The Somerset herald and farmers' and mechanics' register. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 183?-1852, 1845-12-30

we purchase and consume ten dollars
worth of British agricultural produce,
converted into cloth, iron, and other goods
to one dollars worth Oft same articles
she takes from US. Yet, according 10 the
report, to the farmer the foreign market is
every thing and the home market moth
ting.
The report says that protective duties
are levied exclusively for the benefit Of
the rich monopolists. at the expense of
the farmers and laborers. Now, ! con-
tend that just the reverse of this is the
truth. That the practical effect of pro-
lection is to increase The number of manu-
featuring establishments, and thus destroy
monopoly bv promoting competition; and
that by withdrawing labor from agricul-
ture to manufactures, you not only d.
minish the supply, but at the same time
increase the demand for agricultural pro-
! duce, and Of course increase its price;
whilst, on the other hand by increasing
manufacturing establishments YOU in
crease the supply of manufactured goods,
and OF course reduce their price, so tha!
the farmer is thus enabled to sell for
more and buy for less. If demand and
supply regulate price, this conclusion is
inevitable. Yet the report says ''the tar
if is double 6enth to the manulactu-
rer and a double loss to the farmer"
The Secretary of State (Mr. BUcHA-
NAN) understood this much better, when
he sent toast some time since to the
manufacturers oil Pittsburg TO this effect.
The election of JAMES X. Polk has saved
| the manufacturers from being ruined and
overwhelmed by excessive competition.
He was right. 1t certainly did favor the
invested capital, the monopolists, by
checking competitor, and thereby keeping
down the wages Of labor and the produce
of the farmer, which would, in different
result, have been enhanced in price by an
increased demand. This is illustrated by
the fact that at Pittsburg, shortly before
the tariff of 1912, the laborers in the fac
tories were put on half work, and of
course half pay:and almost Immediately !
after its passage lhey were restored to fall
work and fun pay tits for the sake of
the laborer and the farmer, therefore, that |
advocate the protective policy, and not
for the ''rich monopolists the only |
class that will be benefited by the course
OF this Administration in the check their
policy will give to competition and new
investments of capital, while the '.poor
iaborer' and the farmer viii be the only |
sufferers.
| submit to every man of practical COM
mon sense whether such must not be the
result. And yet we are gravely told by
both the Message and Report that pro-
feciiUe duties operate exclusively for the
benefit of the rich capitalists, at the ex-
pense of the ''poor laborer and the far
merI"
But, finally, this whole question, SO
interesting to the American people, turns
upon simple question of fact. 'Do pro
tecfiUe duties ultimately increase or re-
duce the price of the articles ON which
they are levied!''
Now the message and the report as
sumo but fail to prove in a single In
stance) that protective duties have increas-
ed prices, and are therefore oppressive
and burdensome;while, on the other hand,
| assert, and am ready to prove by your
own documents, by every prices-current
and every merchant in the country, that
the prices of protected goods have been
reduced NY competition since the odious
and specific euties were first
imposed for protection in 1916 to one
half one-third, one-fourth, and in some
instances TO one-sixth part of what they
were at that time, a S in the case of coarse
cottons, glass, iron, nails, &C.; vet in the
face of these undeniable facts, it is assert
ed that the duty nine cents a yard-15O
per cent. is added to the price of the do
mestic as well as the imported goods, and
IS paid by the consumer, and that the
poor man,, is thus taxed on his coarse
cotton goods 80 per. gilmore thanthe rich
whom the fact is admitted that the poor
nan now gets better article made at
nome, and paid for in labor or produce,
1t one fourth of the price he paid in 1916,
when the minimum duties were first i'm
posed; while, on the other hand, the wa
yes of labor and the produce of the far
ner, flour. grain, meat, &C., have under
went little or no reduction of price, ow-
ng to the increased demand produced by
he increase of manufactures. Such has
been the effects of protective duties,-
But recenue duties, levied on articles not
or manufactured at home, NAV
md do generally increase prices, because
hey do not produce competition and
supply. But to the facts. 1
,all for the proof. Show me the evidence
nat IN single Instance protecfirc dnties
lave permanently increased prices. This
you assert and deny. This is an issue
II fact, and not of argument. Produce,