speaking, they are not Producers but Con- 
 sumers — consumers even of the very things which they them- 
 selves have produced. 
 
 Thus, the direct beneficiaries of a Tariff Wall are limited 
 wholly to the Employing Class; to the owners of the finished 
 products of labor — and therefore vitally concerned in their 
 Selling Price. To increase the selling price for their com- 
 modities is the purpose, and the only purpose, for which Tariff 
 Walls in all lands are built. 
 
 By thus limiting the field of the possible direct benefits of a 
 Tariff Wall wholly to the above Employing Classes, we have
 
 38 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 reduced the total number of its beneficiaries, even from the 
 25,000,000 with which we started, down to something like 
 5,000,000 — about 5% of the total population. The remaining 
 105,000,000 of the American people are not its beneficiaries but 
 its victims. And it is these five million Employers whom the 
 prosperous-looking gentleman at the vault represents. 
 
 It ought to be observed, in passing, that while President 
 Harding vetoed the Soldier Bonus Bill, because he said it was 
 taxing 110,000,000 people for the benefit of about five millions, 
 he did not veto the Tariff Bill, which will tax these same 110,- 
 000,000 American people for the benefit and enrichment of far 
 less than five million employers. 
 
 The Soldier Bonus would have been no more of a "raid" on 
 the pockets of the people than is the Tariff Bonus. The num- 
 ber to be benefited was far greater, and the amount to be taken 
 out of the pockets of the people would have been vastly less in 
 the end. Surely these Tariff Barons — who for decades have 
 been fattening at the Public Crib — have no such claim on our 
 gratitude, our admiration and our generosity as have the heroes 
 and veterans of the World War. 
 
 These veterans of the late war, whose valor and indomitable 
 courage in battle astounded the world — under the Tariff Bonus 
 just passed — are now to be taxed, and at extortionate rates, 
 on all the necessities of life — on practically everything they and 
 their dependents eat, drink and wear — in order to pay tribute to 
 the ruthless greed of the Profiteers who made colossal fortunes 
 in the war for Democracy while they were fighting in France. 
 
 Returning to the main argument, allow me to repeat that it 
 is not labor, but the employers of labor, into whose pockets 
 flows that huge stream of wealth arising from the increased 
 price of Home Goods, due to a Tariff on Foreign Goods. But 
 this does not include any of the employers of labor in the first 
 class of Non-Producers — those engaged in Professional Occu- 
 pations. Neither does it include any of the employers of labor 
 engaged in railroading. Nor the employers of labor engaged 
 in merchandising, banking, shipping and general commerce. 
 
 The benefits of the Tariff must necessarily be limited wholly 
 to those employers engaged in Farming, Manufacturing, Min- 
 ing, Lumbering, Fisheries, etc. In other words, the "blessings" 
 of a Protective Tariff are limited exclusively to those who em- 
 ploy labor for the direct production of wealth — AND WHO 
 Are the Owners of the Finished Products of their 
 Employees.
 
 Who Gets It — Employees or Employers? 39 
 
 Furthermore, employers of labor engaged in agriculture, as 
 will be shown later on, are not the beneficiaries but the dupes 
 of "Protection." Unfortunately for themselves, for the agri- 
 cultural population, and for the whole consuming public they 
 think they are benefited — and so by their votes have perpetu- 
 ated this colossal Scheme of Plunder. No definition of graft 
 and plunder can be given which will not include that stream of 
 wealth, flowing into Private pockets, which High Tariffs are 
 designed to make possible. 
 
 From this analysis we realize that only about one in twenty 
 of our people, or of any people, can possibly be benefited and 
 enriched by a Protective Tariff. The remaining 105,000,000, 
 and more, of our total population, are not its beneficiaries but 
 its victims. They are not the Producers but the Consumers 
 of the products whose prices the Tariff is designed to increase. 
 
 So far as the Tariff is concerned the interests of Producers 
 and Consumers are in direct conflict. 
 
 It Is Mathematically Impossible for Any Law, or 
 Economic Policy, to Increase the SELLING PRICE 
 FOR THE Producers of Any Given Product, Without 
 At the Same Time, and to the Same Extent, Increas- 
 ing the cost price to its Consumers. 
 
 The Consumer must pay what the Producer gets. There- 
 fore, any law directly to the benefit of the one, by increasing the 
 price of his commodities, must be to the detriment of the other. 
 Here, then, is a fundamental principle as true and universal as 
 any rule of Arithmetic. It holds everywhere, in all lands and 
 climes. And upon this eternal truth of economics we shall base, 
 and have based, all our reasoning. 
 
 What utter absurdity, then, is the claim of Messrs. Fordney 
 and McCumber that by building the highest Tariff Wall in 
 our history they will benefit alike both Producers and Con- 
 sumers. As well say that in sawing a board in two pieces, you 
 can increase the length of one piece without diminishing the 
 length of the other piece; that one child on the end of a see-saw 
 can go up without the other going down; that matter can 
 put in one place without being taken from another. 
 
 These absurd propositions are no more preposterous, no 
 more irrational and contradictory, than the claim of Protec- 
 tionists that they can add hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
 profits of the Manufacturers without taking them from the pur- 
 chasers of their goods. In other words, that they can increase 
 the Selling Price for the Producer without increasing the 
 Cost Price to the Consumers of his products.
 
 40 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 Does the Tariff Protect or Plunder Labor? 
 
 A little reflection on the meaning and significance of the pic- 
 ture on the opposite page cannot fail to result in a most start- 
 ling surprise. In fact, it quite upsets all our ideas and under- 
 standing in reference to the Tariff. We have been told from 
 childhood that the chief reason — and practically the only rea- 
 son — for building our American Tariff Wall is to "protect" 
 American Labor from the competition of the "cheap, pauper 
 laborers" of Europe. 
 
 Of course the very first requirement in order to do this is 
 to keep them out. But when we look at this picture we see that 
 instead of keeping them out, instead of protecting our own 
 wage earners right here at home from their competition, the 
 Tariff Wall is so built that they can pass right thru. 
 
 That Tariff Wall keeps Foreign Goods out, or can keep them 
 out. Why? Because they would compete with the goods of 
 our own manufacturers — the Employing Class. But the 
 hundreds of thousands whose hands produce these Foreign 
 Goods— well, that is different! They can come in — and have 
 come in by the millions. The more that come in the cheaper 
 our manufacturers can get their labor. And so we see them 
 coming thru that mighty Tariff Wall just as if it had been built 
 as a Royal Arch to welcome them. 
 
 Even passing the point of foreign immigration, can a 
 Tariff benefit labor? I pause for a reply. Ask your Congress- 
 man, your Senator — ask anybody. And if anybody can tell 
 you how, please be good enough to send the answer to me. 
 
 The increased cost of Home Goods, due to the Tariff on For- 
 eign Goods, goes into Private Pockets. But what has the 
 laborer to sell upon which there is a Tariff to increase its price? 
 The only thing the wage earners and day laborers of America, 
 or of any other country, have to sell is their labor. BUT THERE 
 Is No Tariff on Labor. Labor is on the Free List. The 
 Tariff is on the products of labor. But the products of labor, 
 alas, do not belong to the laborers. 
 
 The Products of Labor Pass Out of the Hands 
 THAT Produce Them Into the Hands of Their Em-
 
 Does the Tariff Protect or Plunder Labor? 41 
 
 PLOYERS. And SO it is not the employee, but the employer, 
 who has the products to sell which the Tariff increases — and 
 often doubles — in price. Again we see that it is not the em- 
 ployees, the wage earners, but the employers — THE OWNERS 
 OF THE Finished Products— who can possibly be benefited 
 and enriched by a Protective Tariff. 
 
 Tariff Walls in all lands are for the exclusive benefit and 
 "protection" of the Goods Market — ^the market in which The 
 Interests sell all their products. The only thing which labor 
 has to protect its market are Labor Unions. And so it is not 
 the Wages of Labor But the Cost of Goods that the 
 Tariff is designed to increase, or can increase. 
 
 In other words, The System is this — Free Trade for Labor: 
 Protection for the products of labor. What is true of labor in 
 this country under Protective Tariffs is true in every other. 
 Protection is nothing less than that pernicious and loathsome 
 thing, called Class Legislation. It is legislation for the benefit 
 and enrichment of certain groups of the Employing Class, at 
 the expense and to the detriment of the Working Classes. Such 
 a "policy" does not belong to Democracies but to Despotisms. 
 
 No Tariff Wall, tho it tower to the skies, can possibly benefit 
 the millions of wage earners who toil on farms and in forests, 
 factories, quarries, fisheries and mines. Why not? Because 
 they have none of the things which their own toil produces to 
 sell. They do not own them and never get possession of them. 
 In fact. They Have Them to Buy. Therefore, every in- 
 crease which the Tariff makes in the cost of the products of 
 labor, by so much decreases the wages EVEN OF THE LABOR- 
 ERS Who Produce Them. 
 
 Protectionists assure us that the manufacturer, in return for 
 all these manifold opportunities for -price-fixing offered him by 
 the Fordney-McCumber Tariff— out of the gratitude of his lov- 
 ing heart — will voluntarily increase the ivages of his employees, 
 at the same time that he is increasing the price of his product to 
 the consuming public. 
 
 Even if the manufacturers of this country should be so moved 
 by the unparalleled generosity of Fordney & McCumber in 
 taking money out of the pockets of the people to go into their 
 pockets, as to voluntarily increase the wages of their employees, 
 what are the chances that they would increase wages as much 
 above the NORMAL MARKET PRICE OF LABOR as the Tariff 
 enabled them to increase the price of their products above THE 
 Normal Market Price? What are the chances that they
 
 42 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 will do this? A thousand to one that they will not. And so 
 labor will be the loser. The increase in their wages would not 
 be equal to the increase in their cost of living! 
 
 I have seen our coal miners in Pennsylvania again and again 
 strike for higher wages, for increased pay — and get it. But 
 they had to buy in the Company Store. And so when they 
 settled the strike and returned to work, they found that prices 
 in the Company Store had been increased even more than their 
 wages. And that is the Tariff Game. We all must buy at the 
 "Company Store." They set the prices. We must pay them 
 — or freeze and starve! 
 
 In reference to all these fanciful and delusive claims and 
 "arguments" about employers voluntarily raising wages, there 
 is one important distinction to be noted : While the Tariff en- 
 ables its beneficiaries to pay higher wages — far higher — it does 
 not compel them to pay higher wages. And it is that distinc- 
 tion between "enabling" to do this, and "compelling" to do 
 this, which made it possible for Carnegie and scores of other 
 "protected" manufacturers to retire from the business with 
 their millions, some of them with their tens of millions, and a 
 few of them with their hundreds of millions. That was what 
 did it. 
 
 Nor can a Protective Tariff increase the amount of employ- 
 ment. It never gave labor a job, and never will — except that 
 indicated in the picture of shoveling the gold into the Tariff 
 Baron's vaults. It can change the direction of the employment, 
 but it cannot increase the amount of employment. How could it? 
 
 Does increasing the price of woolen goods and cotton goods 
 increase or diminish the amount of these goods which the people 
 will buy? And so of all other goods and products. Answer the 
 question for yourself. The only result of increasing the cost of 
 all these things is to create a "buyers' strike" among the people. 
 Thus does the Tariff diminish the demand for labor instead of 
 increasing it. There is less employment instead of more. 
 
 Furthermore, a Protective Tariff reduces the wages and sal- 
 aries of all employees in all lines of industry. How do they do 
 this? By Reducing Their Purchasing Power. When 
 President Harding on Sept. 21, 1922, signed the Fordney-Mc- 
 Cumber Tariff Bill, he automatically reduced the wages and 
 salaries of every man and woman working in office, store, forest, 
 factory or mine, and of the whole agricultural population BY 
 Reducing the Amount of the Necessities of Life 
 Which Their Incomes Will Purchase.
 
 Does the Tariff Protect or Plunder Labor? 43 
 
 No man or woman who will really think upon the subject 
 can deny this proposition. In what a confused and pitiful 
 situation, then, is the mind of American Labor. A proposal 
 to reduce wages in any industry 5% — or 10% at the most — 
 causes labor to go on a strike. They make the very just claim 
 that they have the right to a living wage. And they have. 
 Every toiler should have a living wage — AND SOMETHING 
 More. 
 
 On the other hand, apparently scores of labor unions peti- 
 tioned Congress to hasten the enactment of the present mon- 
 strosity of oppression and plunder, this embodiment into law 
 of the unbridled greed and rapacity of the race, known as the 
 Fordney-McCumber Tariff. Thus does labor appeal to force 
 against a proposition to reduce wages even 5%, but it eagerly 
 votes for a proposition which will reduce its wages in many 
 cases 10 times this amount — By REDUCING THEIR PUR- 
 CHASING Power. 
 
 When all the facts in the case have been presented to Ameri- 
 can Labor as to the real meaning of High Tariffs to all who toil, 
 I have the utmost confidence in the conclusion which the tens 
 of millions of employees, both men and women, will reach and 
 in the results which will follow at the polls. 
 
 Nevertheless, the fact largely remains that this colossal 
 scheme of compelling labor to sell under Free Trade and buy 
 back under Protection — so cunningly devised to plunder and 
 impoverish all who work for salary or wages — American labor 
 has supported by its vote decade after decade. In the hands 
 of labor there is the greatest weapon that Civilization can give 
 — the Ballot. Whether or not the workers of America will 
 continue to vote for the enrichment of the few thru the taxation 
 and enslavement of themselves and their families remains to 
 be seen.
 
 44 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 The Farmer and the Manufacturer 
 
 Having eliminated all possibility of day laborers, or any 
 other classes of employees, being the possible beneficiaries of the 
 gigantic piece of Class Legislation just enacted at Washington, 
 let us now turn to the five million employers of labor who are 
 possible beneficiaries of the Tariff, and see what are the chances 
 of either farm owners or farm tenants to be among the Favored 
 Few into whose pockets the Tariff pours its golden stream. 
 
 Between farmers and manufacturers, so far as the Tariff is 
 concerned, there is not unity but conflict of interesi. It is true 
 that the products of both the farmer and the manufacturer are 
 now highly "protected." Up until 1883, but few products of 
 the farm were favored by Tariffs. The great revolt of the 
 farmers of the West against the oppression and plunder of High 
 Tariffs had its beginning about that time. 
 
 Then the manufacturers of the East got a brilliant idea: 
 "Why not give the farmer a tariff on all his products? Of 
 course it will not benefit him, but he will tJiink that it does. 
 His vote will benefit and perpetuate our system." Then it was 
 that taxes were levied on practically all farm products. In the 
 Tariff of 1883, "protective" rates were levied on wheat, oats, 
 barley, hay, rice, corn, potatoes, hogs, cattle, flour, onions, 
 bacon and ham. And that "policy" has been continued ever 
 since. The rates in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff on the 
 Farm Products are as high, and in some few instances higher, 
 than those of any previous "protective" measure. 
 
 All the wealth of the world comes out of the ground. Of the 
 four classes of Wealth Producers engaged in extracting wealth 
 from the earth— farmers, miners, lumberman and fishermen — 
 the farmer takes the lead. He produces all the essential food 
 products which keep humanity from starving, and all the raw 
 materials for the fabrics which clothe them. Nevertheless, 
 while the farmer thus produces the raw materials which feed 
 and clothe the world, nine-tenths of all that he himself con- 
 sumes he must buy. 
 
 True it is he produces the raw materials of much that he 
 consumes. But even if he produced them all, their manu-
 
 The Farmer and the Manufacturer 45 
 
 factured form he must buy. All his clothing for himself and 
 family, all his furniture and fixtures, all the materials for his 
 house, all his harness, machinery, chemicals, oils and paints; 
 all his nails, chains, fencing and other hardware — all these mul- 
 titudinous things he must buy. Even a large part of all the 
 foods for his live stock he must use in manufactured form. 
 These, too, he must buy. 
 
