The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-03-16

To the inquirer who has RiYen we thrlH
the least consideration " an |
anomaly 10 witness an agricultural people .
or those WHO claim, through thcprcss or OF |
fetal station, 10 represent such interest
advocating protective tariff Lot us see
some data. Under this incubus, as 1t now
exists, the farmer Is forced " pay, as OH
cal figures disclose, an cnl bnccd tax OF 70
per cent. on the lumber hb house is built
Of. as shown sometime sibco by Mr.. Woop,
of New York tax of % per cent. for the
paint on IL; tax Of 30 per cent. on his
window glass; of 10 per cent on
his hinges, screws, bolts, nails,
etc. His ironware for pottery
pays IS per cent; :his crockery 40 per cent;
his cutlery IS per cent; his glassware AZ
per cent; his linen 10 per cent; on his
clothing he pays for wool hats 60 to 50 per
cent, wooden clothes 55 per cent leather
for boots and shoes % per cent, hosiery 80
per cent, alpaca dresses Go per cent?
spool thread 70 per cent, needles 80 per
cent, medicines from 30 to 800 per cent,
carpets GS per cent. coarse blankets lOl per
cent These are only Il few of.the scores of
articles bat are thus taxed, articles that the
poor must have, that the farmer needs.
Surely these are most iniquitous figures.
But we are told that the government
must have n revenue. True, yet
see the absurdity of the impositions as
placed, when we announce that the rev.
enue thus received by the government was
last year in round numbers some $l9i O0O,-
600, and the bounty received by the manu-
facturcrs was l,250 100000; and yet the
agricultural population alone stand to the
manufacturing in the ratio of II, and
the first with the trades and professions
stand to those engaged in manufactures as 6
to /. If this is not downright injustice and
iniquity, we fail to comprehend the
meaning of those terms. But we are told,
as SENATOR MORRILL,, of Vermont,
recently said, and the fallacy is repeated
by some of cur own inconsiderate and
thoughtless people, that the agricultural
interest is compensated for all this outrage
by the home market created for their farm
products through these manufacturing
people and their wants. What an abb
surdity when applied to the country at
large, or to this section of it; when the
figures demonstrate that the south buy
and consume more of the agricultural pro-
ducts of the northwest than do all the
manufacturing states,in proportion topopu.
lation. This settles that question beyond all
doubt. Take off the high tariff and our
population will not decrease, but find new
modes Of employment, ifindeed it be found
that manufactures will not then pay, and
the farmer will sell his products to the
Englishmen or others who may send the
manufactured articles to our shores. But
the point that we more particularly desire
to make this morning is that, if such tariff
be reduced so as to allow fair competition
with manufactured goods from abroad, then
the south will be so much benefited in her
manufacturing prospects and possibilities.
The proposition is that the lower the tariff
the better for the manufacturer that manu-
features on the spot nearest the raw mate
rial. The three elements Of cost in manu-
facture are the raw material, the labor, the
interest on the capital invested. The first
or chief one of these we possess at our own
doors cotton, wool, leather, etc. The
sharpened foreign competition begot by
low tariff on tie far-of New Englander cap
italist will force him to reduce the cost of
such material. To effect this he must
come to the spot where it is grown,
and save the heavy expense of
its transportation in bulky form.
We here ought to be able to produce for
and offer to our people in the immediate
locality, and to the world, cheaper manu-
featured article OF cotton goods especially;
and absolute free trade, indeed, would be
summum bonum to the cotton planter and
the cotton manufacturer in these parts.
Another view: This almost prohibitory
tariff has forced the consumers of our
farm poducts to stimulate their production
elsewhere. Hence, we find England urging
the cultivation of cotton in other parts OF
the world, which increased sup
ply by so much cheapens the price.
Not only this, but she encourages
and aids the growing of the cereals, ETC.,
and by so much again diminishes the
worlds demand for our own products.
How, then, in view Of these facts that stare
us in the face at every turn, an agricultural
interest can advocate high tariff, we are
positively at loss to conceive. Or how we
who grow the raw material in the shape
or cotton, furnish lie wool,
leather, etc, can ask the continuance
of that system which keeps at splendid in
terest, millions Of capital in the north and
east that would otherwise come here, is one
fthe problems beyond our powers TO solve
7 Ike Off the iniquity rs against cotton and
wool, and the San Marcos, the San Antonio
and the Guadalupe rivers, for instance, will
be visited by scores Of capitalists in search
of mill sites TO transfer their skill
and labor. The lands around and about
them will be required for the workmen
and their families; they will appreciate in
value, and the country will ill up rapidly
with thrifty population. A calm review
Of the facts and the logic Of events sustain
10 the letter all these positions. The low
tariff revenue system from 1876 10 1851 set
ties the questions beyond all dispute. All
that Is required Row is an intelligent dis
closure 10 the general mind 10 undeceive Il
from the effects which TIE skillfuily placed
spectacles Of a strange fallaoy have 90 long
held upon the country.