New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1873-01-16

wool-growers Of the country would not much
thank the revenue refotmers for this ehort 10
destroy so profitable home market as t''e
policy Of protection has made for them.
And as to the price Of cotton goods .he
Bulletin states rs one reason, aside from 'i'e
tariff, why they are dearer now than 0eio'e
the war, that the raw material is one nun
dred per cent. higher than then Alnu,iS
uplands being from 10 to 2o3 cents in No.
yember last. against lOl to II cents in 800.
Notwithstanding this tremendous dihereaee
in the cost Of the raw material, 1t IS known
IN mos. If the women and children Of The
country. though members Of Congress ami
statis,ician, may be ignorant OF the fact, that
cotton goods are little dearer than they were
before the war. DO the manufacturers de-
serve no credit for this? Il ii not shameful
ignorance or as shameful malignity that de-
nounccs them as pensioners upon the bounty
of that public which they have go largely
benefited?
Referring especially to Mr.. Burchard, Of
Illinois, one Of the leading and most fert-
cious free trade or revenue reform orators il
Congress, the Bulletin asks: \
Does he suppose that they are enjoying
bounties Of 40 per cent. upon cottons and 60
per cent. on woolens above what would be
fair profit on their goods? We cannot be-
lieve him to be capable of such inconceivable
stupidity. Does he believe that the workers
in cotton and wooden mills have been re-
spectiyely receiving pensions Of $500 and
si0O each, above what would be fair wages
FOR their labor? The proposition is so abb
surd that it is its own refutation. Has his
table any meaning whatever? Knowing it
to be nonsense himself does he think his con-
stitueEts are such asses that they would take
it in good earnest, and credit him with a seri
Gus effort to save them from the infamous
robbery parpetrated by an execrable tariff"
And then it gives the free trade apostles
the following hard morsel to digest. If they
succeed in satisfactorily disposing Of it there
will be some hope for them:
"The assumption that a return to free
trade would make at once a reduction OF
prices exactly equivalent to the duty is so
perfectly untenable, so entirely at war with
all experience, that no public man having
pretensions to craftsmanship should give it
credit. Mr.. Burchard has seen the reduction
Of duty upon pig iron from 50 to 81 per ton,
followed by rise in price Of SIS ton If
his friends had succeeded in their efforts to
repeal the duty, the price would have been
higher still, there is no telling where it would
have gone to. This bit of history should
have taught him that the way to cheaper
commodities is to encourage home manutac-
lures
1t is a striking feature in the argument in
pP fran ha RvlIg TN
mates, that while it furnishes scores Of rea-
sons why we should repeal the tariff to
cheaper prices Of things they wish to buy,
no attempt is made to satisfy farmers that
free trade prices are the best to sell by.
There is an enormous crop in the country
and there is grumbling about low prices, but
prices arc not low when compared with what
may be called free trade times before the war.
With the exception Of corn and pork every
thing is uniformly and greatly higher, and
the great staples are so much higher that
when the difference Of price between 1850
and 1872 is applied-after the fashion OF Mr..
Burchard-to the whole product OF the coun-
try. his laundering and mistaken Indictment
of the manufactures, if admitted to be true,
would be so trivial as not to be worth men-
tionng. The bountes to agriculture under
protection immensely ovcrbalance the petty
sums he has falsely charged M against its
patrons the workmen employed in native
industries.
A brief comparison Of the prices Of some of
the leading agricultural products of the coun-
try in December, 1860, with the prices in
November, 1872, will still more forcibly IL
lustratc tho vast benefits Of protective
tariff not only to farmers, but to the whole
country. The difference between the value
of the wheat crop (2S7, 74j ,G2G bushels) of the
last year at present prices and the prices in
1850 is 500, 40 900; between the price Of
jlI ,O92 ,GS3 TBS. of butter now and then is
35l 400 ,265; between the last crop Of cot
ton, 1901, 79s, 400 TBS, then and now is
Sill ,453, $50; between the last wool crop of
100, l02 ,387 lbs. then and now is s27 ,52S, ljG;
between the last oats crop Of 2S2, lOI, l5I
bushels is s33, 7S9, 734; between the last po-
tato crop of l43 1897 ,473 bushels is sl07 ,503,-
l0j and between the price of the last hay
crop of p ,3lG, 0lS tons is el4T ,238, 2G4--mak-
ing an aggregate increase in the value Of the
products named at present prices, more than
$500, 900 greater than at the prices which
prevailed in 1850 under free trade. Can
anything more clearly show the extraordinary
progress Of the country in prosperity than
these facts, or more strikngly prove the
great benefits of the protective policy the
Republican party adopted upon coming into
power
a comparison Of the present prices Of every
farm product used in the family with those
that prevailed before the war in the days of
free trade will show that the benefits Of the
good times we now enjoy are very evenly
distributed, the truck patch and the grain
field, the dairy and the rancho, are alike
prosperous, and it is cheering TO see that the
greatest proportional advantages are enjoyed
bv the agriculturalists Of the Southern States.
There is not manufacturer in the country
who will grumble about it. There is not a
workman mean enough to denounCe his
brethren Of the Western grain field and the
Southern cotton field "a monopOlists, rob-
-. opJ pnnciopcrs bccauSe undpr tho eY-