 In short, aside from milk, butter, eggs, garden products and 
 a portion of their meat, OUR 40,000,000 PEOPLE ON AMERI- 
 CAN Farms Must Buy Practically As Much of All 
 That They Consume As Do the Dwellers in Towns 
 AND Cities. And they must buy from manufacturers. In 
 fact, it is estimated that they buy 46% of all goods manufac- 
 tured in this country. Now all these manufactured goods and 
 products will be increased in price at an appalling rate by the 
 Fordney-McCumber Tariff. Thus are the people of the coun- 
 try, no less than the people of the city, the objects of the extor- 
 tions and plunder of Protective Tariffs. It is out of their pockets 
 that must come the billions of tribute which Protection pours 
 into the pockets of our Tariff Barons. 
 
 Protectionists claim that while farmers are the Consumers of 
 certain products, they are also the Producers of other products. 
 Therefore, that what they lose by the increased cost which the 
 Tariff adds to the things they must buy, will be fully made up 
 to them in the increased price which it will give them for the 
 things they have to sell. 
 
 It is quite true that they are both Consumers ajid Producers. 
 But what are the chances, the probabilities — or even the possi- 
 bilities — that the Tariff will increase the price of the things 
 they have to sell as much as it will increase the cost of the 
 things they have to buy? Well, the chances are at least a 
 thousand to one that farmers will not get "equal protection," 
 or anything approaching equal benefits, with the manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 In the first place, the rates on his products — with the possible 
 exception on raw wool and an occasional item like nuts, citrus 
 fruits, etc. — are not nearly so high as they are on the hardware, 
 woolen goods, cotton goods, clothing, women's and children's 
 dress goods, and hundreds of things which the farmer must buy. 
 Besides, but few farmers produce either wool or citrus fruits. 
 And so the market in which the farmer buys is more highly "pro- 
 tected" by tariff rates than the market in which he sells. That 
 is the first jolt.
 
 46 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 It is a mathematical impossibility for any law to give an 
 equal increase of price to the products of both the farm and the 
 factory. All the chances are against it — and the farmer stands 
 to lose. To levy THE SAME TARIFF Rate on the products 
 of both farmers and manufacturers will not make the same in- 
 crease of price to the public possible. 
 
 For example, a tariff rate of 100% on all products would en- 
 able the producer of most manufactured products to increase 
 their price fully 100%. But it would not enable the Producer 
 of certain agricultural products to increase his price even 50%. 
 In a big majority of cases it would not enable him to increase 
 his price at all. 
 
 Therefore, even if it were true that farm products are "pro- 
 tected" equally with the products of the factory — which they 
 are not — what would be gained by our agricultural classes? 
 Their only hope would be to come out even. And the chances 
 are a million to one that they would not. THE ONLY WAY 
 THE People of Any Class Can Be Benefited By a 
 Tariff Wall Is for It to Increase the Price of the 
 Things they Have TO SELL, Without Increasing the 
 Cost of the Things They Have TO BUY. 
 
 But since the price of the hundreds and thousands of things 
 the farmer has to buy were given higher rates, and will be in- 
 creased vastly more in price by the Tariff, than his own pro- 
 ducts can be, again we see why the American farmer always 
 has lost, and always will lose, by Protective Tariffs. 
 
 On June 11, 1909, Senator Cummins of Iowa — who voted 
 against the Fordney-McCumber Tariff — said on the floor of the 
 Senate: "I know that my friend from North Dakota (Mr. Mc- 
 Cumber) does not agree with me in respect to these things, but 
 I do not believe that we in Iowa receive any direct benefit for the 
 400,000,000 bushels of corn that we raise every year; I do not 
 believe that we receive any direct benefit from the 8,000,000 or 
 10,000,000 hogs that we market every year; I do not believe 
 that of the $700,000,000 of agricultural products that we pour 
 every year into the channels of trade protection advanced the 
 
 prices of a tithe of them We will supply this year the 
 
 people of the United States and of the world with a product 
 that will surpass in value $700,000,000 and IT Is IDLE FOR 
 Even an Enthusiast to Assert that the Price of 
 These Products Is Directly Affected By the Pro- 
 tective Tariff."
 
 The Farmer and the Manufacturer 47 
 
 Therefore, no Tariff however high, can benefit the 40,000,000 
 of our agricultural population. They are the victims of its 
 ravenous cupidity and greed — not its beneficiaries. When the 
 American farmer comes to realize this apalling truth, this un- 
 deniable fact, he will cease to be any longer the dupe of the de- 
 lusive hope of getting prosperity out of a system designed for 
 his own plunder. 
 
 I commend to the farmers of our great country the foresight 
 and wisdom of the following extract from an article in the 
 "Western Farmer" of Spokane, appearing soon after the enact- 
 ment of the Underwood Tariff, Oct. 8, 1913. It was written by 
 the late C. B. Kegley, Master of the Washington State Grange, 
 and a man with a vision. He said : 
 
 "As a system, Protection is doomed. If we, the farmers, 
 stand for it, we shall lose our share, and the public believing 
 that it has secured relief from the burden of living cost, will 
 stop there — causing whatever of loss occurs to fall all upon the 
 farmer. 
 
 "Consequently, the business-like course open is for the 
 farmers to fight, not to continue the system, but to smash it. 
 Fight, not to hold his own questionable benefits of the Tariff on 
 grain and live stock and wool, BUT TO STRIP THE COATS OF 
 Privilege off the Back of Every Business Engaged 
 IN Supplying the Necessaries of Life."
 
 o 
 o 
 a. 
 
 tu 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 •>• 
 
 5^ 
 
 ■a' 
 
 4P 
 o 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 4? 
 
 
 •o 
 
 
 <_) 
 
 •< 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 5? 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 HP* 
 
 ^ 
 r- 
 
 Ci 
 
 Go 
 
 o 
 
 tS 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 v3 
 
 o 
 
 6 
 
 Q 
 UJ 
 
 -J 
 O 
 h 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 *> 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 i2 
 
 55: 
 
 !2 
 
 5~ 
 
 ^ 
 
 t- 
 
 5«^ 
 
 Cv 
 
 v3 
 
 
 12 
 
 3~ 
 
 ^ 
 
 :r- 
 
 o 
 
 Q. 
 Uj 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / U 
 
 ^ 
 
 Oq 
 ^ 
 
 ey- 
 es 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 X 
 
 Z) 
 
 Q 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 be 
 
 bo 
 
 V9 
 
 ^ 
 
 io 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 (X. 
 
 l> 
 
 c^ 
 
 C9 
 
 !>. 
 
 to 
 
 — 1 
 
 o 
 
 CL 
 
 u 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ■3- 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 ^ 
 
 5^ 
 
 
 CO^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 d 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 v^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 ■J 
 
 ? 
 
 cV 
 
 ^ 
 
 W 
 
 -J 
 
 — 
 
 <^ 
 
 lO 
 
 sfl 
 
 t> 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 ZH 
 
 c>/ 
 
 fO 
 
 :t- 
 
 ^ 
 
 «>- 
 
 bo 
 
 cr 
 
 6
 
 The Farmer As an Exporter 49 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 The Farmer as an Exporter 
 
 On the opposite page is a table showing the simultaneous rise 
 and fall of the price of wheat in Chicago, Minneapolis, Duluth, 
 Winnipeg, Toledo, Kansas City and Liverpool. The relative 
 prices are given for the first twenty days of July, 1922. The 
 figures were furnished me by the Produce Exchange of New 
 York. The Liverpool prices are made according to the rate of 
 exchange for each day, and so are exact. Study this table, 
 think out its meaning, and you will know vastly more about the 
 Law of the Market Price than you ever conceived of before. I 
 submit it to the thought and intelligence of my readers without 
 further comment. And in this we have the proper atmosphere 
 for the opening of this chapter. 
 
 There are two general reasons why even the highest Pro- 
 tective Tariff cannot increase the price of things the farmer has 
 to sell to the same extent that it increases the price of the manu- 
 factured products he has to buy — even if it increases them at 
 all. In fact, there are two general reasons why it will not in- 
 crease the selling price of his products. 
 
 The first is the undeniable fact that our farmers, as a class, 
 are our greatest exporters, producing nearly one-half of our 
 total exports to foreign lands. Therefore, they must sell in 
 the Open Market of the world, with prices fixed at Liverpool, 
 England, an international market — the international market 
 of the world for farm products. They must sell in competition 
 with the farm products of all the nations of the earth. No 
 Tariff Wall can keep their competitors out of that market. IT 
 Is THE Price of Farm Products in that Interna- 
 tional Market Which Determines their Price in 
 Our Own Market. 
 
 Our total exports for 1920 were $8,080,480,821. This is the 
 largest aggregation of exports sent out from its shores by any 
 country on earth. Of these exports the products of the farm 
 alone amounted to $3,230,101,784. This is approximately 40% 
 of the total. If to this we add the raw materials which go 
 directly into manufactured products for export, and the price 
 of which in the international market necessarily react on the
 
 50 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 price of the farm products at home, we then would have over 
 half of our exports supplied by our agricultural population. 
 Of breadstuffs alone we exported $1,079,107,701. The fol- 
 lowing table shows something of the farmer's stake abroad. 
 
 IMPORTS EXPORTS 
 
 Barley (none) $ 27,165.189 
 
 Corn $ 9,296,991 26,543,681 
 
 Cotton 138,743,702 1,136,408,916 
 
 Eggs 617,909 13,569,144 
 
 Meat and Dairy Products 64,274,457 544,074,060 
 
 Oats 6,549,111 12,338,104 
 
 Oat Meal & Rolled Oats (none) 3,891,346 
 
 Rice 14,085,728 37,469,175 
 
 Rye (none) 122,239,537 
 
 Tar, Pitch & Turpentine (none) 34,503,389 
 
 Tobacco 81,630,011 245,532,069 
 
 Wheat 75,359,220 596,975,396 
 
 Wheat-Flour 3,669,300 224,472,448 
 
 It was said over and over again by Mr. Fordney and his fol- 
 lowers that they propose to protect and defend the American 
 farmer in his Home Market and shield him from the "dumping" 
 of the farm products of the world into his Home Market. From 
 all this we would infer that the farmers of all the rest of the 
 earth are eager for the chance to pounce upon our markets and 
 "unload "their wheat, corn, oats and flour on us. In alarm- 
 ing tones they tell us that with the very first opportunity given, 
 the farmers of other countries would so completely "flood" our 
 markets as to supply all our wants in food products, and in all 
 other products now furnished us by our own farmers — thus 
 leaving our own farmers without a market! 
 
 Since 1913, however, there has been a very low tariff rate 
 even on the "protected" products of the farm, under the Under- 
 wood Tariff; while wheat, flour, com, hogs, cattle, bacon and 
 ham have been on the Free List — no tariff on them at all. 
 
 Here, then was their opportunity. For eight years our ports 
 were wide open for the farm products of the world to come in 
 and "flood" our markets. Did they come in? Did those 
 crushing and appalling things happen which Messrs. Fordney 
 and McCumber said would happen? They did not. Suppose 
 that the thing they prophesied had actually happened, suppose 
 that the whole of the Canadian export, instead of going to Liver- 
 pool, had been unloaded on the mills at Minneapolis and else- 
 where, and ground into flour by American labor. 
 
 Would anything serious have resulted in the price of Ameri- 
 can wheat? Nothing that any rational mind can picture.
 
 The Farmer As an Exporter 51 
 
 Why? Because the Liverpool price is always higher than our 
 own market price. The more of our wheat which Canadian 
 wheat "displaced" at Minneapolis, the more wheat we could 
 have exported to Liverpool, at the higher price. Over there is 
 an unlimited demand. For instance, our combined exports of 
 wheat for 1919 and 1920 was greater than the total Canadian 
 production of wheat. We exported in those two years, 507,- 
 266,128 bushels. Canada's total production for those two 
 years was only 456,449,700 bushels. Our total production for 
 those two years was 1,855,703,000 bushels. 
 
 With that Liverpool market calling loudly for the excess pro- 
 ductions of both countries, what does it matter as to whether 
 Canada ships her wheat to Liverpool, and so "displaces" so 
 much of our wheat there, or ships it to Minneapolis, thus re- 
 leasing so much more of our wheat for the Liverpool market, 
 averaging a dollar a bushel more than is paid at Minneapolis. 
 
 We must remember also that the imports and exports in 1920 
 occurred under this same so-called "free trade" Underwood 
 Tariff, and before the farmers Emergency Tariff was enacted. 
 Furthermore, since its enactment, no man can furnish any 
 valid evidence to show that it raised the general level of the 
 price of farm products one single penny. 
 
 The builders of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Wall would 
 have us believe that this is the first time that "protection" has 
 been given to the products of the farm. The truth is, as stated be- 
 fore, that the protection of farm products began as far back as 
 1883. On wheat it put a tariff rate of 20 cents a bushel. The Mc- 
 Kinley Tariff reduced it to 15 cents, the Cleveland Tariff raised it 
 to 20 cents, the Dingley increased it to 25 cents, and the Payne- 
 Aldrich Tariff continued this rate. 
 
 The Underwood Tariff put wheat and a few other farm pro- 
 ducts on the Free List. And yet the excess of farm exports 
 over imports continued in approximately the same proportion 
 as when they were under High Tariffs. Nor is that all. The 
 prices of farm products, like the wages of labor, were higher 
 under the Underwood Revenue Tariff than ever before in our 
 history. 
 
 There can be but one conclusion, and that conclusion is that 
 the American Farmer, like the American Laborer, sells his pro- 
 duct in an Open Market and buys back the necessities of life 
 in a Closed Market — sells under Free Trade: buys under Pro- 
 tection. If that would not impoverish and bankrupt any class 
 of people on earth, I would like to know what would.
 
 Can the Farmers Form a Trust? 53 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Can the Farmers Form a Trust? 
 
 In reply to the undeniable fact that the American farmer 
 produces an excess of products over the requirements of the 
 Home Market, and is an exporter, it may be said that, among 
 other manufacturers, the United States Steel Corporation is 
 also an exporter, selling its product in every country on earth. 
 Quite true. But this gigantic corporation is a Trust. And 
 back of it also is a monopoly of the raw materials in the earth 
 from which all iron and steel are made. It is the largest Indus- 
 trial Combine on earth, overshadowing even the Federal Gov- 
 ernment at Washington. Hence it is in position to take full 
 advantage of a Tariff Wall. 
 
 It is the fact of its being a Trust which enables it to sell in 
 the Home Market — to the farmers and the rest of us — at 
 monopolistic prices, and then to sell to the people of other nations 
 at the Open Market price — often at only about half of what is 
 charged here for the same thing. Charles M. Schwab once 
 admitted that when steel rails were selling in this country at 
 $28 a ton, they were selling in Europe at $20 a ton. And the 
 same fact holds of scores of "protected" products. THEY 
 Are Sold Cheaper Abroad Than at Home. 
 
 This is the impregnable position of that huge Industrial 
 Octopus, called Monopoly, which our artist has sketched for 
 us on the opposite page. The Tariff shields him from foreign 
 competition, the Trust shields him from home competition — 
 and his Monopoly is complete. 
 
 But the farmers of this country, whether for good or ill, can- 
 not form a Trust. They are too numerous. And they are too 
 poor. The railroad and the Trust have seen to that. THEY 
 Compete With Each Other. This competition they can- 
 not prevent. Manufacturers and mine monopolists can pre- 
 vent competition among themselves by forming Trusts — and 
 thus are able to keep prices up and take full advantage of the 
 "protection" given them. 
 
 So far as a general statement can be made as to the law deter- 
 mining which Producers can be benefited by High Tariffs and 
 which cannot, it would seem to be this: Only Those Pro-
 
 Can the Farmers Form a Trust? 55 
 
 DUCERS OF Wealth Who Are Able to so Combine 
 Their Interests As to Form Pools, Trusts and Gen- 
 tlemen's Agreements— Thus Preventing Competi- 
 tion Among Themselves— Can Be Benefited to 
 Any Appreciable Extent By a Protective Tariff. 
 
 Thus are Trusts and Monopolies indispensable to Producers 
 in order to get the whole of that increased cost of Home Goods 
 which the Tariff on Foreign Goods makes possible. But the 
 farmers cannot form a Trust and so cannot be benefited to any 
 appreciable extent — if at all — by High Tariffs. But while 
 Protective Tariffs cannot possibly be of any general benefit to 
 our farming population, they can be, and have been, the cause of 
 Tremendous Detriment and Financial Loss to Them. 
 Practically all economists are in absolute agreement on that 
 point. 
 
