The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-07-25

I TT.z-i--
|iQi'i!].hl;:e a BIT i iqent:e'lr !;
lnicet Nos. % and AZ Fourteenth 81 rect
| -----=---
fourti, Article FROM Mr.. z. II. Turner OF
| iY5 ls,,l X the Tariff ~
Editors intelligenoer; 3 ~ 3 & Z
HARRisoS County, July %, lSSo.-Ir
your reply to the Clarksburg Nars, on ,'Tht
Matter Of Taxes" you soy, ""All that lii,
farmer pays in the way Of tariff duties Il
made up TO him In the enhanced prices hi
receives for bis products through the diver
siacation Of labor May / ask who pay.
the enhanced price ? Is It not the persons
who are engaged In the diversified indus
tries, according to your argument, and
whose wages you claim are increased by 0
protective tariff? But II they have to pay
increased prices for farm products and
everything else they buy, how can the
higher wages be Of any benefit to them
And II the farmer gets all his money back
from somebody else, ho,c Is that any benefit
10 The protected indus,ris I II everybody i.
benefited alike, then We arc no better oil
than under free trade; for II everybody
pays out again as much as he receives, or II
everybody receives Us much Us he pays
out, as you say the farmer does, then &C.
knowledge that AMI too dull to be able to
comprehend without further explanation,
how protection can benefit anybody. Pro-
lection either benefits some OF our people
or It does not. II it does not II Is Of no use
to anybody. and should be abolished.
II II docs, it does it al some ones erpenv; II
that some one gets back his expense BY an
increased price Of what he has TO sell, then
he must get It back from those others pho are
BENEFITED; and that is just arguing in circle,
for nobody Is benefited. But II that some
one does aol get back his expense then he
Is injured, And no hoeus pocu ringing
the changes on 'the pauper labor oil
Europe" will enable you TO avoid that di.
lemma. II the farmers have nothing to
complain OF, why did you say on June
eth that I'VE think it is to some extent
true THAT poll Of votes will show major.
lily for free trade in every State west OF In
diana); and that "hence there is all the
more necessity that the tariff DO 80 amend.
ed and reduced, where amendment and
reduction arc necessary, as to take away all
j,ai grounds Of accusaiion against it ?" II the
tariff gives back to the Turner in increased
price for his products all that it takes from
him, what difference can it possibly make
TO him how high the tariff is? Does not all
the increase OF the duty, according to your
theory, go to the workingmen2 And what
"just ground OF accusation" eau there be il
nobody is inJurtdi
You say further in your reply to the
Necs, that 1.-THE farmer has the consolation
Of knowing that il he pays any more for
the wooden goods which he wears on ac-
count Of tariff on wooden goods, the same
tariff gives him protection on the wool
which he ruises." Does il? Let us see,
The report OF the Director OF the Mint for
1881, page 20; shows that the average price
in New York of common wool for the
year Of 1S4G,-Gl was hirty.two cents per
pound, and this under revenue tariff
during part OF which time there was no
duty on wool, il remember correctly;
while from 1862 to 1880 the average price
was twentv.nine cents, and this too with
duty OF thirty.tive per cent. on wool since
1857. So much for the protection on the
farmers wool. But admitting, for the
sake OF argument, that the price OF raw
wool is raised to the extent OF the duty,
let us see how much better your argument
becomes rs q consolation to the farmer.
The tariff on manufactured woolens OF all
kinds has this thirtv.tive per cent. added to
it, 10 reimburse the manufacturers for the in.
creased price he pays Tor the farmers wool,
and besides that there ia an additional
duty OF so much per pound or per yard,
which ranges from thirty to sixty per cent.
more. So that the manufacturer takes
back from the farmer all the thirty.tive
per cent. on the raw wool and more than
that much additional. So l fail to see much
consolation in that. Besides, not one farmer
in score raises sheep, more than enough
10 supply wool for stockings for his family.
But all farmers must buy wooden goods, il
they can afford it. But you sav that most
Of their clothesare bought as low rs they
could import European goods, il there was
no tariff" Is that 30? Then please tell
me irhat you rdnt with a tariff tax OF fifty
cents per pound and forty per cent. on the
value OF woolen articles OF wear and ready
made clothing? Would not less rate
produce more revenue. ID
But you further say that this cheapness
OF clothing 'is particularly true1of cotton
goods. We presume Stwo.thirds OF the
goods used by the farming people Of this
country are in whole or in part made OF
cotton" Why should that be so, il the
farmer gets such fine prices for wool, and
"enhanced prices" for his other products?
Ought he not to DO able TO wear wooden
clothes? The fact is that your Consolation"
tariff has reduced the price Of raw wool,
and doubled the price Of manufactured
woolens. But your workmen in iron mills,
understand, are compelled to wear WOOL
en- clothes on account Of the heat incident
to the character OF their work. How do
they get back the extra price OF wooden
goods which they buy? / have never
learned that they have succeeded in making
wool grow in pudding furnace, orr iron
bar or steel rail; and fear they must lose
that extra price which the tariff makes
them pay OH wooden goods. But the wool.
en- goods they do buy are not more than
half wooden, and your assertion was quite
correct that two-thirds OF the goods used by
farmers are in part made OF cotton. The
tariff duties have SO stimulated the manu-.
facturers Of the coarser kinds Of wooden
goods that ruinous competition has set
in, and this has led to the use, OF "shoddy"
and cotton as mixture with wool to
cheaper the cost, so that it is almost i'm.
possible to get an article Of common do
nestle manufacture that is not adulterated.
But will let Mr.. Edward Atkinson. New
England manufacturer, state the case. He
states in recent letter to the Iowa SAFE
Leader, that since the first protective tariff
in 1924, the highest average price for wool
has occurred when wool was free Of duty,
and the lowest price when wool was sub.
ject to high tariff. And then he says 1.-THE
reason OF this is not difficult to see. The
wooden manufacturer needs every variety
OF wool in order that he may freely choose
what in hest for the great variety Of fabrics