The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-10-26
"Bas. bah, BLACK sheep"
dallas Herald

dallas Herald
The sheep raisers of the tenth con-
gressional district are. alarmed lest
the election of Hancock should con-
tribute one vote more toward the
reduction of the tariff. They are
also alarmed lest this reduction shall
beget a vast depreciation to their in
dustry. Let us now assume that the
election of Judge Hancock might,
by a singular combination of cir
cumstances, bring about such reduc-
ton, would it injure them? To get
an insight into the true inwardness
Of those protectionists who contend
that it would, we will offer some ex-
perience as to the cost of the far
mer's products under low tariff eras.
A low tariff was enacted in 1886. and
the rates were still further reduced
in 1857, SO that from that time until
the breaking out of the war we had
tariff for revenue only. with close
approach to free trade. According
to the theory of protectionists the
farmers price should have been low
in that period and high when the
present tariff was enacted. We have
made comparison of the prices of
the principal agricultural products
tor the four years preceding 1859,
under low tariff, with the price of
the same products for the four years
preceding 1879, under a high tariff,
and with this result: The average
price of wool before 1859 was IS
cents per pound, and before 1879 "a
cents. This, too, after an average
duty of Al per cent had been placed
in 1861 on foreign woods. The aver
age price of wheat before 1859 was
$1.52 per bushel, and before 1879
$1.25 per bushel of corn before 1859
81 cents per bushel, and before 1879,
80 cents of oats before 1859, At cents
per bushel, and before 1879, 81 cents;
of butter before 1859, 203 cents Ter
pound, and before 1879, Is cents !; of
lard before 1859, IL cents per pound,
and before 1879, cents. In every
instance the farmer received bet
ter prices when the tariff was
low than when it was high.
We forbear to make any COM
ments on these facts-we only
ask the protectionist to explain why
the farmers price has grown smaller
under the policy ola protective tariff.
Now, in the second place, we con-
tend that if the tariff ON all the
articles now taxed and used by the
wool grower were left untrammelled
by the lnlquitous rates, he himself
would be much better off. He gets
about thirty-four per cent tariff put
on his product, and for the things
that he purchases he pays tariff tax
of fifty per cent, averaged. Said a
manufacturer of wooden goods
recently: If the government would
take off the duties on building
material, on coal and iron, and
machinery and wool, he would con-
sent that the duty might be taken
off of what he manufactured. What
was that but to say that all the in
crease of price protection gave him
it took away in the increased prices
of articles he was obliged to buy.
AS the manufacturer is affected by
these payments to others, so are all
persons. Hence we contend, in the
third place, that the wrong to the
farmer which the wool grower in
his mistaken selfishness would thus
impose, should meet with its rebuke.
Let us see what he would compel his
neighbor to pay. For all manner of
clothing, cotton, wooden, silk and
satin; for sheetings, shlrtings,
blankets, hats, boots, socks and
shoes; for all kinds of furniture,
crockery and kitchen utensils; for
all manner of farming or agricultural
implements, ETC., plows, spades.
shovels. cultivators, wagons, har-
ness for all sorts of machinery; for
transportation ON the railway
through heavy tariff on iron and
steel; tor drugs and medicines, and
for books and nearly everything
used in health and sickness, and even
for burial, the people of his district
have to pay tariff tax of averaging
fifty per cent. Surely this is piece
of injustice that should bring its
censure upon those who insist on it
for a few paltry dollars for them
selves. AS surely as shines the sun
these truths will blaze out some day
in noontide clearness, and the wool
grower will be astonished at even
himself when in possession of the
truth.