 They are a detriment to the farmer in two ways: First, the 
 Tariff always has increased, and always will increase, the cost 
 of the manufactured products he has to buy far more than it 
 will increase the price of the things he has to sell — even assuming 
 that it does increase them at all. That makes a continuous 
 financial drain on the farming population of hundreds of mill- 
 ions annually. It has been going on for decades and genera- 
 tions, and has taken its billions out of the pockets of the Ameri- 
 can farmer. 
 
 Therefore, when the Underwood Revenue Tariff put wheat, 
 wool and other farm products, on the Free List, it took abso- 
 lutely nothing from the farmer — except the delusion that he 
 was being prospered by the very thing that was plundering him! 
 
 On the other hand, when the Underwood Revenue Tariff put 
 agricultural machinery, binder twine, cotton bagging, oils and 
 scores of other products on the Free List, and cut in half the 
 tariff rates on woolen goods, cotton goods, clothing, women's and 
 children's dress goods, and all the other things the farmer must 
 buy. It Gave the Farmer the First Beneficial Legisla- 
 tion He Has Had In Years. 
 
 There is a second way in which a Protective Tariff is a detri- 
 ment to American farmers. No people, producing an excess 
 of farm products, can export them, unless the imports coming 
 back are largely the products of the factory. That is, in order 
 for them to buy our farm products they must be able to sell us 
 the products of their factories. 
 
 The illustration on the opposite page speaks volumes both to 
 the millions of our farming population and to the millions more
 
 56 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 working on salary and wages in the towns and cities of the na- 
 tion. Look it over. Think it out for yourself. It means low 
 wages, tragic decline in price of farm products, industrial stag- 
 nation and bankruptcy. And just to the extent that the new 
 Tariff Wall obstructs our trade with the world, it will produce 
 these effects. In other words. To THE EXTENT THAT THE 
 fordney-mccumber tariff keeps foreign goods 
 Out It Will Keep Home Goods In. 
 
 Therefore, when tariff rates on manufactured products are so 
 high as to be prohibitive — which they are on scores of articles 
 under the Fordney-McCumber Tariff — and so keep Foreign 
 Goods out, then the hundreds of millions in Foreign Lands can- 
 not buy from our farmers; because they cannot export their 
 own products to pay for them — when a Tariff Wall keeps them 
 out. This is exactly what happened in 1919. Europe was un- 
 able to buy our farm products even though her millions were 
 starving — because they had nothing to give in exchange. The 
 result was that our farmers had to dump their enormous surplus 
 into their own home markets — and the bottom dropped out. 
 We barely escaped the greatest industrial crash in our history. 
 
 It is now proposed by means of an artificial barrier, known as 
 the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, To Do EXACTLY THE SAME 
 Thing. They have the goods to send in but the Tariff Wall 
 is designed to keep them out. The American farmer has yet 
 to realize the great economic truth that THE SAME TARIFF 
 Wall Which Keeps Foreign Goods Out Keeps Home 
 Goods In. 
 
 When at length the light breaks, the American farmer will 
 feel the stir of the Heroic Spirit of '76, and will declare that 
 since he cannot be benefited by a Tariff Wall around his pro- 
 duct, neither shall the manufacturer of the East be further en- 
 riched by a Tariff Wall; that since he must sell his products in 
 the Open Market of the World in competition with the products 
 of all lands and nations, so likewise shall the American manu- 
 facturer sell to him in the Open Market, and in competition 
 with the Goods and Products of all other lands and nations. 
 Then, and not till then, will come a new order of things for the 
 American Farmer.
 
 Does the hnportation of Foreign Goods, Etc. 57 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Does the Importation of Foreign Goods Throw Our 
 Own Labor Out of Employment? 
 
 That question goes to the very heart of the whole Tariff issue. 
 Everywhere there exists a positive fear and dread, amounting 
 to actual terror, at the very thought of having large quantities 
 of Foreign Goods brought into the country. It is a universal 
 fear — a universal delusion. Furthermore, you get exactly the 
 same reason for this fear in China or Germany, Russia or Italy, 
 France or Mexico, Canada or the United States. The ancient 
 fear of the invasion of foreign armies has been transferred to the 
 fear and terror of an "invasion" of foreign goods. 
 
 This belief is based on the supposition that there is a direct 
 conflict, a positive antagonism, between Importing and Pro- 
 ducing — a conflict so direct that when either goes up the other 
 must of necessity go down: the more goods you produce in 
 your own country, the less you will import from foreign coun- 
 tries — the more you import from foreign countries, the less you 
 will produce at home. In other words, to the extent that any 
 people import they will not produce. 
 
 The basis of this world-wide superstition that the importation 
 of Foreign Goods throws home labor out of employment seems 
 perfectly reasonable, provided you see only immediate results 
 and are incapable of thinking back to see what is necessary, 
 absolutely necessary, in order that you can import Foreign 
 Goods. Or if you assume that we should produce everything 
 we consume— No MATTER HOW GREAT THE ECONOMIC 
 Loss IN Doing It — then the conclusion will seem perfectly 
 valid to you. 
 
 In other words, it requires but little intelligence to believe 
 that foreign importations throw our own labor out of employ- 
 ment. But it does require complex thinking to be able to see 
 that it does 7wt throw home labor out of employment, but 
 gives employment to home labor instead. And yet that is the 
 conclusion which a high order of intelligence must reach. 
 
 The primary facts in the case are undisputed. For example, 
 if you buy all your shoes abroad you will not patronize our own 
 makers of shoes. If you buy all your clothing abroad — that
 
 58 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 is, from foreign producers — you will not give employment to 
 the factory workers in our own mills. In short, if you buy 
 everything abroad then you will buy nothing at home. That 
 much is certain. 
 
 But even if you did all this, and if every man, woman and 
 child in America did likewise — a thing impossible — would this 
 diminish the amount of wealth actually produced in this coun- 
 try? Most certainly not. Would the buying abroad of abso- 
 lutely everything we consume throw our own laborers out of em- 
 ployment? Not a single laborer. On the contrary, if this 
 impossible thing were done according to the Laws of Trade — 
 namely, To BUY WHERE You Can Buy the Cheapest, 
 AND Sell Where You Can Sell the Dearest— it 
 would increase both the volume of our annual production 
 of wealth And the Wages of American Labor. 
 
 What, then, is the source of the delusion that the importation 
 of Foreign Goods diminishes by so much the production of 
 Home Goods, and so throws labor out of employment? It 
 arises, primarily, from the use of the word "buy". There is no 
 such thing as buying. We do not "buy" Foreign Goods. We 
 trade for them. Foreign peoples do not "buy" from us. They 
 trade with us — exchanging goods for goods. They can get our 
 goods in no other way. And the only possible way that we can 
 get their goods is to trade our goods for them. 
 
 In fact, there really is no such thing as Buying and Sell- 
 ing even among ourselves. In the ultimate analysis, what 
 takes place is not buying but trading. Always and every- 
 where what we call buying and selling, consists in the exchange 
 of service for service. Money merely facilitates the exchange 
 of these services. But trade does not eliminate production 
 among ourselves. We still must produce something, or render 
 some service, to exchange for the money with which we 
 "buy." And the same principle holds of our consumption 
 of Foreign Goods. And yet the old delusion continues and is 
 the basis of the whole superstition of Protection. 
 
 For example. Congressman Gernard of Pennsylvania, speak- 
 ing in the House, July 14, 1921, said: "We dare not be deceived 
 with the thought that America can open wide her gates to the 
 markets of the world without destroying and endangering her 
 own industrial health." Congressman Graham of Illinois, later, 
 said : "Imports were flooding in to us from across the seas, TAK- 
 ING the Place of the manufactured articles which hereto- 
 fore our higher salaried American workmen had been making."
 
 Does the Importation of Foreign Goods, Etc. 59 
 
 Senator Smoot of Utah gave one of the clearest statements 
 of this colossal superstition, this gigantic delusion, that I have 
 ever seen. On May 20, 1914, he said: "Every dollar of im- 
 portation Takes the Place of a dollar's worth of goods 
 manufactured in this country." 
 
 Now let us face the facts. Is it true that importations take 
 the place of production at home? Is it true that the one is a 
 substitute for the other? 
 
 Members of Congress never tire in talking about what they 
 call the "free trade" Cleveland Tariff, and the awful flood of 
 Foreign Goods that was dumped on our shores. But I find that 
 under the McKinley Tariff, 1892, '93, '94— we imported $72,- 
 372,955 more goods than we did in the three years under the 
 Cleveland Tariff— 1895, '96, '97. Now if the foreign impor- 
 tation of goods throws American laborers out of employ- 
 ment, the Cleveland Low Tariff did far less damage than the 
 McKinley High Tariff. 
 
 Looking further I find that under the Cleveland Tariff we 
 imported $16,000,000 worth of iron and steel, while under the 
 McKinley Tariff, for the same length of time, we imported 
 $53,000,000 worth. Under the Dingley Tariff we imported 
 $12,191,198,006 worth of foreign goods. Under the four years 
 of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff we imported $6,550,446,703 worth 
 of foreign goods. 
 
 Taking the Protectionist theory that "foreign importations 
 throw American labor out of employment", how can they 
 justify these huge importations under high tariffs. Or do they 
 claim that importations of foreign goods throw labor out of 
 employment only when it comes in under a Democratic Tariff? 
 If their theory is true, then we should not have Tariff Walls 
 but an absolute embargo. But is it true, or is it absolutely 
 false? 
 
 Now that we have started to reason on the subject, let us 
 follow ir through to the end. Does the importation of Foreign 
 Goods throw our own labor out of employment? The answer 
 to that question is this: it does provided we can import without 
 exporting. If, on the other hand, we must export to the full 
 amount of our imports — dollar for dollar — then the proposition 
 is utterly false. It is not a rational theory but a delusion, a 
 gigantic superstition. No superstition of the Dark Ages could 
 have been more irrational, crude or ignorant.
 
 Can We Import Without Exporting? 61 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 Can We Import Without Exporting? 
 
 Our artist, rising to a sublime vision of International Trade — 
 encompassing the whole earth in his imagination — has endeav- 
 ored to picture to our minds the far-reaching arms of the scales 
 which Equity holds over sea and land; balancing with perfect 
 poise the exchange of equivalences between man and man, be- 
 tween nation and nation, in the vast and complex Commerce 
 of the world. 
 
 Merely to ask this question — can we import without export- 
 ing — is also to answer it. Every child in the Grammar Grade 
 at school knows that Trade consists, not of one thing but of two 
 things: Imports and Exports. It knows also that each calls 
 for the other, that every dollar's worth of imports requires a 
 dollar's worth of exports; therefore, that to the extent that any 
 people import, they must also export. 
 
 No matter whether we consume Home Goods or Foreign 
 Goods, we cannot escape the necessity for production. All 
 who consume must produce the equivalent in value of what they 
 consume — or live by charity or theft. And production of 
 wealth is impossible icithout the employment of labor. 
 
 How can a people import without exporting? How can they 
 export without producing something to export? And how can 
 they produce something to export without employing labor? 
 To these questions there can be but one answer. Therefore, 
 the importation of Foreign Goods does not throw home labor 
 out of employment. On the contrary, importing gives employ- 
 ment to labor. It may change the direction of that employ- 
 ment, but it cannot change the amount of that employment — 
 except to increase it. 
 
 Take the case of the laborer. Can he import without export- 
 ing? Can he get the necessities of life without giving their 
 equivalent in wealth or service? Take the case of the farmer. 
 Can the farmer import goods, clothing, machinery, hardware, 
 household utensils, etc., without exporting the products of the 
 farm with which to pay for them? If so, how can it be done? 
 And must not his exports equal his imports — unless he goes in 
 debt? And even if he go in debt, he will some time have to
 
 62 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 export the equivalent of the debt — which is simply the full 
 equivalent of the imports. 
 
 Furthermore, how can he have exports — how can he have 
 wheat, corn, oats, potatoes, cotton, etc. — to give in exchange 
 for these imports unless he produces them? And how can he 
 produce them without employing labor — either his own labor 
 or the labor of others? 
 
 Someone may answer: "He need not produce these home 
 products in order to get the things he desires. If he has the money 
 he can buy them." Quite true. But how can he get the money 
 unless he produces something to be traded for it? And so there 
 is no escape from the necessity of having to produce commodi- 
 ties to be exported equal in value to the imports obtained. 
 
 Every nation must be self-supporting — or live by theft. 
 Every state, every county, every community must be self-sup- 
 porting, must produce the equivalent of what it consumes. In 
 fact, every individual must be self-supporting, must produce 
 the equivalent of what he himself consumes — unless he live by 
 charity or theft. 
 
 For example, we must consume enormous quantities of wheat, 
 oats, corn, cotton and potatoes in this country. We must do 
 this — or starve. And in order to get them we must either pro- 
 duce them directly for ourselves, or else produce something else 
 and trade for them. But it is not correct to say, as all Protec- 
 tionists do say, that we can get them either by Production or 
 Trade. We must produce in order to trade. Nor is it correct 
 to say that we can get them either by Industry or by Purchase, 
 that we can either produce or buy. We must produce some- 
 thing to sell in order to get the money with which to buy. 
 
 No matter how abundantly the other nations of the earth 
 produce the necessities of life, they will not be generous enough 
 to donate them to us — except in case of famine. For every 
 dollar's worth they ship to us they demand a dollar's worth of 
 our products in return. The moment we stop producing for 
 them, they will stop producing for us. How irrational, then, 
 these wild alarms. They are infantile — the product of a crude, 
 narrow and undeveloped brain. They are the result of an 
 utter incapacity to comprehend even the most elementary re- 
 quirements of Trade, BECAUSE TRADE Means Always the 
 Exchange of Equivalences. 
 
 In the absence of debt, the Law of Trade is this: EVERY 
 Dollar's Worth of Imports Requires a Dollar's 
 Worth of Exports. When debt exists between two indi-
 
 Can We Im'port Without Exporting? 63 
 
 viduals, or between the people of two nations, then we have a 
 wholly different situation. Then the law is this: the debtor 
 will always export more than he imports — the creditor will 
 always import more than he exports. 
 
 To show that this is true beyond all reasonable doubt, let us 
 review the cases cited from our history, and show that no matter 
 how great the volume of importations they had to be met with 
 a volume of exports equally great. In fact, they were met with 
 a volume of exports vastly greater — because Up TO 1916 WE 
 Were a Debtor Nation. For instance, while foreign labor 
 was producing for us $2,276,425,051 worth of goods imported 
 under the Cleveland Tariff, American labor was producing for 
 them goods to the amount of $2,741,138,659. Take the case 
 under the McKinley Tariff. While we were "buying" from 
 foreign nations goods to the amount of $2,348,798,006, they 
 were "buying" from us a still larger bill of goods, amounting to 
 $2,770,083,914. 
 
 Under the Dingley Tariff, as shown before, we imported $12,- 
 191,198,006 worth of Foreign Goods. Did this diminish the 
 amount of our domestic production, or throw our labor out 
 of employment? It did not. And it did not for the reason 
 that while we imported only that amount of foreign products, 
 the people of foreign lands imported our products to the amount 
 of $18,270,503,750! 
 
 It is true that we imported $6,550,445,703 worth of goods 
 under the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. But we exported in return 
 goods to the amount of $8,464,511,477. Protectionist speakers 
 all over the country will point to the fact that under what they 
 will call the "free trade" Underwood Tariff, there was dumped 
 into our markets goods to the amount of $22,039,044,693! And 
 these figures will strike terror into the hearts of their hearers! 
 They will probably not couple with this fact the corresponding 
 fact, which is that while foreign labor was filling our orders for 
 goods to this amount, we were filling orders for them aggregat- 
 ing to the colossal sum of $40,999,714,370! 
 
 Therefore, all the facts and figures in the case show that the 
 importation of foreign goods — no matter how great the amount 
 — instead of throwing labor out of employment, gives employ- 
 ment to labor. And this for the reason that always, and every- 
 where, Imports Must Be Met By Exports, Dollar 
 For Dollar. And what is true of our country is true of every 
 other country on earth.
 
