New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-05-06
rs PROTECTION A MONOPOLY?
INFLUENCE OF DUTIES ON PRICES.

O candidate In 1871 DuJ Deatoh o0o"oo
publican. though over eighty years Old, still
maintains his interest in public affairs, ana
has recently put forth the following able ana
lucid exposition of the Tariff question;
UYIoNTows, Pa, April 10, 1872
The Hon. JAMES G.. BLAINE Speaker, etc.
SIR Permit an old personal friend to address to- ana
through you TO others, few brief reflections on the SUD
ect of the Tariff now under discussion In the HOUSE,
over which you ably preside
II seems to me- Sir that there is disputed taet on
which tho whole theory OF Free Trade, with all the
speeches subject depend for support that ought
In he settled before the debate properly proceed
The fact or rather assumption Is this that all Proecee
AZ we'll as duties are "ddded 10 me proe "e
domestic as peH foreign goods and pad ~ me con-
s,,Srv This has always been deniedthe proof repeat
edv called for but never furnished because upon ex-
animation the reverse was found to be the TRUTH
Nv reference 10 the debates OF 1929 49, 6 1t will be
seen that was then proved by the prices current and
mercantile books that Protective duties levied on
articles we successfully manufacture at home had III
the end by the investment Of capital competition, ana
increased supply been invariably reduced IN price,
I'm the face OF these established facts, gentlemen went
ON then "a now reteratng every day this false theory
nm which their whole case depends that Protective duties
are added to the price and paid by the consumer.
Revenue duties levied articles we do not produce IL
sumer but Protective duties levied on articles we can
ord do successfully manufacture at home have always
been I'm the end reduced in price by the increased sup
My resulting from home competition, Improved labor
saving machinery, skill experience, &C. Inc tmea'a~
effect however, of high Protective DUTY, by excuos
foreign supply temporarily to increase the price ny
diminishing the supply; but this very increase OF price
hastens its reduction by attracting capital from otner
less profitable empoyments thereby increasing nome
md M ~,
ducin0 the price 1t is admitted that this effect may
sometimes be interrupted by temporary causes-war'
famine deprecated or redundant currency, eXraoru
nary demand &c, but these exceptions DO not Iupan
the general truth Of this theory.
Now Sir this whole matter is controlled by one great
law generally ignored, The ta,o Of demand ana supply
law that regulates the price of all the necessares OF
life with as much certainty the law that regulates the
ebbing and flowing of the tides. Whatever increases the
spy reduces the price, and whatever reduces the sup
plv Increases the price Hence it follows that the '-
mate effect of Protective duties is to reduce prices by III
creasing home competition and supply.
In the debates Of '4-4G, 1t shown that In 1916,
there was duty OF about cents square yard imposed
on cotton goods then selling % and 80 cents per YARD
nv n bill reported by Mr.. Lowndes, and advocated by
Mr.. Calhoun Of South Carolina, and that afterward
duty OF 81 per box was put glass 81 cents per pound
ON nails etc. which, the time Of the debate appeared
TO be selling cotton for cents yard, glass at 20 ID
box nails 81 cents pound, etc. Yet was sui con-
tended then as now that the duty added TO the
price and paid by the That Is that the con-
sumer who bought yard of domestic cotton for cents
paid cents duty box of glass he bought Tor - 3d.
he paid 81 duty on pound OF nails he bought for 81
cents he paid duty OF 81 cents These facts cannot be
denied but the theory had to be maintained taat the
duty was added the price, all their speeches about
taxation oppression etc. would have vanished INTO the
air
Now have few other questions to put to Mr.. Kerr,
te able and asue leader OF the Free Trade party which
hope he will answer in the speech he has promised TO
make when the Ways and Means report the Tariff bill to
the House. Now, Mr.. Kerr, in speech few days ago.
estimated the home man ufacture of iron at sO2OOoOO;
wool at s17sCOo OO and cotton at s17OOOOO making to-
gether s4s OOOOOO Then suppose Mr. Kerr who boasts
that he is Free Trade the OF his head to the
sole Of his foot succeeds IN his efforts 10 reduce the du
ties on iron and wooden goods below the point Of ade
auate Protection, and thus destroys S3SOC the pres
ent home supply. he says, Of iron and WOODEN gooos.
What would be the effect OF this on the prices OF THESE
articles in the markets of the wordi Would they not
be doubledl How many millions Of American capital
would it destroys many millions Of tuns Of ore and
coal now being developed, would leave useless in the
grounds How many thousand wOrkinSmen. now prOnt-
ably employed in making this $202OOOOO worth or ron
would II throw out Of employment, and how many mil
lions would it take out the pockets Of our farmers
who now supply the bread. meat vegetables hay oats
and corn consumed by the men, women and children
horses and mules, employed in making this iron at home,
and sending this 500 100000 to Europe to purchase that
amount of foreign coal and ore bread meat and grain,
worked up there here into iron, to be lad down as
rails over the richest mines OF and coal and the
most productive land in the world, thus r0bDng our
farmers of their markets. laborers Of employment
and our country OF its money enrich foreigners at our
expense Are not such the legitimate results OF Free
Tradel Are not such the benefits and blessings would
if carried out confer upon Americas farmers and Work
inemeDl
Mr. Kerr also estimates the home manufacture OF
WOODEN goods at S7GO0OOO0 Is not the wool considered
half the value Of the clohi And Is not the other
half principally made up wages and subsistence Of
aborl And not this what You pay for when you buy
the cloth Thus giving sl76OOOOO for wooden goods to
foreguers which under favor OF FrOtecton Is now re-
tanned In our country, and distributed among onr
own people, And IS this not equally true OF all other
goods brought from abroad in competition with Amer
can manufacturers And if not, please point out the ex
ceptiOns.
Is not Inadequate Protection than none as it en-
courages American manufacturers 10 struggle on until
they are totally runcdl Whereas II all Protection was
withdrawn at once, they would save their capital by
transferring IL to some better employment.
Ialso ask Mr. Kerr whether the consumer pays any
part OF the duty articles where American competition
has established an American price In the American
markets Suppose the price or tun OF American pIS
iron is established in New-YOrk by home competition at
$50 fun the present prlce-take of the duty and will
not the foreigner continue sell his iron for $50 the
American price then add $40 to the duty must he not
nav this $40 into the Treasury and st sell his pigs at
$50. the established American pricel He can't get
more aud he won't take less So whether the duty IL
hgh or low on or off, the gets the iron at the
same price. Again. do not Protective duties nN only
sustain our wages at home but are they not now fung
la NJ
day labor is demanding higher wages threatening to 10
10 the United States whore they get two THREE
fines the amount and must not the capitalist submit TO
the demands OF labor or lose
AGAIN. we ask is not the common idea that Protection
on the one hand or Free Trade on the other. is the true