Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1875-04-01


paying 25 per cent more for brooms made |
in Shenandoah, than for the same brooms |
made elsewhere" We are surprised that |
one of Grundy's ability should put words |
into our mouth, which he Afterwards pro- |
ceeds to refute. We must insist upon |
to such arguments as assail our position.
What we said was s.We believe it would |
benefit the community more for our cltl-
zens to purchase one thousand brooms, |
manufactured by Our own people of corn |
raised by our own farmers ut cost OF |
two hundre d and fifty dollars than to
purchase the same number of brooms of
Il New England factory, at a cost of two
hundred dollars" Political economists
teach us that the prosperity of com
munity depends upon its increase of
capital In this case, the capital OF the
community would certainly be increased
and to that extent it would he benefited.
Whether tina amount OF capital woulc
be so divided that each house keeper
would receive his proportional share we
ulu llOl dtlt1tipl ~ tJiONS OiiNt hNhNS "a
not surprised that Grundy should hot be
convinced that such would be the case.
We have not advocated Chinese policy,
unless giving preference to our own
enterprises ean be construed into such
policy.
While we believe that our people can
manufacture at prices as low as elsewhere
III IL, ,to,., u ntn
been wanting, we cannot subscribe to the
narrow view that, whenever person
pays more for an article at home than he
would. by purchasing it abroad, that it is
all act of charity. AS we explained in
former ar cle, self interest is the guide OF
each individual, and if 4 party by paying
an increased plice for an article can so
benefit the community upon whose pros
perity his own is dependents as to enhance
his own interests to all extent equal or
greater than the increased cost incurred,
it is certainly the course watch common
sense would dictate, If a man is entirely
independent Of the community in which
he resides and has no interests i'll COM
mon wish it, we can clearly see how it
cannot be against his interest to refuse,
BY word or deed, 10 give the least encour-
aeement to its enterprises.
\ few years ago, number OF our cltl-
zensv sulbserited ior stQek ia ma.npfafttHnlr5
| doubtful as TO The success of the scheme,
F., and the remark coul;' frequently be heard
Il would be willing 10 loss my stock, if it
! should be instrumental in establishing a
mandatory" AS 4 stock company, it
did not succeed, and The stock was sold at
discount OF fifty per cent. Men who in
vested in this stock, could have purchased
the same amount of ST ock in some foreign
company upon whicha regular divislen
was sure. Was this an act of charity?
Not at all. 1t was temporary sacrifice
by which they benefited the community,
increased the general prosperity and to
day they are receiving their share OF the
benefits arising from an investment which
PAYS, though indirectly, handsome
dividend. The doctrine which we adj
voeate and which. we believe, is not in
consistent with sound democratic doctrine
is that it pays to contribute to the building
VI, of the enterprises ola community even
though the contributors receive no
immediate benefit from their contribu-
lions.
He further says. Suppose all other
communities would act upon the advice
that you are giving to ours-go into
manufacturing, make for themselves,
though at an advanced cost. the things
that they need and keep their money at
home-some of our industries would come
to a sudden stand STILL This reminds
us OF the case of a man who was about
erecting Il mill, when sage passing by
remarked 'lf you build mill. all your
neighhors may build mills, and then there
will not be grain enough for all of you to
grind, and you must necessarily starve.'
Grundy goes over the well fought field
of othe days and proceeds to give us long
argument in opposition to a protective !
tariff. Upon that subject there is no issue
between us, as we have always been OPP
posed to protective tariff However
with due d difference to the ability of our
esteemed correspondent, we feel that we
have been forced into a position some
what similar to that OF the man who said
he never doubted the existence Of a God. |
until he tried to find the proof of it in
Paley's Natural Theology. So we never
doubted the souudness of the democratic |
doctrine upon the subject of protective
tariff until we tried to find the evidence of
il in Grundy's argument. For intance he
says: "Manufictories, built up by the hot
bed system of protection, will manutac-
ture for the home market only, and sooner
or later, the market will be glutted."-
Glutted markets necessarily imply a
reduction of prices, and this state must
benefit the consumer. The reaction will
then enable the farmer to purchase for
three dollars an article worth five i'll stead |
of paying five dollars for an article worth |
three. If this is one of the legitimate |
effects of protection, it would certainly |
seem to be wise policy to give them the |
protection which they demand. Let us
have low prices. Oul. farmers want them.
And if the protectlvesta will have that
effect, why oppose it 1?
Again 1.-The protectionists and Irejoiee
to see it are, by like action, catea up by
the dogs of their gym breeding, the rob-
Der dogs of protection" II you rejoice at
their destruction and can haSlen il by Civ
ing them the protection for which they
clamor, why not give it? They have
heaped both Insult and injury upon lis; ard
now when the opportunity presents itself