 
 ^ 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t' — 
 
 
 o 
 
 uo 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ro 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 
 LH i i 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 O 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 
 to 111 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 utT 
 
 
 
 
 u> 
 
 i; 
 
 
 
 -s- 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 hC 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 q: 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 q: 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 Q. 
 
 X 
 
 UJ 
 
 o5" 
 
 CO 
 
 12 
 
 ro 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 j|§B 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 jK ^^BB^m 
 
 
 
 QJ 
 
 ca 
 
 
 "' 
 
 
 
 1^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 C£3 
 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >~;l 
 
 ^^^sSf 
 
 s^g 
 
 f 
 
 
 ©1 
 
 LJO 
 
 
 If) 
 
 o 
 
 s 7 
 
 ^^^^^bB^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 o 1 
 
 
 
 f ^^ 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 oo 
 
 
 oo 
 
 CsJ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 m 
 
 <y>' 
 
 oT 
 
 
 ©r 
 
 o' iii! 
 
 
 
 ^E 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 oo 
 
 -o C '- 
 
 cr> 
 
 «3o ! ', 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 h 
 
 en 
 
 V£> 
 
 «" ."?''= 
 
 "^ 
 
 - l!.:! 
 
 
 
 
 a: 
 
 q: 
 
 
 ro' 
 
 requi 
 Fori 
 
 lis cai 
 
 O 
 
 S jv^ 
 
 
 
 
 □ 
 
 a 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - c ■= 
 ^ ° .E 
 
 
 hi 
 
 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 OJ 
 
 OJ 
 
 >• 
 
 g."^ "S 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 z 
 
 to 
 
 
 of ex 
 Inten 
 invest 
 
 
 
 '1 
 
 
 
 c: 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^~ 
 
 fT3 
 
 c: 
 
 in s^"™ 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 t 
 
 
 on 
 
 •T3 
 US 
 
 S3 S.:t: 
 i2^ S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Our "Favorable" Balance of Trade 65 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 Our "Favorable" Balance of Trade 
 
 On the opposite page our artist has pictured Uncle Sam con- 
 fronted with a great problem. In looking over his books our 
 Uncle Sam has discovered that he has been shipping out far 
 more goods than he ever gets any imports for in return. He 
 fears that he has been over-doing it. And so the question in 
 his mind is as to whether it is a gain or a loss to send to foreign 
 countries hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of commodities 
 for which he gets absolutely no commodities in return. That 
 is Exporting Without Importing. 
 
 Uncle Sam has been told, just as we have been told, that the 
 more goods you send out and the less goods you get back in re- 
 turn, the better you are off. From McKinley to Fordney and 
 McCumber, he has been told that this excess in the exportation 
 of merchandise is one of the many "blessings" which only a 
 Protective Tariff can give. Furthermore, that the excess in 
 the exports of merchandise over imports is made up BY HUGE 
 Importations of Gold! 
 
 The Protectionist brain has taken special delight in the fact 
 that we ship out hundreds of millions of dollars' worth more 
 than we get back. I presume if we got absolutely no imports 
 in return for our exports, men of the mental type of Fordney, 
 McCumber and their followers, would be happier still. Fur- 
 thermore, they think it the direct result, the necessary effect, 
 of a Protective Tariff. McKinley used to "point with pride" 
 — instead of regret — to the excess of our exports over our im- 
 ports. Then he would exclaim: "IT WILL ALL COME BACK 
 In Shining Gold." 
 
 But this is not true. WE HAVE ACTUALLY EXPORTED 
 More Gold and Silver Than We Ever Got Back. 
 When he turned to the official reports. Uncle Sam discovered 
 that from 1790 to 1915, he had exported merchandise to the 
 amount of $58,820,315,030. Looking on the other side of the 
 ledger, he finds that he got back in return merchandise amount- 
 ing to $49,999,482,199. That left a balance of $8,820,832,831 
 which the people of the rest of the world were owing him for the 
 goods he had shipped them.

 
 Our "Favorable" Balance of Trade 67 
 
 But when our Uncle Sam turned to see if the excess in the 
 importation of bullion was enough to make good this balance, 
 he got the shock of his life. To his amazement he discovered 
 that he had actually exported more gold and silver than he ever 
 got back. 
 
 Looking at the figures closely he found that there had come 
 back in payment for these goods, which were duly and properly 
 delivered and accepted by the people of foreign lands, only 
 $3,689,895,451. On the other hand, when he turned to see how 
 much gold and silver he had exported, in addition to the huge 
 volume of products he had sent out, he found that his exports 
 of bullion amounted to $5,368,790,625. This was the astound- 
 ing thing. He had actually sent out $1,678,695,174 more of 
 gold and silver than ever came back; leaving a grand total in the 
 excess of exports over imports of $10,499,728,005, for which 
 absolutely nothing came back — but receipted bills. 
 
 Thus did Uncle Sam discover, as we have now discovered, 
 that this excess of exports over imports does not "come back in 
 shining gold." In fact, that it DOES NOT COME BACK AT 
 All. These vast volumes of exports go, not to get the equi- 
 valent imports in return, but to pay Interest, Dividends and 
 Rent. They are really no part of commerce. They bring 
 nothing in return. They are not an exchange. They stand 
 more in the light of Tribute. Much of them goes across the 
 ocean to pay the royal families of Europe and other large land 
 holders, FOR OUR PRIVILEGE OF LIVING ON AMERICAN 
 
 Soil. 
 
 In the cartoon on the opposite page we have a vivid por- 
 trayal of absurd idea that a people are enriched by exporting. 
 With this goes the delusion that a people are injured and im- 
 poverished by importing. Here we see the necessities of life, 
 the raw materials of food and clothing, being loaded on the 
 great ship to be sent to the people of foreign lands. 
 ^ But in the background our artist shows us in a sort of "double 
 exposure" — as they say in motion pictures — showing poverty 
 and want gazing at the spectacle of seeing the things they need 
 going to foreign lands. And yet this in itself is supposed to be 
 beneficial. Whereas, Protectionists would have us believe that 
 if that ship were bringing in and unloading, instead of carrying 
 away, the things of which millions of our people are in need, 
 it should be regarded as an evil, and even disastrous, if too long 
 continued. The cartoon is a portrayal of Exporting without 
 Importing. And that process, whether applied to an indi-
 
 68 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 vidual, a family, or a nation — means impoverishment in 
 the end. 
 
 Congressman Fess, of Ohio, now candidate for United States 
 Senator, in the spring of 1914, claimed that the Underwood 
 Tariff had been a loss to the country of a quarter of a billion of 
 dollars. He made up the loss by adding together the goods we 
 did not export— that was a total loss — -and the goods which 
 we imported. That was also a total loss — to us! Can stupidity 
 and economic nonsense go beyond that? 
 
 Some one has well said that if a people are impoverished by 
 importing, but are enriched by exporting, then if all the ships 
 that started from all the ports of the world loaded with the ne- 
 cessities of life were to go down in mid-ocean, what a blessing 
 it would be to mankind! 
 
 Henry George, one of the greatest thinkers the economic world 
 has produced, said: "Commerce is not always the realization 
 of an exchange, but more often THE EXACTION OF A TRIBUTE. 
 When Rome was mistress of the world, Sicily, Spain, Africa, 
 Egypt and Britain exported to Italy far more than they im- 
 ported from Italy. But so far as this excess of their exports 
 over their imports indicating their enrichment, it indicated 
 their impoverishment. It meant that the wealth produced in 
 the provinces was being drained to Rome in taxes and tribute 
 and rent, for which no return was made. 
 
 "The tribute exacted by Germany from France in 1872 
 caused a large excess of French exports over imports. So the 
 foreign debt which has been fastened upon Egypt requires 
 large amounts of the produce of that country to be sent away 
 for which there is no return in imports. All war indemnities 
 give rise to a movement in trade which manifests itself on the 
 side of the conquered in exports alone, and on the side of the 
 conquerors in imports— FOLLOWED BY NO RETURN. 
 
 "If not true already, it will not be many years before the 
 English aristocracy [and royal family] will draw far larger in- 
 comes from their American estates than from their home estates 
 — incomes to supply which we must export without any return 
 in imports." 
 
 The same process of exporting without importing, is going 
 on all about us. The farmer who must pay interest on debt is 
 constantly exporting more than he imports. The tenant is 
 constantly exporting from the land on which he toils more than 
 he imports. But he does not regard this fact as "favorable" — 
 at least to him. So, likewise, the farmers and fruit growers^
 
 Our "Favorable" Balance of Trade 69 
 
 lumbermen and miners, and all other people of the West, are 
 constantly exporting towards the East — where the capitalists 
 who hold their notes and mortgages reside — vastly more than 
 they import from the East. 
 
 One of the objects of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, by in- 
 creasing the price of manufactured products more than it can 
 possibly increase the price of farm products, is to still more in- 
 crease this drain of the wealth of the West towards the East — 
 Exporting Without Importing. 
 
 Owing to our tremendous exportations since 1915 our whole 
 situation has been changed. We are now A CREDITOR NA- 
 TION. From 1915 to 1920, inclusive, our total excess of both 
 merchandise and bullion exported over our imports of merchan- 
 dise and bullion was $18,104,016,451! THIS Is A FINANCIAL 
 AND Industrial Achievement Without A Parallel 
 IN THE History of the World. It changed us from a 
 debtor to a creditor nation. From this point on, if the peoples 
 of Europe pay their debts, OUR IMPORTS WILL EXCEED 
 Our Exports. 
 
 But our exports still exceed our imports. That means that 
 Europe Is Still Going in Debt to Us. In the present 
 industrial condition of Europe, it may be years to come before 
 she can reverse her position and pay her debts. But when that 
 time does come, no matter when, instead of exporting more 
 than we import — whether we have Protective Tariffs, Revenue 
 Tariffs, or absolute Free Trade — our imports will exceed our 
 exports. 
 
 Thus have we shown that the seeming exception to the rule 
 that imports and exports are equal, is in no wise due, either to 
 High Tariffs or to Low Tariffs, but to the great fact of Debt — 
 the fact of Dividends, Interest and Rent. Amidst it all every 
 dollar's worth of imports called for a dollar's worth of exports 
 — no more, and no less. The rest went to pay debts, AND 
 Would Have Been Exported if There Had Been No 
 Imports Whatsoever.

 
 My Two Islands 71 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 My Two Islands 
 
 Now that we are nearing the last chapter, let us get all the 
 threads of thought woven into the warp and woof of one de- 
 cisive and comprehensive Conclusion. And this can be done 
 by answering one specific question: Is TRADE INJURIOUS, 
 OR Is It Beneficial? 
 
 That is, in brief, the whole issue between Protection and 
 Trade. Both cannot be right. One or the other is wrong. 
 Which is it? If Protection be a good thing, then is Trade a bad 
 thing: because Protection exists only for the prevention of 
 Trade. Ought Trade to be abolished? It ought, if it be a bad 
 thing. Ought Protection to be abolished? It ought, if Trade 
 be a good thing. 
 
 And so we cannot decide upon the merits of a Protective 
 Tariff until we decide upon the merits of this thing which a 
 Protective Tariff is designed to prevent — namely, Trade, Com- 
 merce, Exchange. That is the issue, and the only issue. I 
 know it has not been put in this form, but that is the verdict 
 which a profound and final analysis must give. 
 
 What is Trade? Why does it exist? What causes it? Cen- 
 turies and centuries ago, way back in the dim dawn of Civiliza- 
 tion, mankind discovered that by trading and exchanging 
 goods with each other, THEY MULTIPLIED THE PRODUCT- 
 IVENESS OF Their Own Labor. They saw that Trade could 
 be made a mighty agency in the creation of wealth. NO 
 Other Economic Discovery the Human Mind Has 
 Ever Made Can Possibly Compare to the Discovery 
 and Development of Trade. 
 
 And for the reason that all other discoveries — even Civiliza- 
 tion itself — depend upon the fact of Trade. Without Trade 
 and Commerce no ship would float the sea, no railroad could 
 exist, inventions would be unknown. They all depend upon 
 Trade, Barter, Exchange — Commerce. 
 
 Abolish Trade and mankind would go back to barbarism and 
 might. The larger part of the human race would perish. The 
 present population of the globe would be utterly impossible 
 without Commerce. Why? Because there cannot be differ-
 
 72 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 entiation of employments, there cannot be "division of labor," 
 without Trade. Division of Labor always implies and necessi- 
 tates an exchange either of goods or service. Without Division 
 of Labor, Civilization is impossible. But without Trade there 
 can be no Division of Labor. 
 
 Each human being must have Food, Clothing and Shelter. 
 He must have these things — or perish. They can be obtained 
 only by labor. They do not exist free. They must be pro- 
 duced. In a just state of society each human being must either 
 produce them directly for himself, or produce something else 
 and trade for them. 
 
 To illustrate the Law of Trade our artist has pictured for us 
 two islands located quite near each other. One we will call 
 "Coal Island". The average returns of labor expended in 
 digging coal are a ton a day — six tons a week. The other we 
 will call "Wheat Island", because its soil is favorable to the 
 production of wheat. On the average, it yields a bushel of 
 wheat a day to labor — six bushels a week. But it is unfavor- 
 able for the production of coal. While it has mines, yet the 
 veins are so thin that it takes a week's labor to produce a single 
 ton of coal. 
 
 But on Coal Island, were they to engage in the growing of 
 wheat, their wages would be just the reverse of those on Wheat 
 Island. Since it would take a week's labor, on the average, to 
 grow a bushel of wheat, the wages for labor would be only one 
 bushel of wheat a week. 
 
 Nor is this difference due in any degree to the productiveness 
 of the laborers themselves. IT Is DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE 
 IN THE Productiveness of Land in Reference to 
 These Two Products. The same amount of labor which 
 will produce one bushel of wheat on Coal Island, will produce 
 six bushels on Wheat Island. And the same in reference 
 to coal. 
 
 Let us now introduce Trade, Commerce, between the two 
 islands and see the manifold blessings that will come to the 
 people of each island. The people on the Wheat Island must 
 have coal as well as wheat. If, instead of producing coal for 
 themselves, they produced wheat and traded it to their neigh- 
 bors for coal, The Productiveness of their Labor 
 Would Be Increased Six Fold. In other words, by the 
 mere fact of Trade the normal, natural wages of their labor will 
 be increased 500% — measured in terms of coal. They now 
 have six tons of coal as the result of their labor, instead of one.
 
 My Two Islands 73 
 
 How stands the case with the people on Coal Island? They 
 must have wheat as well as coal in order to live. If, instead of 
 producing wheat directly for themselves, they produce coal 
 and trade it for wheat, they will have six bushels of wheat in- 
 stead of one as the result of their labor. And so Trade has also 
 increased their wages 500% — measured in terms of wheat. 
 And these are the results, in principle, which follow from Trade 
 everywhere, in all countries, under all forms of government. 
 
 Thus do we see that Trade is in itself A PRODUCER OF 
 Wealth. This fact mankind discovered centuries ago. 
 Furthermore, we see how Trade makes each country a composite 
 of all lands and climes; so that — barring the cost of transporta- 
 tion — the result is the same as if each island produced equally 
 well both wheat and coal. 
 
 We see also that Trade does not enable the people to live 
 from the labor of others, but that EACH PRODUCES THE 
 EQUIVALENT OF ALL THAT IT CONSUMES. It is the labor 
 of the men in the wheat fields of Wheat Island that produce the 
 coal which they consume. How do they do this? By devoting 
 themselves exclusively to the production of wheat — thus pro- 
 ducing an excess beyond their own needs — they make it possible 
 for the people on Coal Island to devote themselves exclusively 
 to the production of coal. And the people on Coal Island as 
 certainly produced the wheat on Wheat Island which they con- 
 sume, as tho they went over there and sowed the seed and reaped 
 the harvest for themselves. 
 
 Now suppose the owners of the coal land on Wheat Island 
 should come before their Congress and say: "Why should we 
 'buy' our coal? Why not produce it for ourselves? Let us 
 start a new industry, keep this money at home, and give em- 
 ployment to our own labor by producing our coal instead of 
 buying it. Why give employment to the laborers on Coal 
 Island by having them produce all our coal for us? Why put 
 ourselves at the mercy of these 'foreigners'? Give us a Tariff 
 high enough, say 600%, and we will start a new industry on this 
 island." (Gentle reader, is not this a familiar argument?) 
 
