Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-17
noNoPoLY VERSUS Commox sEysE.

EpdnlnH language buOull ne taught IN Oul
Ligh schools.
MONOPOLY VERSUS COMMON sEssE
The tariff hes become one OF the prime
! questions of the day, and the time has ar.
rived when all those who are opposed to mo
nopoly and mischievous interference with
the laws OF trade should advocate, strongly
and Perseveringly, the just principles Of fair
and free exchange of commodities. Nature
opposes protection; one land grows wheat
another coffee; one apples, another oranges
one portion Of the country produces fish, an
other potatoes, and that each should ex-
| change products with each other i plainly
intimated in the very constitution of things.
In countries enjoying constitutional liberty,
freedom OF exchange is the right Of the citi-
zen. Every American has right to buy
where he can buy cheapest and Sc II where he
can sell dearest, and interference with that
right is an act of injustice. That
violation OF sound national policy and cor
rect trade principle is involved in the meas
ures of the monopolists-who for blind
falsely call their system protection-is shown
by the manner in which they change the
basis Oh which they ground monopoly to suit
circumstances. At the first introduction of
the system the plea was-suspend foreign
competition until we can establish our bust
ness and surmount the difficulties incident to
all new undertaking.; then, when We have
got into good running condition, we cau
sand on the same level as the farmer with
his wheat and the merchant with his goods.
Having obtained exemption from COMPETE
tion-which constitutes monopoly-the re-
cipients Of the nations bounty continue to
object to standing on the ordinary ground
OF commercial dealing, and demand a
permanent monopoly on the plea that
such vast and important interests
as they have created ought to be freed from
the competition that the wheat grower and
the cotton planter is subjected to. If tempo
rary relief for first efforts only was required,
then the application for monopoly now is
fraudulent. III relief is really wanted now,
then the declarations made at the beginning, as
reason for according monopolistic privileges
were false, and the country is under no obi
cation to continue what it should never have
begun. If system that pays double prices
for an article, not because it is better or more
valuable, but merely because it wss made
within the boundaries Of the country, is it
self correct and sound one, then it is,
broadly speaking always sound and correct;
correct for State against State, city against
city, household against household. The man
who refuses to employ his $3.50 year man
ager TO mend his broken windows, so that all
the work on the house may be done on the
premises, rather than employ a man outside
OF his establishment whose services are worth
only $500 year, is a protester, by his ac-
tions, against monopoly. The city that does
not make the piping for its own waterworks,
but buys it from makers in another city, is
protester against the monopoly of protection.
The State that buys iron puddled in Penn
sylvania instead of obtaining the ore and
pudding it for itself, is protesting against
the monopoly of protection as much as a
country would that should give employment
to GLACIERS, builders, coal-miners and labor
ers by growing its own pineapples under
glass rather than buy them from the West
Indies. Und,r the system of monopoly, as
at present carried out, for Massachusetts, to
admit tobacco from Kentucky without pay
nent of protection duties is right, but if
he fate of war had put the two
States under different governments it
would have been wrong. This is saying |
hat the results of climate should be
adapted to law, not law to the results of ma
ure's action. Business men assert and act |
lpon the principle of producing and trans
PORTING their merchandise and manufactures
IS cheaply as possible; for this they build |
improve rivers, construct docks,
ridge streams invent labor-saving ma
hiuery, and do innumerable other things,
nut the monopolist runs counter to all this,
nd lays duties upon goods 70 make then, dear.
( it is a correct rule in trade to produce at
he lowest possible expense. then it is a false
Principle that applies tax to make certain
.inds OF merchandise unnecessarily dear.
n simple terms, TO employ the time one could
ain dollar in TO make an article that he
an buy for fifty cents, merely because he
an say the article was made at home, is alb
urd, and contradicts the elearest principles
1 trade. 1t is equally wrong ii fifty of
is neighbors do the same thing; it is just the
anne violation of common sense and correct
rinciple if the whole city in which be lives
o the same. 1t is no less an absurd, false
nd incorrect system OF action when the same
hing is done by the whole country within
hitch that city is situated. The coat that
osts ten dollars in New York can be bought
,r six in London, and by this system of mo-
opoly the keen, quick and rational Ameri-
an people is doing just what the skilled en-
raver, who makes five dollars a day, would
e doing if he staid at home to dig his gar
en-, 10 do which he could hire man at
70 dollars and two and a half dol
rs day. The closest Analysis, the clear
t reason, the keenest perception, the sim
est use Of common sense, shows the system
monopoly, miscalled protection, to be false
Id bad, and now is the time for all who |
now this to proclaim their convictions, 10
sist upon Congress commencing wise and
'adual retreat from the vicious policy of
onopoly, until the duties upon imported
,ods shall be levied for simply revenue pur- ,
'ses, as the constitution of the country re
lires, thus restoring to the American citi- I
n right of which he ought never to have
EN- deprived-the right to buy where he
n buy cheapest, and sell where he can sell
arrest. {