Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1845-10-02
EFFECT OF THE TARIFF UPON THE PRICE
OF FLOUR.

The Richmond Enquirer and the Lvnchburu
Republican are endeavoring to prove thai the
price oil Hour is seriously affected by high ia
fih. 10 prove this they say that in 1888, 80
ana 4O, when our duties were low, the AVERAGE
price OF that article was Sc so per barrel and IN
1872, 3 and A, after the rates OF duty were in
creased, 1t was only 81 80. Now, if foreign
Importalions have not been diminished by the
existing rates of duty, how is the price of flour
affected by them! The argument of the anti
lariiiites, and the only one which gives any color
oil Plausiblllty 10 hIs ridiculous assumption, is
mat The prices OF our agricultural produce are
lesSehed by the inability of foreigners to pur-
chase 1t, consequent upon the diminished guam
uiy OF their fabrics purchased by us. But the
Republican uPsets the very foundation of this
aiSuihenl by lis efforts TO show, contrary to all
1t has heretofore said, that we purchase from
ihem as much under high tariff as we do under
a low. How then does the tariff affect the prices
OF our produce! The fact is, il has no such eff
iect-and least of all upon flour, which Great
britain would not take at all, if her own harvess
yield enough for her own consumption, even
thou9h our duties were repealed altogether, and
Whlch she must take if her harvest fails, even
anough our duties were twice as high they are
The price OF flour, therefore, is not affected by
our tariff, but is materially by those of foreign
countries. III, Tor example, the next steamer
should bring news OF the entire failure of the
Engilsh crops, the price Of flour would rise, not
withstandlng our tariff would remain UNCHANGED.
why Because the British duties ,oouM be Iop-
efea, so as 10 admit of lis introduction into that
country. This fact shows that the British duty
is tax upon the American producer-and in
Ike manner, that the American duty is a tax up
on The BRUSH manufacturers.
why, we ask, do the Republican and Enqui-
iei' III 'heir examination OF the prices of flour,
sol upS III,
1899, 40 and Al with the years 1912, 43 and 44 3?
was 1t because by limiting their examination to
those two periods, the result seemed 10 sustain
their assumption, and enabled them to appeal
successfully TO the cupidity and the preudces of
the farmers 7! We will 90 a little further into
the enquiry, and show the falacy of the assump-
ton that the price of flour is affected by the Ame-
rlcan iarlii, by facts the force of which no $50
phlstry" can evade. In 1921, the AVERAGE price
OF flour was 81 06-n 1923 the tariff REMAINING
unchanged The price was Sc So. How happens
THIS difference, If the price is dependent upon the
laTlli But again-See the price of flour at The
following periods:
In 1871, period of low duties, it was 81 O6
In 1929, period of hgh duties, 81
In 1875, before the high tariff passed
that year went into operation twas SIS
In 1879, alter the high tariff of 1928
went into elect, ii was 6 81
III 1907, comparatively low duties, it
was 0 30
In 1871, when the duties were much
lower, being only 20 per cent. 5 10
FROM 1921 to 1924, period Of low
duties, the average price Of flour was 5 SO
From 1925 TO 1892, period Of the
highest rates of duty ever imposed
In this country, it was SO
These facts show, what every man of obser-
walton ought 10 know, that the price Of flour is
regulated by the extent of the wheat crop, and
not by the iarif-faIling or rising as the produc,
rs small or large, and the demand active or slug
gish.-Lynchburg TUgintan.