 And so they build a High Tariff Wall around Wheat Island 
 for the "protection" of Producers of coal. At the end of the 
 year, it is true, the owners of the coal lands on Wheat Island 
 can "point with pride" to a new industry. No question about 
 that. There it stands. The island now produces its coal in- 
 stead of buying it. But what is the result? What effect upon 
 the total wealth of the island?
 
 74 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 This appalling result: Measured in terms of coal, they have 
 only one-sixth as much wealth as they would have had by produc- 
 ing wheat and trading for coal. In other words, the natural wages 
 of labor is only one-sixth under a protective Tariff of what it 
 was under the former Free Trade. Has labor been given more 
 employment than before? Not at all. It has simply been 
 diverted, diverted from the most productive channels of employ- 
 ment into the least productive channels. And by so doing it 
 has not increased the amount of its employment. But it has 
 diminished its wages to one-sixth of what they were before! 
 
 Apply the same principle to Coal Island and the same result 
 follows. The labor which was formerly engaged in the pro- 
 duction of coal is now employed in the production of wheat. 
 True it is they are now producing their wheat instead of buying 
 it— but at a TREMENDOUS Economic Loss. The rewards 
 of labor are only a sixth of what they were under the former 
 Free Trade. Furthermore, at the end of the year the total 
 wealth of the island is only one-sixth of what it would have been 
 had the people produced coal — the thing they can produce to the 
 best advantage — and traded coal for the other necessity of life 
 which the people on Wheat Island can produce to the best ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 This simple illustration enables us to see the full working of 
 the principle of Trade. And to this law there is no exception. 
 There can be none. It is as universal as the law of gravitation. 
 Substitute continents for islands. Substitute hundreds of 
 products for only two products, and the result is still the same. 
 
 Here again, we see the great economic truth, the truth that 
 there are two ways by which the people of any country can 
 obtain the necessities of life. One way is to produce them di- 
 rectly for themselves. The other way is to produce something 
 else and trade for them. If left free, the people will take which- 
 ever course gives them THE GREATEST RESULTS FOR THE 
 
 Least Amount of Labor. 
 
 The principles governing Trade between the people of differ- 
 ent nations are identical with the principles governing trade be- 
 tween the people of the same community. The motive is the 
 same in both, the cause is the same in both. And the results 
 are the same in both. ALL ECONOMISTS ARE AGREED ON 
 That Point. 
 
 If buying the necessities of life instead of producing them 
 direct, throws labor out of employment in the nation, it will 
 throw labor out of employment in each family. If the money
 
 My Two Islands 75 
 
 which goes out beyond our borders for goods — a thing which in 
 reality never happened, because trade is the exchange of goods 
 for goods and not of goods for money — then the money paid out 
 by each family for the necessities of life would be a positive loss. 
 
 There was a time back in the Pioneer Days when each house- 
 hold produced practically everything that it consumed. It was 
 a complete economic unit in itself. Each family not only grew 
 its own wool, but carded it, spun it into yarn, wove the yarn 
 into cloth, and then made the cloth into clothing. 
 
 With the coming of the Factory System all was changed — 
 revolutionized. Barring garden products and a few other food 
 products, the vast majority of all the families in America today 
 produce absolutely nothing in the finished form which they 
 themselves consume! And yet no rational mind would claim 
 for a moment that this has diminished the productiveness of 
 wealth, or the wages of labor. On the contrary, it has greatly 
 increased both — multiplying them many fold. And yet all 
 this industrial progress was made possible only by the fact of 
 Trade — both domestic and foreign. 
 
 This broad view of International Trade enables us the better 
 to see how perfectly the Fordney-McCumber idea of things 
 represents what Darwin called "arrested development" — or, 
 better still, "reversion to previous type." The idea which 
 builds High Tariff Walls in the world of today, belongs to that 
 primitive, undeveloped brain so splendidly adjusted to the prim- 
 itive economic conditions when Trade was unknown, when every 
 "foreigner" was a foe, and when each family, or clan, produced 
 All the Things That It Consumed. 
 
 The illustration of the Two Islands enables us to see, also, 
 that the so-called "cost of production" theory is part and parcel 
 of the Protectionist theory. If the one falls, and fall it must, 
 the other goes down with it. 
 
 Now just what is the limitation which the cost-of-production 
 theory places on the avarice and rapacity of the "protected" 
 Interests? This theory is that the tariff rate on Foreign Goods 
 shall be no higher than is necessary to raise their cost to home 
 Consumers to that price level actually required in order to make 
 a "reasonable profit" on the competing Home Goods. 
 
 For example, the cost-of-production theory would say to the 
 owners of wheat lands on Coal Island: "You can have a tariff 
 of 500% on your wheat, but you cannot have a tariff rate of 
 a 1000% or of even 600%. Such rates would be excessive, 'un- 
 conscionable' — extortionate." But I submit to you that to
 
 76 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 pass such a law as will enable the Producers of wheat on Coal 
 Island to compel the Consumers of wheat to pay even six times 
 as much for wheat as they would have to pay in the Open Mar- 
 ket — or any price above the Open Market Price — is also ex- 
 tortion. 
 
 Furthermore, if the "difference in the cost of production at 
 home and abroad" could be accurately determined and equalized 
 thru Tariff Rates — a physical and mathematical impossibility 
 — what would be its effects on the world? Simply this: It 
 would deprive the whole human race of the enormous and in- 
 calculable benefits and blessings of Commerce — AND MAKE 
 
 THE SUPPORT FO THE PRESENT POPULATIOM OF THE GLOBE 
 IMPOSSIBLE! 
 
 In 1846, as the result of 20 years of intense struggle and 
 agitation, led by Richard Cobden and John Bright, England 
 abolished her Corn Laws — tariffs on farm products. It did 
 not establish Free Trade, because the products of Trade were 
 still taxed. But it did abolish the principle of Protection. No 
 tariffs were levied on foreign products competing with similar 
 home products. It is to me the most dramatic, heroic and in- 
 tellectual period in English History. 
 
 As the result of the long campaign in the principles of Poli- 
 tical Economy and Free Trade which Cobden and his followers 
 had conducted, Lord John Russell, in a letter to his London 
 constituents in 1845, wrote as follows: "I used to be of the 
 opinion that corn was an exception to the general rule of poli- 
 tical economy." He had supposed that while there should be 
 Free Trade in everything else, there should be Protection in 
 foodstuffs. He had now changed his mind, for he ended his 
 letter by saying: "Let us, then, put an end to a system which 
 has proved to be the blight of commerce, the bane of agricul- 
 ture, the source of bitter division among classes, the cause of 
 penury, fever, mortality and crime among the people." 
 
 The reader is referred to Ridpath's "Universal History" for 
 a most dramatic account of this mighty event in human history. 
 He is also referred to a Chapter in "The Tariff and the Trusts" 
 by Franklin Pierce: "How England Got Free Trade." I will 
 suggest also a small book recently published in England under 
 the title: "The Hungry Forties." This book is made up 
 entirely of letters and interviews of the "oldest inhabitants" 
 whose memories went back to the direful days in England when 
 she had a Protective Tariff. It was edited by a daughter of 
 Richard Cobden, Mrs. Cobden Unwin. It is the best detailed
 
 My Two Islands 77 
 
 history of the economic condition of the common people of 
 England that has ever been written. 
 
 Ridpath thus presents the terrible conditions which existed 
 under a Protective Tariff in England :"Circumstances favored, 
 as they have rarely favored, the cause of the reforming party. 
 That most unanswerable of all arguments, Human Misery, 
 came to the aid of the propaganda. Wretchedness, woe, want, 
 starvation, despair, uttered their voices, and the cry at length 
 reached the profoundest recesses of prejudice and conservatism. 
 It reverberated through the Kingdom. The towns were 
 shaken at first and then the countryside began to heave and 
 swell. It was not, as we have said, the voice of man, but the 
 voice of hunger, of thirst, The CLAMOR OF WOMEN AND 
 Children for Bread." 
 
 In his great debate on the Tariff with James G. Blaine, in the 
 North American Review — back in the 80's — Gladstone showed 
 that the abolition of Protection in England had increased the 
 wages of the working classes of England 100%. It thus in- 
 creased their wages by INCREASING Their PURCHASING 
 Power. 
 
 Every Protectionist in Congress has had to admit that wages 
 are higher in England than in any other country in Europe, and 
 that they are lotvest where there is the highest "Protection." 
 In short, there can be no hope for the abolition of Poverty, or 
 the abolition of War, until this country — and all other coun- 
 tries — substitute for the iniquitous Class Legislation of Pro- 
 tective Tariffs, the maxim of Thomas Jefferson: EQUAL 
 Rights for All— Special Privileges to None. 
 
 Therefore, whatever obstructs the free working of this univer- 
 sal, world-wide Law of Trade, Is TO THE Detriment of the 
 Human Race. Whoever favors its obstruction, whoever ad- 
 vocates the enactment of a Protective Tariff, is doing all in his 
 power To INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF LABOR WHICH MAN- 
 KIND Must Perform In Order to Live. He is not friend 
 but foe. While his ignorance of the fact that this effect will 
 follow, and always has followed, may exempt him from moral 
 condemnation; IT DOES NOT EXEMPT THE HUMAN RACE 
 From the Disastrous Effects of Building Tariff 
 Walls.
 
 Revenue Tariffs vs. Protective Tariffs 79 
 
 CHAPTER XXL 
 Revenue Tariffs vs. Protective Tariffs 
 
 There are two distinct classes of Tariff Walls. And this for 
 the reason that there are two distinct theories, or Systems of 
 Thought, relative to the Tariff— the PROTECTIVE THEORY 
 and the REVENUE THEORY. 
 
 The Protective Theory has been associated with the Repub- 
 lican Party almost from the beginning of its history, but found 
 its first distinctive expression in the High Tariffs of 1867 and 
 1870. The doctrine of "Tariff for Revenue only" has been pro- 
 claimed and defended by the Democratic Party thruout its long 
 history, dating back to its founder, Thomas Jefferson. 
 
 Turning to the illustration, the first thing that strikes our 
 attention is the fact that the PROTECTIVE TARIFF WALL is 
 much higher than the REVENUE TARIFF WALL — more than 
 twice as high. This fundamental distinction has set the two 
 parties directly against each other in the framing of every 
 Tariff Bill from 1867 down to the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. 
 
 Why is it that one party always wants high tariff rates, the 
 other always wants low tariff rates? This direct conflict be- 
 tween them is due wholly to the attitude of each political party 
 in reference to taxing the general public — not for the support of 
 the Government— But For THE SUPPORT AND ENRICH- 
 MENT OF Private Individuals and Corporations. 
 
 On this vital issue the Republican Party affirms and the 
 Democratic Party denies; declaring that the RIGHT TO TAX 
 begins and ends IN THE Needs OF THE GOVERNMENT; and 
 that no party, and no government, has the right to tax the 
 general public FOR THE Benefit of Private Individuals 
 — unless they are recognized as paupers, or are justly entitled 
 to government bounty for military service in defence of the 
 state. 
 
 As pointed out in Chapter X, the increased price of Foreign 
 Goods, due to the Tariff, goes into the Public Treasury. This 
 I have called the Revenue Branch of the Tariff. The increased 
 price of Home Goods, due to the Tariff on Foreign Goods, goes 
 into Private Pockets. This is the Protective Branch of the 
 Tariff. To it the Democratic Party is utterly opposed.
 
 80 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 On the other hand, the Repubhcan Party for generations has 
 staked its claims to the suffrage of the American people on the 
 fact that at every opportunity it has made the stream of wealth 
 which the Tariff pours into private pockets just As LARGE As 
 It Could Be Made, regarding the production of that stream 
 of wealth as the real object of a Tariff. 
 
 With the Revenue Theory, raising revenue for the govern- 
 ment is the only legitimate purpose of a Tariff. It regards the 
 increased price of Home Goods resulting as purely "incidental", 
 undesirable, but practically inevitable under this mode of taxa- 
 tion. But it makes this contribution to the enrichment of 
 private individuals as small as possible by levying low rates in- 
 stead of high rates. 
 
 With the Protective Theory, on the other hand, raising 
 revenue for the Government is purely "incidental"; while rais- 
 ing revenue for private pockets is the real purpose in taxing 
 Foreign Goods. It maintains that the whole prosperity and 
 industrial progress of the nation is due to the employment of 
 this "policy" in the past. It stands for High Tariffs. 
 
 Not that the party is opposed to raising government revenue 
 by Indirect Taxation — of which the Tariff is the most iniqui- 
 tous form. It favors this mode of taxation. It was the Demo- 
 cratic Party that took the first step towards taxing the people, 
 not on their necessities, but in proportion to their ABILITY TO 
 Pay. There was embodied in the Underwood Tariff a Gradu- 
 ated Income Tax. Later on, the Wilson Administration sup- 
 plemented this with a Corporation Tax, an Inheritance Tax, 
 and an Excess Profits Tax. THIS WAS THE GREATEST 
 Step Towards Social Justice that Has Been Made 
 IN Taxation Since the Founding of the Republic! 
 
 Great is the contrast between raising Government revenues 
 by a Tariff tax, and raising them by a Graduated Income and 
 Corporation Tax. One is a tax on Want, the other is a tax on 
 Wealth. One is a tax on Necessities, the other is a tax on 
 Possessions. One is a tax on what you must get in order to 
 live, the other is a tax on what you actually have. In short, 
 one is a tax on Expenditures — the other is a tax on Incomes. 
 
 The reason for the change was clearly stated by Senator 
 Underwood— then Chairman of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee — when he introduced his bill in the House, April 23, 
 1913. He said: 
 
 "The Democratic Party stands for a Tariff for revenus only, with em- 
 phasis on the 'only'. We do not propose to tax one man for the benefit of an-
 
 Revenue Tariffs vs. Protective Tariffs 81 
 
 other, except for the necessary revenue we must raise to administer this 
 government economically." 
 
 "The time has come in this country when the great untaxed wealth of 
 America must and shall bear its fair share of the burden of running the 
 government of the United States. We remove the taxes at the custom 
 house on necessaries purposely to levy a tax on wealth." 
 
 The fact must not be overlooked that the Underwood Tariff, 
 to the extent of its rates, was a Protective Tariff. Any Tariff, no 
 matter how low, yields "protection." Senator Underwood 
 himself has steadily maintained that the rates in his Tariff are 
 excessive in reference to cotton and woolen goods. Custom 
 house reports show them going as high as 60% in 1921. Mill- 
 ions were made under them by the American manufacturers of 
 these goods. And yet the Fordney Tariff has more than 
 doubled these rates on cotton and woolen goods. 
 
 I maintain that the Underwood Tariff was the best tariff 
 measure ever enacted in this country. It was so for three 
 reasons: First, because it contained a Graduated Income Tax, 
 later on supplemented by a Corporation Tax, Inheritance Tax, 
 etc. Second, because it put practically all raw materials on the 
 Free List. Third, because the rates on its "dutiable" goods 
 are lower than in any previous Tariff since the Civil War. 
 
 There are three ways by which the Underwood Tariff can be 
 improved: (1) Extend and perfect its forms of Direct Taxation. 
 (2) Gradually put on the Free List all products that are con- 
 tinuously sold in foreign countries. (3) Lower its excessive 
 rates on cotton and woolen goods. 
 
 The tendency of the present Administration has been, and 
 will continue to be, not to raise but to lower the direct taxes 
 on the millionaires and "swollen fortunes" of the country, thus 
 throwing the burden more and more on the toiling millions thru 
 Indirect Taxation — the Tariff, Sales Taxes, Luxury Taxes, etc. 
 
 The issue in this country is the issue in every country. Tariff 
 Taxes and other forms of Indirect Taxation have been the 
 means thruout the whole of recorded history for the plunder, 
 impoverishment and oppression of mankind. Thus does there 
 emerge from the Tariff Issue the one great issue of all the ages. 
 That issue is this: (1) to abolish all forms of Indirect Taxation. 
 (2) To stop taxing people for the support and enrichment of 
 Privileged Classes, taxing them only for the support of the 
 Government. (3) And to tax them for it, not on their necessities, 
 
 But in Proportion to Their Ability to Pay. Then, 
 and not till then, will we have an honest System of Taxation — 
 A Real Repubuc!
 
