Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-09-27

population; or, in other words, a rate OF
tariff that enables the home monopolist
to put his own price on his products and
compel the consumer to pay it, is a
tariff for the few ut the expense of the
many. They maintain that a tariff
rate sufficient for the purposes Of reve-
nue., when added to the cost of trans
portation for imported articles, would
be sufficient to protect home manufac-
turers as well as their employees who,
in a large sense, must pay the price OF
protection.
The whole controversy upon the tariff
as it now exists may, therefore, be said
to be a contest between the producer
and the consumer-the former to pre-
vent any reduction of the taLif and the
latter to reform it so that while ample
protection may be afforded our indus
tries, it may not encourage monopolieS
or permit prices that impOyerish the
consumer.
In q certain sense both are right and
both wrong. They represent the ex-
tremes of the controversy. There is a
middle ground which seeks to so reform
the existing tariff that only those arti-
cles and industries which need it may
have such protection as they actually
need and no more. and that the whole
system, which, in large degree, is a
war tariff, may be revised and reformed
so that many of its oppressive features
may be abolished or readjusted TO suit
existing conditions. This demand has
been so urgent that Congress was COM
PEELED to appoint tariff commission for
the purpose of gathering information
regarding the operations of the present
system in alIits details, with view to
reform.
\ reform in the existing tariff does
not necessarily imply the reduction Of
the existing rates to the basis of a tariff
for revenue only, nor tariff for protec-
ton.
1t does imply-if the advocates for re-
form have their way-that the tariff
upon many of the necessaries of life,
which are needless except as protec-
ton to high prices, and which serve
only to increase the cost of living, shall
be abolished.
1t is worth while for the laboring men
of this country to reflect that the aver
age rate of tariff upon those articles
which he eats and wears-those articles
which every man must have if he lives
is just Is per cent. That is to say that
whenever he pays 81 for one of these
articles, 4S cents of it is on account of
the tariff, and if the tariff was removed
he would have 43 cents to put in his
pocket as change from every dollars
worth he purchased; or, in other words
he would save S4S out of every 500 of
his wages now expended for the neces-
saries of life. If it now costs him 81 900
a year to live, he could buy the same
bill of fare and the same grade OF cloth
ing, and save $3.50 every year of that
income if the tariff was removed.
For, it is manifest that whatever per
cent. is added to the price of foreign
goods imported into this country, will
be exactly the measure of increase
which the home manufacturer will put
on the price of his goods. The amount
Of the tariff is therefore, just so much
added to the price of the home article,
and the consumer must pay it.
For example, one of the persons whe
appeared before the Tariff Commission
at Des MONIES, Iowa, the other day,
said:
"Most of the goods that Western peo-
| pie bought were much dearer here than
other countries, while most of what
they had to sell was worth much more
abroad than at home. They had to
pay S24 for carpet that should sell for
$40; Sl7 for lady's dress, instead
of SO, and 50 for pair of blankets
worth only 81, and they got but
10 pounds of sugar for 81 instead of 16
pounds; q wagon-load of wheat that
was worth $50 in Iowa was worth $45
in Liverpool, while a suit of clothes
that was worth S45 in Iowa was worth
so in Liverpool. In other word, IL
bushels of Iowa wheat would buy in
many kinds of goods in Liverpool as
much as As bushels would buy in
Iowa" The injustice of legislation
that tended to produce such results the
witness thought must be apparent. A
statement was also read showing that
under a high protective duty the
WOODEN mills in Iowa had diminished
in number from S. in 1870 to 40 in
1880, and that in the same decade the
wages of the manufacturing workmen
had been reduced.
To sum up: A tariff that is levied for
the purpose of increasing the price OF
the goods, and not because the Gov
eminent needs the revenue, is protec-
tive tariff Such tariff, instead of be-
ing "for revenue only" is for protection
only.
This is the distinction which the Ohio
county convention intended to make in
its tariff plank-as we understand it
when ii said: Protection, and not a
tariff for revenue only"
Ii such policy is carried out in levy
ing tariffit will increase the cost OF
living in this country enormously.
Observation-Disclosures of the laboring