Press enter after choosing selection

Daft On Free Trade

Daft On Free Trade image
Parent Issue
Day
17
Month
November
Year
1897
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

The editor of the Adrián Press, so sensible in many thiugs, lias such rabbid free trade views that he fails to let reason penétrate the fort he luis erected witliin his mind, and lires most any oíd thing at any craft that looks as it' it might carry a protection rlag. Speaking of the attempt in this city to compel transient tradera to help pfty the expenses of the city governnient, that our permauent merchante are obliged to pay, the Press saya : "A "protectionist" clammors, through the columns oí the Ann Arbor Oourier, ïor pushing a suit against Callaghan & Co. lor liceuse to seil books in that city. lt's really amusing to read the argument. "The firm paya no tases, does iiothiug to support the town, or tor pólice or lite protection, and takes the pronta frotn the home dealers." We suppose they do not reut a building. They do not eat anythiug. And then, il they keep the prices down, the students gain uoihing. We snppose au American citizeu has no right to sell any property he owns, except to some one in the place where he lives. We suppose a man eannot go into Ann Arbor and sell personal property or real estáte, without getting some oue's pertuission. We suppose the city can inipose on a nou-resiuent, conditions different from those of h resident. Then again, wc suppose nothing ot' the kind. A hy does not some one step in and make au arrest? Buinp right up against the supreme court. It wou't cost much." The suppositions of the Press are nostly absurd. Does the paying of rent 'or a week or six weeks help pay taxes? People are obliged to eat, of course, and our merchante have families who are obliged to eat and, quite naturally they desire to furnish them with food. But ;he transient trader's family, if he lias one, does not consume auy food here. Üu the contrary, said family takes the money that by right of trade belongs to our nierchauts with whieli to purchase their lood. If a city, or community, can not protect its own citizens, by equitable and ust laws, it has come to a queer state of dffai;. The selling of real estáte is not analagous, neither is the statement "We suppose an American citizen has no right to sell any property he owns, except to some one in the place where he lives." Is there any reason why a firm living in Chicago, or New York, or Adrián even, should have special privileges granted them to do business in Aun Arbor? Any reasou why Aun Arbor merchants sliould be taxetl for tbe especial benefit of merchante from otlier states or cities? ïiie idea of protectiou is to make all tradesmen bear a just hurden of taxatiou. lí a man comes in to auy city and by any ineans induces the peopie to buy of hini in a short time, what they would naturally buy of their hume merchants during the season, (and oftu buy things they do not need, to their own detriment), and the home nierchanto by that means are left without legitímate trade and means to pay the taxes that i.s ímposed upon Lhem, is uot íi wrong done? I n the case of Callaghan & Co. for instanee. They are in the law book trade. They come here for about six weeks or more during the year, just at the time the studente are buying their books. ïhe}' do not rent a store even for that time, only a part of a store ; they do not eat here - he (the clerk sent here) eats herenodoúbt; they do not sell their books one cent cheaper thau the local dealers sell them. Not a student nor a citizen is benefited by their presence here as far as the price of their wares is concerned. They take thousands of dollars from the regular trade of our local merchants. When the assessor goes around they have no stock of goods to assess. They do not pay anything toward the government that protects them, but they reap the benefits that the home merchant pays for. With comparatively no expenses, they ought to be able to sell goods cheap. Tax one man lieavily for doing business and let another go free, and the one who has no expenses ought to be able to undersell the one that is taxed, ouglit he not? If lie does not sell cheaper, he makes a fine extra profit does he not? As a general thing the transient merchant who goes about with "bankrupt goods," and "stocks damaged by fire," and all sucli hoax devices, are sharks of tlie first class. The one who buys of them i's quite apt to be fleeced. And, if as Barnum said, "the people like to be humbugged," is it not a kindness to them to have laws that protect them from the wolves who are continually prowling about seeking whom they may devour? We do not wish to be misunderstood. Callaghan & Co. are not merchants of that class. They do a legitímate business, but by coming here as they do, reaping the harvest that they do, without contributing anything to the expenses of the city that inakes their business here possible, we claim that a rank injustice is done to our home merchants. The policy advocated by the Press, carried to its ultímate conclusión, would entirely wipe out local dealers and leave commercial business completely in the hands of transient traders with their sharp tricks and devices. It is possible that our courts may take the same free trade view of the matter that our brother of the Press does, but we do not believe it. Certainly our judges can see the injustice and in their wisdom can devise some remedy therefor. Pi'otection does not rnean prohibition. On the contrary, it ineaiis protertion to every one. It "means just laws tliat will foice every persou who does business to bear lus p'ortion of tlie Imrdens, anl not allow the sharper any advaiitage over the legitímate trader. Ño one desires to shul out Cailaglian ,v Co., but everyone doea desire that Callajfhan &Co., and every other persi.ii whodoes business in the city, shall pay their jnst proportion of their taxes and bear au equitable share of the public burdens. That's all. _

Article

Subjects
Old News
Ann Arbor Courier