 82 
 
 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MERCHANDISE AND BULLION 
 FROM 1790 TO 1921 
 
 (Fiscal Years Ending June 30th) 
 
 YEARS 
 
 IMPORTS 
 
 1790 
 
 23,000.000 
 
 1791 
 
 29,200.000 
 
 1792 
 
 31.500.000 
 
 1793 
 
 31.100,000 
 
 1794 
 
 34.600,000 
 
 1795 
 
 69.756,268 
 
 1796 
 
 81,436,164 
 
 1797 
 
 75,379,406 
 
 1798 
 
 68,551,700 
 
 1799 
 
 79,069,148 
 
 Total 
 
 523,592,686 
 
 1800 
 
 91,252,768 
 
 1801 
 
 111,363,911 
 
 1802 
 
 76,333,333 
 
 1803 
 
 64,666,666 
 
 1804 
 
 85,000,000 
 
 1805 
 
 120,600,000 
 
 1806 
 
 129,110,000 
 
 1807 
 
 138,500,000 
 
 1808 
 
 56,990,000 
 
 1809 
 
 59,400,000 
 
 Total 
 
 933,216,678 
 
 1810 
 
 85,400,000 
 
 1811 
 
 53,400,000 
 
 1812 
 
 77,030,000 
 
 1813 
 
 22,005,000 
 
 1814 
 
 12,965,000 
 
 1815 
 
 113,041,274 
 
 1816 
 
 147,103,000 
 
 1817 
 
 99.250.000 
 
 1818 
 
 121,750,000 
 
 1819 
 
 87,125,000 
 
 Total 
 
 819,069,274 
 
 1820 
 
 74,454,000 
 
 1821 
 
 62,585,724 
 
 1822 
 
 83,241,541 
 
 1823 
 
 77,579,267 
 
 1824 
 
 80.548,142 
 
 1825 
 
 96,340,075 
 
 1826 
 
 84,974,477 
 
 1827 
 
 79,484,068 
 
 1828 
 
 88,509,824 
 
 1829 
 
 74,492.527 
 
 Total 
 
 802,209.645 
 
 EXPORTS 
 20,205,156 
 19,012,041 
 20,753,098 
 26,109,572 
 33,043,725 
 47,989,872 
 58,574,625 
 51,294,710 
 61,327,411 
 78,665,522 
 
 416,975,732 
 
 70,971,780 
 93,020,513 
 71,957,144 
 55,008.033 
 77,699,074 
 95,566.021 
 101,536,963 
 108,343,150 
 22,430,960 
 52,203,233 
 
 748,736,871 
 
 66,757,970 
 61,316,832 
 38,527,236 
 27,856,017 
 6,927,441 
 52,557,753 
 81,920.062 
 87,671,569 
 93,281,133 
 70,142,521 
 
 586,958,534 
 
 69,691,669 
 
 65.074.382 
 72,160.281 
 74,699,030 
 75,986,657 
 99,535,388 
 77,595,322 
 82,324,827 
 72,264,686 
 72,358,671 
 
 761,690,913 
 
 Excess of Imports 
 
 2,794,844 
 
 10,187,959 
 
 10,746,902 
 
 4,990,428 
 
 1,556,275 
 
 21,766,396 
 
 22,861,539 
 
 24,084,696 
 
 7,224,289 
 
 403,626 
 
 106,616,954 
 
 20.280,988 
 
 18,343,398 
 
 4,376,189 
 
 9,658,633 
 
 7,300,926 
 
 25,033,979 
 
 27,573,037 
 
 30,156,850 
 
 34,559,040 
 
 7,196,767 
 
 184,479,807 
 
 18,642,030 
 
 38,502,764 
 
 6,037,559 
 60,483,521 
 65,182,938 
 11,578,431 
 28,468,867 
 16,982,479 
 
 245.878,589 
 
 4,762.331 
 
 11,081,260 
 2,880,237 
 4,561,485 
 
 7,379,155 
 
 16,245,138 
 2.133,856 
 
 49,043,462 
 
 Excess of Exports 
 
 7,916,832 
 5,851,107 
 
 13.767.849 
 2,488.658 
 
 3.195.313 
 
 2,840.759 
 
 8.524.730
 
 Imports and Exports from 1790 to 1921 
 
 83 
 
 
 YEARS 
 
 IMPORTS 
 
 EXPORTS 
 
 Excess of Imports 
 
 Excess of Exports 
 
 
 1830 
 
 70.876,920 
 
 73.849,508 
 
 
 2.972,588 
 
 
 1831 
 
 103,191,124 
 
 81.310.583 
 
 21,880,541 
 
 
 
 1832 
 
 101.029.266 
 
 87.176,943 
 
 13,852,323 
 
 
 00 
 
 1833 
 
 108,118,311 
 
 90,140,433 
 
 17,977.878 
 
 
 00 
 
 1834 
 
 126,521,332 
 
 104,336,973 
 
 22,184 359 
 
 
 
 1835 
 
 149,895,742 
 
 121,693,577 
 
 28,202,165 
 
 
 «- 
 
 1836 
 
 189,980,035 
 
 128,663,040 
 
 61,316,995 
 
 
 c 
 
 .2 
 
 1837 
 
 140,989.217 
 
 117,419,376 
 
 23,560,841 
 
 
 1 
 
 1838 
 
 113,717,404 
 
 108,426,616 
 
 5,290,788 
 
 
 1 ' 
 
 1839 
 Total 
 
 162,092,132 
 
 121,028,416 
 
 41,063,716 
 235,338.606 
 
 
 o 
 
 1,266,411,483 
 
 1,034,045,465 
 
 2.972,588 
 
 "o 
 
 1840 
 
 107.141,519 
 
 132,085,946 
 
 
 24,944,427 
 
 £ 
 
 1841 
 
 127.946.177 
 
 121,851.803 
 
 6,094,374 
 
 
 SS 
 
 (-1 
 
 1842 
 
 100,162,087 
 
 104,691.534 
 
 
 4,529.447 
 
 
 1843 
 
 64,753 799 
 
 84,346,480 
 
 
 19.592.681 
 
 
 1844 
 
 108,435,035 
 
 111,200,046 
 
 
 2,765.011 
 
 
 1845 
 
 117,254.564 
 
 114,646,606 
 
 2,607,958 
 
 
 
 ^ 1846 
 
 121.691.797 
 
 113,488,516 
 
 8.203,281 
 
 
 
 r 1847 
 
 146.545,638 
 
 158,648,622 
 
 
 12,102,98* 
 
 
 1848 
 
 154,998,928 
 
 154,032,131 
 
 966,797 
 
 
 « 
 
 ■«)< 
 
 1849 
 Total 
 
 147,857,439 
 
 145.755,820 
 1,240,747,504 
 
 2.101,619 
 
 
 00 
 
 1,196,786,983 
 
 19.974.029 
 
 63.934.550 
 
 
 1850 
 
 178,138,218 
 
 151,898,720 
 
 26.239.498 
 
 
 ^ 
 H 
 
 1851 
 
 216,224,932 
 
 218,388,011 
 
 
 2,163,079 
 
 3 
 
 1852 
 
 212,054.442 
 
 209,658,366 
 
 3.296,076 
 
 
 
 1853 
 
 267,978,647 
 
 230,976,157 
 
 37,002,490 
 
 
 > 
 
 V 
 
 1854 
 
 304.562,381 
 
 278,325,268 
 
 26,237,113 
 
 
 
 1855 
 
 261,468,520 
 
 275,156,846 
 
 
 13,688,326 
 
 4J 
 
 1856 
 
 314,639,942 
 
 326,964,908 
 
 
 12,324.966 
 
 i 
 
 1857 
 
 360,890,141 
 
 362,960,682 
 
 
 2.070.541 
 
 1858 
 
 282,613,150 
 
 324.644,421 
 
 
 42.031.271 
 
 
 1859 
 . Total 
 
 338,768,130 
 
 356,789,462 
 
 
 18.021.332 
 
 
 2,738,238.503 
 
 2,735,762.841 
 
 92.775.177 
 
 90.299.515 
 
 
 / 1860 
 
 362.166,254 
 
 400,122,296 
 
 
 37.956.042 
 
 w 
 
 1861 
 
 335,650,153 
 
 249.344.913 
 
 86.305,340 
 
 
 'S 
 
 1862 
 
 205,771,729 
 
 227.558.141 
 
 
 21,786.412 
 
 H 
 
 1863 
 
 252,919,920 
 
 268,121,058 
 
 
 15,201,138 
 
 ;« 
 ^ 
 
 1864 
 
 329,562,895 
 
 264 234,529 
 
 65,328,366 
 
 
 1865 
 
 248,555,652 
 
 233,672.529 
 
 14,883,123 
 
 
 
 1866 
 
 445,512,158 
 
 434,903.593 
 
 10,608,565 
 
 
 
 1867 
 
 417,831,571 
 
 355.374,513 
 
 62,457.058 
 
 
 
 1868 
 
 371,624,808 
 
 375,733,001 
 
 
 4,108.193 
 
 
 1869 
 Total 
 
 437,314,255 
 
 343,256,077 
 
 94,058,178 
 
 
 
 3.406,909,395 
 
 3,152.320.650 
 
 333,640,530 
 
 79,051,785
 
 84 
 
 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 YEARS 
 
 IMPORTS 
 
 EXPORTS 
 
 Excess of Imports 
 
 Excess of Exports 
 
 1870 
 
 462.377.587 
 
 450.927,434 
 
 11,450.153 
 
 
 1871 
 
 541,493.708 
 
 541.262.166 
 
 231.542 
 
 
 1872 
 
 640.338.766 
 
 524,055,120 
 
 116,283.646 
 
 
 1873 
 
 663,617.147 
 
 607,088,496 
 
 56,528.651 
 
 
 1874 
 
 595,861.248 
 
 652.913,445 
 
 
 57.052.197 
 
 1875 
 
 553,906.153 
 
 605,574,853 
 
 
 51.668,700 
 
 1876 
 
 476,677,871 
 
 596,890.973 
 
 
 120,213,102 
 
 1877 
 
 492,097,540 
 
 658.637.455 
 
 
 166,539,917 
 
 1878 
 
 466,872,846 
 
 728.605.891 
 
 
 261,733,045 
 
 1879 
 Total 
 
 466.073,775 
 
 735,436,882 
 
 
 269.363,107 
 
 5.359.316,641 
 
 6,101,392,717 
 
 184,493,992 
 
 926,570,068 
 
 1880 
 
 760.989.056 
 
 852,781,577 
 
 
 91.792,521 
 
 1881 
 
 753.240,125 
 
 921,784.193 
 
 
 168,544,068 
 
 1882 
 
 767,111,964 
 
 799,959,736 
 
 
 32,847,772 
 
 1883 
 
 751.670.305 
 
 855.659.735 
 
 
 103,989,430 
 
 > 18S4 
 
 705,123,955 
 
 807,646.992 
 
 
 102.523 037 
 
 1885 
 
 620,769,652 
 
 784,421.280 
 
 
 163.651.628 
 
 1886 
 
 674,029,792 
 
 751.988,240 
 
 
 77,958.448 
 
 1887 
 
 752,490,560 
 
 752,180.902 
 
 309,658 
 
 
 1888 
 
 783,295.100 
 
 742,368,690 
 
 40,926,410 
 
 
 1889 
 
 Total 
 
 774.094,725 
 
 839,042,908 
 
 
 64.948,183 
 
 7.342.815.234 
 
 8,107.834,253 
 
 41,236,068 
 
 806,255,087 
 
 ^ 1890 
 
 823,286,735 
 
 909,977,104 
 
 
 86,690,369 
 
 ' 1891 
 
 881,175,643 
 
 993,434,452 
 
 
 112.258,809 
 
 1892 
 
 897,057,002 
 
 1,113,284,034 
 
 
 216,227,032 
 
 1893 
 
 910,768,555 
 
 997,083,357 
 
 
 86,314,802 
 
 , 1894 
 
 740,730,293 
 
 1,019.569,898 
 
 
 278.839,605 
 
 1895 
 
 788.565,904 
 
 921.301.932 
 
 
 132,736,028 
 
 1896 
 
 842,026,925 
 
 1,055,558,555 
 
 
 213,531,630 
 
 1897 
 
 880,278,419 
 
 1,153,301.774 
 
 
 273,023,355 
 
 ' 1898 
 
 767,369,109 
 
 1.301.993.960 
 
 
 534.624,851 
 
 1899 
 Total 
 
 816,778,148 
 
 1.320.864.443 
 
 
 504,086,295 
 
 8,348,036.733 
 
 10.786,369,509 
 
 
 2,438.332.776 
 
 1900 
 
 929.770.670 
 
 1.499,462,116 
 
 
 569.691.446 
 
 1901 
 
 925.609,873 
 
 1,605,235,348 
 
 
 679.625.475 
 
 1902 
 
 983.574.456 
 
 1,480,020.741 
 
 
 496.446.285 
 
 1903 
 
 1,094.864,755 
 
 1,511.482,533 
 
 
 416,617.778 
 
 1904 
 
 1,117,911,553 
 
 1,591,759,959 
 
 
 473.848,406 
 
 1905 
 
 1,198,646,897 
 
 1,660,004,502 
 
 
 461.357.605 
 
 1906 
 
 1,367,226,716 
 
 1,848,307.154 
 
 
 481,080,438 
 
 1907 
 
 1.591.878.298 
 
 1.988.989,327 
 
 
 397,111,029 
 
 1908 
 
 1.387.337,210 
 
 1,991,127.472 
 
 
 603.790.262 
 
 1909 
 ^ Total 
 
 1,399,879.023 
 
 1,810,225.714 
 
 
 410.346,691 
 
 11.996.699,451 
 
 16.986,614,866 
 
 
 4,989,915.415
 
 Imports and Exports from 1790 to 1921 
 
 85 
 
 t 
 
 YEARS 
 
 IMPORTS 
 
 EXPORTS Excess of Imports Excess of Exports 
 
 ' 1910 
 
 1.645,504,529 
 
 1.918.834.796 
 
 273.230,267 
 
 1911 
 
 1,646,770,367 
 
 2.136.579.810 
 
 489.809,443 
 
 1912 
 
 1.749,251,653 
 
 2.326,541.422 
 
 577,289,769 
 
 1913 
 
 1.923,470,775 
 
 2,615.261.082 
 
 691,790,307 
 
 1914 
 
 1.990,790,920 
 
 2.531,582.700 
 
 540.791.780 
 
 1915 
 
 1.878.848,818 
 
 2.965,755.675 
 
 1,086,906,857 
 
 1916 
 
 2,731,047,186 
 
 4.483.523.956 
 
 1.752.476.770 
 
 1917 
 
 3,671,534,774 
 
 6.660.249.580 
 
 2.988.714.806 
 
 1918 
 
 3,140.407.039 
 
 6.249.744.994 
 
 3.109.337.955 
 
 1918 
 
 1.533.363,204 
 
 3.353.497.069 
 
 1.820.133.865 
 
 1919 
 
 4,070.308,996 
 
 8,527,632,289 
 
 4.457,323.293 
 
 1920 
 
 5,783.609.804 
 
 8,663.723.739 
 
 2.880,113.935 
 
 Total 
 
 31,764,908,065 
 
 52.432.927.112 
 
 20,668.019,047 
 
 1921 
 
 2,509,147,570 
 
 4.485.031.356 
 
 1,975,883,786 
 
 Total 
 
 34.274.055.635 
 
 56.917,958.468 
 
 23.643.902,833 
 
 Congressman Fess, of Ohio — in 1914 — is reported to have said: "Any in- 
 dustrial history of the United States shows that our export trade began with 
 the Crimean war, back in the fifties." No greater distortion of the facts of 
 history is possible. It was to refute the volumes of such Protectionist false- 
 hoods that, with much patient research, I have given the reader the above 
 table. It is a liberal education in itself as to our Foreign Trade, carried 
 thru 131 years of history. The successive Tariffs are also given. Study the 
 two together. Make your own deductions as to what extent, and how, 
 Tariff Walls affect our Foreign Trade.
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 b.^ir 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 
 'O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 «s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cj 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 <r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■a-" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3" 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 *• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <s 
 
 «>^ 
 
 
 
 e^ 
 
 
 >o 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 **> 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 -*- 
 
 
 0- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■T 
 
 i q 
 
 v9 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 OCL- 
 
 V? 
 
