The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-06-28

1914, lo45-years of the Wing tariff-four fell
| to S3.47 a barrel, at one time reached $462 /;
scarcely averaged S4.25! The season of the
greatest depression was in the year 1913, be-
fore the repeal of the Corn Laws.
If the table be examined carefully it will
be found, comparing the average price from
1923 to l843, leaving out of the calculatioathe
year 1887, as a clearly exceptional case,) with
the average price from 1916 to 1854, inclusive,
that the reduction is not so much as might
have been fairly anticipated from the natural,
healthful increase in the production of the
country.
We have neither time nor space to point out
and expose all the untenable assumptions of
the Tribune. AS much error may be boldly
asserted in one column, as shall require score
of columns for its exposure.
To all that the Tribune has to say of Pro-
lection and its results, of free market for
wheat and its results, of the tyrant manufac-
turers of England and the vassal producers of
the United States, we shall reply by exhibiting
few figures:
After the war, the first tariff enacted was
that of 1916. In 1919, duties were still fur
ther increased-as they were in lS2+and in
1923 was passed the most obnoxious of all our
tariffs. In 1888, the Compromise bill of Mr.
Clay became law under which duties were
gradully reduced till 1912, when another tariff
was enacted, which was supplanted by the Free
Trade Tariff, as it is called of 1896 So that
it may be assumed that generally, from 1915
to 1916, the policy of Protection was in opera-
ton to a greater or less extent. In 1912, began
the Bridish policy of Reduction; but as Some
time was necessary before the new policy could
produce its effects upon other countries, lc; us
take the period from 1915 to 1916, and that
from 1916 to 1854, for the purpose of compari-
son. -.
In the former period, our tonnage slowlyrose
from l 1868, III in 1915 to 1853, OS4, in 1876
or l,l94,957, an annual average increase of
only 38,447. In the second period, eight v ars,
from lS47 to 1854 inclusive, it rose rom
2,563,O84 to 1902, 9O2-2, 239, -shoysing
an average annual increase of 279,977l
Behold the ruin inflicted by British Free
Trade, and the opening of the English market
to our farmers
In 1916, our exports of domestic and for.
eign products amounted to $Sl 1920, 452. From
that time we struggled on, often falling far
below that amount, rarely exceeding it, ANTI
in 1853, we sent abroad ninety millions worth
of domestic and foreign produce The aext
year the duties began to be reduced, and the
reduction went on till 1912; and our exports
went up 20 one hundred and four millions one
hundred and twenty millions, one hun
dred and sixty-two millions, closing, in .S42,
at nearly one hundred and five millions The
average was about one hundred and t, enty
millions.
Undes the tariff of 1912, our commerci was
nearly stationary; but from the year ls4r, un-
der the influence of the repeal of the Corn
Laws ar of the tariff of 1916, our exports. went
up from one hundred and thirteen and 4 half
millions in that year to two hundred AM thir-
ty-one millions in 1853; and to two hu jdred
and seventyeight millions in 1854, of shich
two hundred and fifty-three aud a half mi lions
were of domestic production
OF course, the Tribune will talk of the pre-
ponderance of imports, the drain of tn. pre-
cious metals, &c. AT this late day, we d. not
think it worth while to discuss the old, tt head
bare topic-the balance OF trade-or the al eyed
impoverishment of a country by its paying
gold and silver for portion of its imports.
Gold, which for some years has constituted
considerable portion of our exports, is one of
the products of American industry, ard it
would be strange if it were not an arti lie of
trade. When we have an excess of i, we
export it, just as we export our surplus of rain,
when we can find market for it.
In conclusion, the Tribune desires us % IA
vor it with answers to the following quest ions
l. sis not the price of food regulated every
where by that in the market of England?
z. Is it not, therefore, for the interest Of the
farmer everywhere, that the price in that mar
ket should be high?
3. " Does not every increase in the quantity
sent to that market tend to lower its price, and
every decrease tend to raise it?
A. SIS it not, then, for the interest of our
farmers that all nations should adopt measures
looking to the decrease of the quantity sent to
that market?
3. F" Does not the protection afforded by Rus
sia and Germany tend to create domestic
market for food-to lower the quantity export
ed, and to raise its price?
6. Would not the creation of domestic
market in Turkey tend greatly to produce the
same effect and on an enormous scale and
are not our farmers, therefore, directly inter
ested in the incorporation of that country into
Russia 2
Z. Would not the success of the Allies tend
to lessen the domestic markets of Russia-to
increase the quantity of food seeking foreign
Market and to lower its price and have not
our farmers, therefore, direct interest in dep
recating any such success?"
We answer:
l. Ths price of food everywhere is regulated
mainly by the supply and demand, with varia-
tons produced by fluctuations in the cur
rency. An abundant harvest in England, with
large supplies from the Baltic, will diminish
the price there, while short crops with us at the
same time, will increase prices here. On the
other hand, if our harvest be large, a short crop
in England, by raising the prices there, may
stimulats our exports, and yet prices here re-
main n,oderate.
z 1t is the interest of the farmer everywhere,
that the price of food, in every market, should
be stable, not so high as to reduce consumption,
and deRtess industry, not 50 low as to deprive
him of remuneration.
3. Excess of supply over demand, in every
market, tends to lower, as excess of demand
over supply, tends to raise, the price.
A. No: it is for the interest of our farmers,
and OF all farmers, that the demand for food
should be constantly increasing, and that sup.