Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1845-04-17
From the Lynvhburg virginian.
FACTS FOR THE ppop,,

oeen very extensively circulated in his section ne
sne state, under the frank Of the la.e member
ION ens District The writer is unques ,ionably
ii. eea In dr'thmetc, but he has yet TO learn
ments OF iogic. Never, we venture to saw. in anv
Nocument intended for the instruction of TIE p,op
were such grossly erroneous assumptions dsduced
rom "facts," the correctness Of which ~. ays
willing to admit "' arc
The design Of the writer is to produce the i'm.
preston, (and from his skill in arranging his &.
CURES he may be successful with some pcrsons
VINO may not take The trouble to analyze his state.
inents) mat ths price abroad of our great ;cn,
.urai exports. COTTON, tobacco and -four is main.
~ dependent, not upon the law of demand ond
supply, 10 which other great political economists.
nrs vne soce' nave heretofore referred it, but
upon the duties imposed by our own poyernmsn,
upon british cloths and cutlery, German burlans
ana diapers, and French wines and silks! Nav
in inc estimation OF this sagacious and profound
sta'esman' who sets himself up as "teacher in
israel the duties imposed by foreign govern.
0n.s upon our products affect the prices Of those
Prouuc's less than our duties upon their fabrics
IN other words, he contends tina, not only do IN,
duties Increase the price TO the consumer az the
arucie upon which they are imposed, but NJ the
same time diminish the trice of the produc,s
which we exchange for them Aud he ATTEMPTS
20 demonstrate this proposition by giving tabular
statements exhibiting the quantity cf cotton. to-
bacco and flour, exported annually from 1901 In
1914 inclusive, and ascertaining the value of each
annually, which he afterwards averages in an nm
equal series OF years. Now we shall appeal to
nose very tables TO show the falsity Of this gen.
.enahs theory-nay, he demonstrates this him
sell by his figures of arithmetic which arc al
most invariably at war with his figures of rhetoric
Let us repeat the position of this modern Ri
cardo. II is, that the prices of our staples have
been high under low tariff, and, on the contra
~, mat The prices have been low under high
farIH And fha1 Il Al.
convince the farmer and planter that he ougbt
therefore TO be In favor of low tariff-as he Ger
tainiy would be a blockhead if he were not. if
t'lS new discovery In the science of political
economy could be sustained by the "facts'' which
nave E oeen cited 10 support it, and upon which we
Shall rely to confute it.
1t will be conceded, we presume. ,ha, If tho
variations In the prices of our staples are nateri
ally dependent upon the rates of duty imooseJ Inv
our government upon foreign fabrics, as is assert
ed "a Member of the 2Sth Conpress." This
result must be of uniform occurrence, and must
GDect each Of these staples alike. Now let us. Inv a
onef analysis OF the tabular statements u6on
which he relies, apply this test to his farccal as
sumption. Let us first take the article of Eour
~hich' according to the statement embodied i'm
the pamphlet, yielded the following prices:
In 1871, period of the lo,oesi duties, LOG
- In 1879, period of the highest duties, S6,9l
Or again: ~''''
In 1871, Clover than ever) 80
1t cannot be objected that we select particular
years. which constitute exceptions to the general
fule-tor, as we before remarked if The assu,,n
'ion oil "a Member of the 2Sth Congress" be not
uniformly true, it is not true at all-in other
woras' IL the low prices Of our agricultural pro-
duce be the effect of a high tariff, then we must
sapecl 40" prices as long as that tariff lasts-and
o,ce oeTsa. Yet we find that in 1929, one wear
after the famous monster tariff of 1898 was pass
60, Hour was 80 per cent. higher than i, was in
io2i' under one of our lowest tariffs and thai,
WINE IN 1881 under comparatively high tariff
nour was upwards OF SO barrel, under the low
~ per cent. duties of I94I ii was only about 81
We might select other years with similar resui,s.
out let us take series of years-and we will Sc,
lecs 'hree periods relied upon by the writer HIM
self. Thus
The annual average value of Flour
exported IN four years from 1921
to 1924, period oil low duties,
he states to be GRO
In eight years, from 1926 to 1882.
a period of high duties, it was 5.3s
In tour years, from 1888 TO 1912 a
period OF partly high and partly
low duties, under the descending
scale provided by the Compro-
mise Act, it was Col
Inc tariff, 1t is known, vibrated from extreme
~ high 10 extremely low duties from 1921 TO
! S42-and how happens it, then, that there is so
il''le change In the price Of flour in all that time
by the showing Of this pamphlet itself, if its the
DRY be true that the value Of that STAPLE is reou.
lated by our tariff? If the fact were so indeed.
now happens 1T that in 1921, the price of -four
was only S4,06, and that in 1923 it was Sc .55 |
although the tariff was the same in both wears
HOW happens 1t that in 1928 it was S49S. and /
IN 1929, under greatly increased tariff, it was
S6,9l! y ""'
The same thing is true of tobacco. In 1921
us average value, per hogshead was SS1-in
1873, under the same tariff IL had fallen To $50
in 1926, under an increased tariff i, ro,e aoan n
Soo-in 1928 1t fell to S54-In 1899 il rose TO !
Sil2; but In 1910, under a lower tarif than in
1889, 1t fell to SS3. Every body knows why it
rose In 1889 beyond all precedent-it was owing
70 the short crop-only 10000 hhds. having been
exported that year, when for the three years pre-
ceding' the export had exceeded 100 900 hhds. !
per annum.. Ii has fallen since in the AVERAGE
Vaiue per MID. to SS3 in 1910, when the export
ran up higher than before, reaching Il9 Asa
hfds; to $S5 in 1871, when the export still fur
ther swelled to 117,S2S hhds.; to sol, in 1912.
when 1t rose still higher 10 l5S,7IO hhds. In
1885, the market was gluted with the unprece-
dented crops OF the two preceding years, with !
which all the foreign markets were overstocked-
and The price Tell 10 $40 per hhd. (all orr hest
tooacco being kept at home, however, for manu- !
featuring Purposes,) although the export fell off
70 94,9o4 hhds. there being another comparative
shor, crop. In 1874, the price rose slightly TO
S5i although the export increased to I63, O12
hhds. In this vast augmentation of the ouan,ity
OF tobacco produced, all reasoning men find the
true cause OF the reduced prices We venture
The assertion that if the entire custom-house sys
tenn was abolished, and we had no tariff at all.
he price of neither of our great staples would be
one faribing.
In regard TO cotton the same state of facts ex-
lsts. In 1921 its average value was 6 cents in
1923, under higher tariff, instead of falling, as,
u 'he theory we are combating were true it must
have done, it rose to 20 cents Without anv
change IN the tariff, it fell in two years, to 10