 »^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 va 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ><Xtr 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 UJLlIuj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J- 
 
 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 "~S 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 ■3- 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 (» 
 
 v«" 
 
 (as 
 
 
 CS 
 
 e~i 
 
 «o 
 
 
 
 
 
 tr 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 ;:} 
 
 
 0* 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -* 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 >o 
 
 
 :5 
 
 
 
 
 o-' 
 
 lil 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i/i 
 
 ■4i 
 
 <»-" 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 fc 
 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 "O 
 
 
 o 
 
 bS 
 
 o 
 
 Uo 
 
 ^» 
 
 tv. 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 ir 
 o 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 LU 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 •a- 
 
 * 
 
 •^ 
 
 to 
 
 -3^ 
 vS 
 
 cS 
 
 
 J2 
 
 
 bo 
 &- 
 
 !>: 
 
 ■3- 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 . D-r 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 tao 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 '^iL'^ 
 
 
 
 
 K) 
 
 
 'N 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 J 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LO .13 
 
 
 
 
 ■I- 
 
 
 <n 
 
 
 >o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lu:^c 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^" 
 
 
 >>o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 J- 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 •3- 
 -J- 
 
 0-" 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 v* 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vfi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |||D-" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 ■a^ 
 
 C3 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 O" 
 
 
 J~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 <^ 
 
 vO 
 
 T>" 
 
 — ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 o 
 
 ■*" 
 
 o 
 
 «n 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 >o 
 
 <W 
 
 Nfi 
 
 vS 
 
 ^ 
 
 "O 
 
 »- 
 
 0~ 
 
 va 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 (» 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 vB 
 
 ur 
 
 0- 
 
 >a= 
 
 r^ 
 
 OtT 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 or 
 
 
 
 "> 
 
 t^ 
 
 <S 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q_ 
 
 3 
 
 3- 
 
 5 
 
 
 ?2 
 
 UO' 
 
 g 
 
 cr-" 
 
 •3~ 
 
 u-> 
 
 -»- 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 ♦O 
 
 r~ 
 
 ■a- 
 
 o 
 
 (to 
 
 v5) 
 
 ■>- 
 
 o 
 
 Oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 ID 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o" 
 
 
 vft 
 
 !f2 
 
 -3- 
 
 2J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 5 
 
 e 
 
 2: 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 •< 
 
 -J 
 to 
 UJ 
 
 "a 
 i 
 
 £ 
 111 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 CO 
 
 F 
 o 
 
 UJ 
 
 ■< 
 
 -J 
 
 Q. 
 P 

 
 A Study in World Commerce 89 
 
 A STUDY IN WORLD COMMERCE 
 
 The two preceding charts are designed to give the reader a general vision 
 of the World's production of twelve leading commodities. 
 
 These charts will give you stronger and clearer convictions of the abso- 
 lute necessity for International Trade than you ever had before. No one 
 can have a true idea of Trade who does not include in his mental picture 
 the whole of the 1,702,000,000 of the earth's inhabitants, realizing that 
 each one of them must have food, clothing and shelter — and must have 
 them daily. 
 
 When taking this broad view of Trade we recognize the fact that the 
 Exchange of wealth is as necessary as the Production of wealth. Without 
 Trade, no advance is possible beyond that crude, primitive condition in 
 which each human being — like the lower orders of animals — must provide 
 for himself all of life's necessities. 
 
 Civilized life requires that hundreds of products shall enter into the daily 
 use and consumption of each human being. No human being produces 
 scarcely even one of them for himself in its entirety. How, then, can he 
 get all the rest of them. Only by producing something in excess of his own 
 needs — and trading his surplus for the rest. 
 
 What is true of the individual is true of nations. Countries in which the 
 Production of any given product exceeds its Consumption, must export 
 their excess to the scores of countries in which its Consumption exceeds its 
 Production. That alone is the law, and THE UNIVERSAL PROCESS 
 of CiviUzed life. 
 
 The first two tables give a comparative view of the sources of supply for 
 12 leading commodities, together with the six countries producing them 
 most abundantly. 
 
 In reference to any one of the products listed, it is probable that all of the 
 six countries imder it Produce more of it than they Consume. Hence the 
 necessity for Exporting. But if you go on down the line of the countries 
 producing it, you will soon reach those that produce less of it than they 
 Consume. Add to these the scores of other countries not producing it at 
 all; and yet, which must consume it in order to live. Now how can they get 
 these commodities of which they Consume more than they Produce, except 
 by Importing? But how could they import if there were no such thing as 
 International Trade? THUS DO WE SEE THAT COMMERCE IS AS 
 ESSENTIAL TO THE LIFE OF OUR EARTH'S INHABITANTS AS 
 THE AIR THEY BREATHE. 
 
 This brings us to the table on the opposite page. It shows us that Com- 
 merce is in itself a perfect system of International Bookkeeping. "The 
 equity of it is so exact that it balances all accounts with perfect precision. 
 Excess of Production over Consumption, as in the case of Corn, is balanced 
 by an Excess of Exports over Imports. 
 
 On the other hand, the excess of Consumption over Production — as shown 
 in the case of Flax Seed, Wool and Sugar — must be made up by an Excess 
 of Imports over Exports. And since we must import them — or go without 
 —WHY SHOULD WE INCREASE THEIR COST TO OURSELVES 
 BY A TARIFF WALL? 
 
 So broad and fundamental is the truth here expressed, that the table can 
 be applied to each household — and to each individual. Here is an outline 
 80 universal in its scope, that it can be applied to every product in reference 
 to each nation, and in reference to each of the hundreds of millions of 
 humanity!
 
 c 
 
 
 O 
 
 T' 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^1 
 
 
 
 cr- 
 o 
 
 □ 
 
 _i 
 cr 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 cr- 
 
 O 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 •z. 
 o 
 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 
 oO 
 o 
 
 OO 
 
 oO 
 OO 
 
 o 
 
 <^ 
 
 OO 
 o 
 
 OO 
 
 o 
 oo 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 _l 
 _J 
 Uj 
 no 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 
 q: 
 o 
 
 "^■i 
 
 
 
 1 Har and Prices, 1 
 
 1 For iii Years. | 
 
 tr 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 q: 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 z: 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 —1 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 -z. 
 
 "^^■^1 
 
 
 
 > o o o 
 J lo o vn 
 
 OO 1
 
 Effects of War on Prices 91 
 
 EFFECTS OF WAR ON PRICES 
 
 On the opposite page is a graphic portrayal of the rise and fall of prices, 
 due to War. It pictures to the eye and the imagination the Story of World 
 Prices for a period of 112 years. This remarkable diagram was given in 
 the "Literary Digest" several months ago. 
 
 The Napoleonic Wars really began with Napoleon's Italian Campaign 
 in 1796, terminating with the battle of Waterloo, June 18, 1815. The aver- 
 age prices in all the markets of the world reached their highest peak by the 
 end of the following year. Then, as shown in the diagram, the Interna- 
 tional Market Price dropped fully 100% in the next two or three years. 
 Prices continued to decHne thruout the earth between 1820 and 1830, rose 
 slightly before 1840, and again made a rapid decline between 1840 and 1850. 
 They rose again between 1850 and 1860. 
 
 Then came the lamentable war between the North and the South, which 
 ended April 9, 1865. Prices reached their highest point in the world's 
 market about 1867. In this country the general Price Level was continued 
 to about 1870, or '72. They dropped nearly 150% in the Worid's Market 
 by 1880. The international Price Level continued steadily to decline down 
 to 1897. In this country scores of products did not reach their lowest point 
 until 1900, but the lowest average for all products was reached 
 about 1897. 
 
 Then, both for this country and the world, prices steadily rose up to the 
 opening of the World War. From that date to 1920, the International 
 Price Level rose fully 150%, according to the diagram, reaching a higher 
 peak than during the Civil War, and to as high a level as was attained at 
 the close of the Napoleonic Wars. This gives us a World Vision, projected 
 thru 112 years of history, of the law of Supply and Demand. 
 
 Thus, over and beyond the reach of the narrow provincial minds, which 
 cannot see beyond the borders of their own little state or province — and 
 which think that by building Tariff Walls they can keep the prices of their 
 own products out of the mighty stream of price currents which sweeps 
 round the whole earth — rises the supreme law of the economic world, the 
 law of Supply and Demand. 
 
 Each human being is a part of this universal Demand, and furnishes some 
 portion of its universal SuppHes, if a Wealth Producer. It is not local, but 
 general. It is in operation everywhere. While there are as many markets 
 — as many Demands for the necessities of life — as there are human beings, 
 yet this great Economic Law sees all mankind, not as many, but as One. 
 
 AH the millions of nature's children are but units in that great Social 
 Organism which spreads itself across national boundaries, reaching from 
 pole to pole, round the whole earth — binding all mankind into one supreme 
 Demand for the necessities of life. Then it calls upon every land and clime, 
 every race and nation, to furnish the material products which can feed the 
 hungers and satisfy the needs of this grand total of wants of all humanity. 
 
 And the Social Organism distributes its supplies among the teeming 
 miUions of its units just as perfectly as does the Physical Organism^ach 
 in accordance to its Needs. The Price of any product is always highest 
 where its Needs are greatest. It is the relation of the quantity of the Supply 
 to the quantity of the Demand of each human being, that makes up that 
 vast and complex thing, called the World's Market Price. "Who knows 
 what earth needs from earth's lowliest creatures?" Only the law of Supply 
 and Demand can tell us.
 
 Price History from 1850 to 1920 93 
 
 PRICE HISTORY FROM 1850 TO 1920 
 
 In the diagram on the opposite page is presented to the eye of the reader 
 the History of Prices in our own country, from 1850 to 1920, taken from the 
 U. S. Statistical Abstract. I have given the average price for the five years, 
 ending with the close of the five year period. The price of Bar Iron is the 
 number of dollars a ton, the price of Wool is by the pound, and the price of 
 Cotton Sheeting is by the yard. 
 
 The important thing in the diagram is its showing of the general trend of 
 prices. What is true of these three products is true of the Price Level of all 
 domestic products for the 70 years charted, and also of the World Price 
 Level, as shown in the previous chart. Tariffs or no Tariffs, they run paral- 
 lel with the World Price Level— THEY ALL GO UP OR DOWN TO- 
 GETHER. 
 
 If you have been reading, or hearing. Protectionists' speeches of late, you 
 would say that the period from 1850 to 1860 must have been under High 
 Protective Tariffs, And that the period from 1865 to 1900 must have been 
 under those Democratic "free trade" Tariffs. 
 
 But the facts are almost wholly the other way. By looking at the top 
 of the diagram you will see that the period from 1850 to 1860, was under the 
 Walker Revenue Tariff of 1846, with average rates of only 25%. In 1857 
 these rates were reduced to about 18%. We entered the war on that basis. 
 In fact, the only nominally "free trade" period in our whole history was 
 from 1861 to about 1867. During this period, when tariffs were laid on 
 Foreign Goods, they were also laid on similar Home Goods — and they were 
 laid on Home Goods first! That is, external revenues were balanced with 
 internal revenues. 
 
 Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. From that date to 
 1913, is a period of 53 years. Of those 53 years, only three of them were 
 under a Democratic Tariff. I refer to the Cleveland Tariff, from 1894 to 
 1897 — and which was so much of a "protectionist" measure that he refused 
 to sign it! The whole of the remaining 50 years — quite a long stretch — were 
 lived under RepubUcan Tariffs. AND YET PRICES WENT DOWN* 
 
 Beginning with 1867, they were all High Protective Tariffs. The Tariff 
 of 1883 increased the rates in the Tariffs of 1867 and 1870. The McKinley 
 Tariff of 1890 made them still higher. The rates in the Dingley Tariff of 
 1897 were outrageous, tho slightly lower than those of the McKinley Tariff; 
 while the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 increased the rates in the Dingley 
 outrage. There you have our Tariff History and our Price History side 
 by side. 
 
 Take the case of wool. In 1867 it was given the highest rate in our 
 history. And yet the price of wool went down. It declined rapidly till 
 1870. It averaged about eight cents a pound higher for the next five years. 
 Was there an increase in the Tariff Rate? On the contrary, there was a 
 10% reduction of this rate, and of all rates, in 1872. The Tariff of 1883 
 restored the rates of 1867. And yet the price of wool continued steadily 
 to go down — on thru the period covered by the McKinley High Tariff. 
 
 The Cleveland Tariff put wool on the Free List. But the decline in its 
 price was nothing as compared to its decline under the previous 27 years of 
 High Protection. This chart ought to remove from the brain of the reader 
 the last trace of the whole "obsession" of Protection. 
 
 • No theory of Prices can be sound which does not also consider the volume of the world • 
 Money in its relation to the volume of the world's exchanges, and of the wealth in exchang*
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 •• 
 
 ~3 
 
 o 
 
 ■"" 
 
 m 
 <N 
 
 w 
 p 
 
 OO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 CT- 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 1 
 
 C3 
 
 ^5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 /" 
 
 
 C3 
 
 oc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 OO 
 
 C3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 => 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 z' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 t' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 2 
 >- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LU 
 
 p:- 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J_ 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 o 
 
 >- 
 
 ^' 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i— J 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 y^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "V 
 
 X 
 
 
 V, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?- 
 
 OO 
 
 ir> 
 
 ?- 
 
 ■>»■ 
 
 ? 
 
 C3 
 
 ^■-:, 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 -5^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Li_l 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 N, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— 
 < 
 
 «-» ~ 
 
 __,, 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 -' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Li_ 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ll_ 
 
 2: 
 
 ^> 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 *^ 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ctrl 
 < 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •g
 
 Tariff Rates from Custom House Reports 95 
 
 A STUDY IN TARIFF RATES FROM CUSTOM HOUSE REPORTS 
 
 The average rates collected at the Custom House do not correspond 
 WITH THE AVERAGE RATES IN ANY TARIFF BILL. THEY ARE 
 ALWAYS LOWER. This is due to the fact that the highes trates in all 
 Protective Tariffs tend to be prohibitive. They must be prohibitive, in 
 order to be "protective." 
 
 In the diagram on the opposite page we have graphically presented the 
 average duties collected each year, under each tariff, from 1890 to 1920. 
 At the top of the page is given the name of each successive tariff. The 
 space covered by each is indicated by a heavy black line. 
 
 The reader naturally looks at once for those Democratic, "free trade" 
 Tariffs he has been hearing about all his Hfe. They have always been given 
 in the plural, as if there was quite a bunch of them. Over and over again 
 we have been told; "Whenever we have Democratic Tariffs we always have 
 panics." He knows that panics, strikes, labor wars, "hard times" and in- 
 dustrial depressions have constituted a good part of our past history. And 
 so expects to see numerous "free trade" Tariffs. 
 
 But he looks in vain. THE TARIFF LINE IS UNBROKEN. Where 
 are they? In what years were they passed? They do not exist. They 
 never did exist. All this talk about them, which fills up so large a part of 
 the Congressional Record, is simply the expression of ignorance and du- 
 plicity — the vaporings and deceptions of the demagog. The whole record 
 is before you. There is in it one Democratic Tariff, and only one. Extend 
 the period back from 1913 to 1860, and you still have but the one Demo- 
 cratic Tariff— from 1894 to 1897. Thus were 50 years out of the 53 covered 
 by Republican Tariffs — up to the Underwood Tariff of 1913. 
 
 While there was but one Democratic Tariff in all that time, there was no 
 "free trade" Tariff. In fact the phrase, a Free Trade Tariff, is such a 
 contradiction of words as only a Protectionist would make. There can 
 be no such thing as Free Trade, so long as there are such stupid and bar- 
 barous things as Tariffs. And for the reason that there can be no such thing 
 as Free Trade as long as the products of Trade are taxed! 
 
