Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-11-15

How this Country Has Suffered
from the Protection Policy.

&M~AMM MAAG ERaEGMA9AM GRAhGN~
Mr.. Alfred Tyler publishes in the
Economist a remarkable letter on
the effect Of the United States tariff |
upon American prosperity as well |
as upon British prosperity, which
deserves the most thoughtful con-
sideration in this country. After
some preliminary observations of
importance, Mr.. Tyler brings for
ward his main proposition, that the
United States has suffered more in
the long run than England from the
artificial stimulus given to Aneri-
can manufactures and the damage
artificially inflicted upon English
manufactures by the United States
tariff, and from this he proceeds as
follows
One consequence is that the Amer
lean cOtton-grOwer has latterly got
the minimum instead of the maxi
mum price fur his article. The price
of finished goods, both in Great Brit
ain and the United States, is said to
AAN%NC ONCl DCAOn AAAC wv VI kyAOOAA-
ton, and the wages earned by the
operatives in both countries hardly
sufficient to pay for bare necessaries,
and often there was no interest
earned on manufacturers capital.
The cotton goods exported to the
United States for 1872 were valued
at s5,337 ,974, and those for 1874
were valued at 60, 1876, 900, or about
half q nWnnTfz
iron and wooden goods also fell enOr-
mously.
The fall in value applies to anoth-
er great import from the United
States. In 1869 petroleum was e21
per ton. In 1872, $3.50 tons were
imported at eI2 per ton. In 1878
the quantity imported increased
five-fold, and the price fell to e10
per ton. The actual figures are
1896 tons, value f1 ,210,2I2. The
price now is about n pence per gal
lon, including casks and freight.
These cost, it is believed, pence
per gallon, leaving abOnt 81 pence
per gallon for the American prOdu-
Ger. The price fluctuated % per
cent. in 1878.
have thus traced the great fall
equal to 10 per cent. in wheat, 80
per cent. in cotton, and 40 per cent.
in petroleum. This fall has accom-
panied the practical shutting-out
from the United States of 60 per
cent. of British manufactures by
high protective tariff, comparing
1872 and 1878 together. The pro-
portions of British imports and ex-
ports from and to the United States
were about equal in 1872, viz, Esd
O0O, 900 and s45, 000, 200, exclusive of
freight. In 1873 the imports from
the States increased to &89, 000, 600,
and the exports to the States fell to
eli, 100000.
/ should explain the cause of the
fall in prices of American exports in
the following manner: By the re-
scinding of protective duties you
can always make the whole trade
better between any countries, and
improve the profits of traders and
the condition of the laboring pOpu-
lation.
The result has never been better
instanced than in the case of Cob
den's French treaty. The converse
must also be true, viz, that by put
ting on protective duties you can
always make the whole trade worse
between any countries, and injure
the traders and the laboring pOpu-
latiOn of each. That is, if protec-
ton was not bad free trade could
not be good. We know by expert
ence the good effects of free trade.
Capital, profits, wages, and advan-
tageS of all kinds have increased in
this country compared with former
times.
l believe that the evil of protect
i've tariffs is well illustrated by the
particular trading history of the
United States in the last seven
years. The effect in this case can
be fairly ascertained by comparing
the price paid in good times for
grain, cotton, and petroleum, and
the price paid for these articles after
the tariff had crushed the export
trade to the States.
The fall in price ! have shown
has thus not only affected wheat
and corn, but also cotton and petro-
Ieum and these articles are of such
diSSimilar character that common
fall in price must be due to one
cause, viz, to the want of reciproc-
ity in trading caused by the protect
i've tariff. The protective system of
the United States has placed a heavy
penalty on trade in one direction,
and that penalty would be burden
on trade in the opposite direction.
As far as possible, a free exchange
of commodities to an equal extent
and the settlement of the small bal
ance in coin is the condition that
most promotes good prices and large
business between distant countries,
according TO all experience.
1t is help TO the argument that
protection has forced down prices,
that from the absence of Black sea
and Indian wheat (from the trOub-
les of the Turkish war; at one time
and the Indian famine at another,
and from deficient crops and other
causes, the United States was the
only market from which we could
supply ourselves with food; yet
prices fell instead of rising.
No other country can possibly
produce petroleum or such good
cotton as the States. Had they had
a liberal tariff at Washington for
these five years they would have
traded to the greatest advantage,
and made far larger profits than
they have realized.
Our Government ought to have
made a strong remOnstrance on this
subject. We are at the same time
indebted to the United States for
their cheap grain, cotton and petrO-
leum, sold at the cost of production
to us, in consequence of this unjust
tariff. This acts not only in restraint
of our trade, but in restraint of
profit to the country which laid the
heavy burden on their country and
on US.
We are also indebted to the
United States for the cheap food,
enabling our work-peOple tc work
on reduced wages, and so causing
us to produce more cheaply, while
the wOrkmen are not so much in
jured.
AS our home trade is five times
as large as our export, cheap food
enables our workpeople almost to
support the hard times of the last
six years better than the American
working people. Wages were much
higher i'm the States than with us,