 The blessings of Free Trade can come only when the extortions, plunder 
 and oppression of all Tariff Walls have been swept from the earth. And 
 this is possible only when all government revenues are raised by some fair 
 and equitable system of Direct Taxation. There was a time when nearly 
 the whole of our Government's revenues were raised by Tariffs. In 1921, 
 only one dollar in every 14 was so raised! 
 
 In every Tariff Bill there are two classes of goods: dutiable and free — 
 those which must pay a Tariff Tax, and those which are allowed by Congress 
 to enter free. In the diagram opposite, the top line represents the average 
 rates on dutiable goods. It is perhaps the more important of the two. The 
 lower line represents the combined rates on both free and dutiable. The 
 lower line must be read ten points below that shown on the chart. 
 
 Beginning with 1899, the whole trend is downward, even under High 
 Tariffs, being only 16 % in 1920. The combined rate that year was only 6 %. 
 
 The proportions of Foreign Goods coming in "free" under the various 
 tariffs are as follows: McKinley, 53.4%; Cleveland, 49.5%; Dingley, 45.2%; 
 Payne-Aldrich, 52.4%; Underwood, 67.2%.— 
 
 These are the general facts as to Tariff Rates as shown by Custom House 
 Reports. The reader must study the chart and make any further com- 
 parisons and deductions for himself.
 
 96 
 
 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 25 LEADING ARTICLES EXPORTED. 23 OF WHICH ARE ALSO IMPORTED 
 
 Exported Imported 
 
 Cotton /Raw $t,136.408.Q16 | 138.743.702 
 
 \Manufactured 402.041.277 137,431.814 
 
 Iron and Steel 1,1 12.835.237 50.305.603 
 
 Breadstuflfs 1.079.107.701 125.345.323 
 
 Oils 609.671.471 181.815.871 
 
 Meat and Dairy Products 544,074.060 64.374.457 
 
 Veiiiclea 382.207.667 2.901.465 
 
 Coal and Coke 359,805,006 7,394,686 
 
 Tobacco 288,693.799 98.562.015 
 
 Leather 190,318,659 36,333,838 
 
 Woods 186,502.152 209,031,235 
 
 Chemicals, Drugs, etc 168,999,706 211,628,099 
 
 Copper 133,508,675 90,018.689 
 
 Electrical Machinery. Appliances, etc 101,990,004 (none) 
 
 Sugar (Refined) 94,877,045 1,015.188.479 
 
 Paper 89.072 289 84.686,652 
 
 India Rubber 85,436,897 250.334,174 
 
 Fruits and Nuts 84,390,424 116,221,857 
 
 Explosives 56,845,689 1.377,176 
 
 Wool (Raw 4,936,740 126,972.088 
 
 \Manufactured 44,571,002 58,115.537 
 
 Agricultural Implements 46,277,638 5,716,573 
 
 Fertilizers 36,555.812 51,153.989 
 
 Naval Stores (Tar. Pitch and Turpentine) 34.503,389 (none) 
 
 Furs and Fur Skins 32 886,995 93,558 940 
 
 Vegetables 32,784.416 50.420,326 
 
 Paraffine 32.619,318 820,885 
 
 FORDNEY TARIFF AT WORK 
 
 The following table taken from the New York American, Oct. 8. 1922, shows how prices 
 have started upward, under the Chemical Schedule, in less than three weeks after the tigning 
 of the bill. The same thing ia taking place under other schedules. 
 
 (per hundred pounds unless otherwise stated) 
 
 Before After 
 
 Barium Chloride (per ton) $85.00 $100.00 
 
 Carbonate of Potash 5.00 6.00 
 
 Caustic Potash 5.60 6.50 
 
 Acetic Acid (28%) 26.70 32.20 
 
 Alcohol, wood (per gallon) ,. .62 .72 
 
 Glycerine 17.50 18.00 
 
 White Lead 7.75 8.00 
 
 Formaldehyde 9.00 10.50 
 
 Acetone 14.00 17.00 
 
 Bleach 1.75 2.00 
 
 Citric Acid 45.00 50.00 
 
 Cocaine hydrochloride (per ounce) 6.25 7.25 
 
 Menthol (per pound) 6.00 6.25 
 
 Camphor 83.00 86.00 
 
 WOOL PRICES FROM 1880 TO 1921 
 (in cents per pound) 
 
 1880 
 
 ... 55 
 
 1890. 
 
 1881 
 
 ... .49 
 
 1891, 
 
 1882 
 
 ... .46 
 
 1892 
 
 1883 
 
 ... .42 
 
 1893 
 
 1884 
 
 ... .40 
 
 1894 
 
 1885 
 
 ... .33 
 
 1895 
 
 1886 
 
 ... .36 
 
 1896. 
 
 1887 
 
 ... .38 
 
 1897. 
 
 1888 
 
 ... .35 
 
 1898. 
 
 1889 
 
 ... .38 
 
 1899. 
 1900 
 
 .37 
 
 1901 
 
 ... .2» 
 
 1912 ... 
 
 32 
 
 .37 
 
 1902 
 
 ... .26 
 
 1913 
 
 36 
 
 .35 
 
 1903 
 
 . . . .31 
 
 1914 
 
 30 
 
 .33 
 
 1904 
 
 . . . .32 
 
 1915 
 
 36 
 
 .24 
 
 1905 
 
 ... .35 
 
 1916 
 
 45 
 
 .20 
 
 1906 
 
 . . . .38 
 
 1917 
 
 57 
 
 .31 
 
 1907 
 
 . . . .39 
 
 1918 
 
 90 
 
 .21 
 
 1908 
 
 . . . .38 
 
 1919 
 
 92 
 
 .30 
 
 1909 
 
 ... .38 
 
 1920 
 
 .... 1.12 
 
 .29 
 
 1910 
 
 ... .40 
 
 1921 
 
 . . . . 54 
 
 .30 
 
 1911 
 
 ... .34 
 

 
 Payne- Aldrick, Underwood and Fordney Tariffs 97 
 
 PAYNE-ALDRICH, UNDERWOOD AND FORDNEY TARIFFS 
 
 In order to get a comparative view of the tariff rates in the last three 
 Tariffs, I shall present the contrasts and reductions made by the Underwood 
 Tariff to the rates in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, as stated by Senator Under- 
 wood on the day he introduced his bill in the House — April 23,1913 — and 
 which comparisons were undenied thruout the debate. Mr. Underwood 
 said: 
 
 "Now, I would like the gentlemen on that side of the House (the Repub- 
 lican side,) who have maintained this indefensible system of taxing the poor 
 for five decades, to listen to the other side of the story. On common soap 
 you placed a tax of 20%. We have lowered the tax to 5%. 
 
 "You taxed the furniture of the poor man's house 35%. We have 
 lowered it to 15%. 
 
 "You taxed bread and biscuit 20%. We place them on the Free List. 
 
 "On cotton clothing you taxed the people of this country 50 %. We have 
 reduced it to 30%. 
 
 "On the flannels that protect them against the cold winter storms you 
 taxed the people of the United States over 93%. We have reduced the 
 tax to 25% and 35%. 
 
 "The tax on women's and children's dress goods under your system of 
 levying a tax for the benefit of the manufacturer, was about 100%. We 
 have lowered that to 35%. 
 
 "You taxed the shoes of the people of the United States, after giving the 
 shoemaker free raw material — and stating at the time you gave it that he 
 did not need the protection — you gave him 10% and we give free shoes to 
 the people of America. 
 
 "On the entire chemical schedule the tax was 25.91 %. Our taxes levied 
 on that schedule was 19.64%, or a reduction in the chemical schedule of 
 24% below the Payne law. 
 
 "On earths, earthenware and glass ware, you levied a tax of about 51%. 
 We levy a tax of 33%, a reduction below the Payne Bill of 35%. 
 
 "On metals and manufactures of metals, you levied a tax of 34%. We 
 levy a tax of 20%, a reduction below the Payne Bill of 41%. 
 
 "On wood and the manufactures of wood, you levied a tax of 12% and we 
 leA^ a tax of 3}4%, a reduction of 71%. We place most of it on the free 
 list, in order that American workmen may have lumber with which to 
 build their own homes. 
 
 "You have levied a tax on sugar of 48%. We have reduced that tax to 
 35% for the next three years, or a reduction of 25%; and at the end of the 
 three years we intend, if this bill becomes a law, TO PLACE IT ON THE 
 FREE LIST. So that the one commodity above all others that most 
 directly reflects the taxes levied at the custom house no longer goes on the 
 table of the consumer bearing the marks of 50 YEARS OF OPPRESSIVE 
 TAXATION that our friends on that side of the House have taught the 
 American consuming public to realize when they open their home door. 
 
 "As to tobacco and the manufactures thereof, we consider them as lux- 
 uries, or in the nature of luxuries, and good revenue producers, and so made 
 no vital changes in the schedule.
 
 98 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 "On agricultural products and provisions we have reduced the tax from 
 29% to 17%, a reduction of 42%. 
 
 "On spirits, wines, and other beverages we have left the taxes as they are 
 in the present law. 
 
 "On cotton manufactures you taxed the public about 46%. We reduced 
 the average tax to 30%, making a reduction of 33% below the Payne Bill. 
 
 "On flax, hemp and jute and their manufactures we have reduced the tax 
 from 45% to 26%, a reduction of 42% below the Payne Bill. (Flax, hemp 
 and tow were afterwards put on the Free List.) 
 
 "On wool and manufactures of wool, you taxed the public nearly 56%. 
 We tax them 183^%, a reduction in favor of the American people of 67% 
 below the Payne Bill. 
 
 "On silk goods the tax was about 52%. We tax it 44%, or a reduction 
 
 of 15%. 
 
 "On paper and books you taxed them 21%. We tax them 12%, or a re- 
 duction of 45%." 
 
 The following quotation, from the Literary Digest — Sept. 2, 1922 — 
 shows the increase in rates made by the Fordney-McCumber Tariff over 
 the rates in the Underwood Tariff: 
 
 "The new tariff bill, the New York Evening Post (Ind.) has said, 
 'makes the free breakfast table a mockery,' and in this paper Mr. William 
 O. Scroggs, the economist, recently recounted 'the short and simple but 
 somewhat intimate annals of a morning hour in the life of a plain middle- 
 class American consumer,' to 'see how the tariff penetrates into the inner 
 temple of his existence.' To quote from this story as amended by Mr. 
 Scroggs to fit the final form of the Senate Bill: 
 
 " 'His day begins when he is aroused by an alarm clock, and the new 
 tariff bill raises the duty on this article 67 per cent. His first act is to throw 
 off the bed-covering, on which the duty has been increased 60 per cent. He 
 jumps from his bed, on which the duty is advanced 133%, and dons a 
 summer bathrobe, with the duty up 60 per cent., and slippers, with the 
 duty increased 33 per cent. 
 
 'He walks over a Brussels carpet (duty up 100 per cent.) to close the win- 
 dow, the duty on the pane of which has been raised 33 per cent., and adjusts 
 the shade (duty up 20 per cent-.) and curtains (up 50 per cent.). Then he 
 enters the bathroom, stands before a mirror, on which the duty has been 
 raised 100 per cent., sets out his shaving-stick, subject to an increase in duty 
 of 67 per cent., his shaving-brush (duty up 30 per cent.), and razor (up 100 
 per cent.), and begins his tonsorial operations. This over, he devotes his 
 attention to the bathtub, on which the duty has been raised 100 per cent. 
 Towels (with the duty up 60 per cent.), soap (up 67 per cent.), tooth-brush 
 and hair-brush (up 30 per cent, each), and comb (up 67 per cent.) are next 
 in demand. 
 
 'As our comsumer dresses, it may be noted that the new bill increases the 
 duty 60 per cent, on his underwear, 33 per cent, on his hose, 15 per cent, on 
 his shirt and collar, 20 per cent, or more on his necktie, and 60 per cent, on 
 his suit of clothes. 
 
 'Our consumer decides to discard his waistcoat and transfers fountain-pen 
 (up 100 per cent.), penknife (up 200 per cent.), and lead pencil (up 80 per 
 cent.) from waistcoat to coat-pockets, picks a fresh linen handkerchief (up
 
 Payne-Aldrich, Underwood and Fordney Tariffs 99 
 
 30 per cent.) from the dresser (up 133 per cent.), polishes his eyeglasses (up 
 15 per cent.), and after giving his clothes a touch with a brush (up 57 per 
 cent.), is ready for breakfast. 
 
 *At the breakfast-table our consumer spreads a napkin (duty up 15 per 
 cent.) on his knees, and turns on the current for his electric toaster, on which 
 the duty has been advanced 160 per cent. He drinks water from a glass, 
 on which the duty is 45 per cent, higher, and begins his breakfast with an 
 apple (duty up 200 per cent.) baked with sugar (duty up 84 per cent.) in an 
 aluminum dish (up 150 per cent.) on a cast-iron stove (duty up 100 per cent.) 
 
 'The duty is also advanced 27 per cent, on his chinaware, 20 per cent, on 
 his table silverware, 200 per cent, on his oatmeal, and 225 per cent, on his 
 butter. The cream for his coffee has been removed from the free list and 
 subjected to a duty of 22 H cents a gallon, and his eggs also have been taken 
 from the free hst and made dutiable at 8 cents per dozen. The salt for his 
 eggs likewise comes off the free list, and so does his bacon and the flour that 
 goes into his bread. Even the duty on the salt-shaker gets a boost of 45 
 per cent. 
 
 'The only things on his table that have not been subjected to a higher 
 tariff duty are his coffee and his drinking-water.' "
 
 100 TARIFF PRIMER 
 
 THE SCRAMBLE BEGINS FOR STILL HIGHER RATES 
 
 The Fordney-McCumber Tariff did not settle tariff rates. It just unsettled 
 them. No one can tell what the tariff rates will be on a single article — 
 except dyes — three months ahead. This for the reason that the Fordney 
 Tariff gave to the President the unparalleled power to raise or lower the 
 rates on any product 50%. It did more. It gave him the power also to 
 change the present basis of Foreign Valuation, to American Valuation. 
 In making this shift alone — without adding additional tariff — he can often 
 change rates fully 60%, and in some cases, 100%. 
 
 As showing the workings of this unprecedented, and probably unconsti- 
 tutional, procedure, I will give clippings from an article I find in the New 
 York World, just as the book is going to the printer's: 
 
 TARIFF GLUTTONS HUNGER FOR MORE 
 
 {Special to the N. Y. World) 
 
 WASHINGTON, Oct. 12.— Seekers of still further tariff bounties already 
 are pressing the United States Tariff Commission to take advantage of new 
 provisions of the Fordney-McCumber act whereby the President is allowed 
 to jack up rates by 50 per cent., if he deems it necessary, in order to "equalize 
 production costs here and abroad." 
 
 Upward of fifty notices have been entered with the commission so far by 
 beneficiaries of the new tariff who want additional concessions that will 
 shut foreign goods out of the American market and thereby permit of higher 
 prices for domestic articles. Many verbal communications also have come 
 in. The commission inteiprets this early stream of applications to mean 
 an ensuing fioodtide that not only will swamp the commission with work 
 but necessitate at least a doubling of its expenses. 
 
 Woolen, cotton, steel, chemical and other manufactuiers are among these 
 first applicants for bigger benefits at once, not being satisfied with the 
 already unpreiedenledly high tariff rates. 
 
 The ne'v^ law specifies that the Commission must hold hearings on these 
 applications and then determine the actual difference between the cost of 
 production heie and abroad. According to veteran experts of the commis- 
 sion, this is impossible, to begin with, since production costs not only are 
 fluctuating rapidly because of present unsettled economic conditions, but 
 foreign manufacturers both resent and forbid such prying into their secrets. 
 
 Although the commission is, in theory, an impartial judicial body, its 
 members are not blind to the tremendous political power which the Fordney- 
 McCumber bill confers on the President; and since the clarnor for readjust- 
 ment by Presidential proclamation already has started, reinforced by poli- 
 tical pressure, expectations are that the commission will find itself FORCED 
 INTO APPROVING CONSTANT INCREASES, OR ELSE HAVING 
 ITS RECOMMENDATIONS OVERRULED."
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 001 120 501