Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-23

The system Of protection is an artificial
maI eshift violating the natural laws OF COM
merce, and being violation Of natural laws
any reasoning BY which it Is attempted to be
supported is necessarily fallacious, and
therefore illogical. The establishment OF
prohibition in this country has necessarily
carried these sophisms before the popular
mind, and thus a degree Of currency is given
to them to which they have no real claim.
differences also are drawn from these curreEt
fallacies that are, Of course, groundless az
the foundation upon which they are sup
posed to be based. For instance, the fallscy
that protection benefits country, necessarily
leads to the influence that what benefits the
whole country will, if applied, benefit any
particular part of the country. If it is
good thing to protect the country against
sugar grown in Cuba, it is good thing TO
protect the country seller Of groceries against
the competition Of the town grocery
stores, and the town dealer in country
produce against the competition of the
country seller of the same articles.
from exchange papers, several instances
where applications of this principle were
asked for. We find another one in the Co
lumbus (Miss) hder, OF June 9Th. That
paper complains that dealers buy up chickens
and eggs, these they keep until there is
demand for them in the Columbus market;
then, says the Lader, ''they come in and un-
load and reap handsome profit on their
investment" The Ladez goes on to say with
some show of indignation that these dealers
"pay no tax whatever for the privilege which
they abuse, 10 the injury of househoiders
who may purchase from them, and it seems
to us they should be looked after by our
town authorities. The matter, we learn,
has been up before the Board OF Mayor and
Aldermen heretofore. IL should be brought
up again aud some action calculated to rem
edy the evil should be taken" Here the town
wants protection against the country, as
Pittsburg wants protection against English
Sheffield. The Columbus people are as evil
IDENTIFY entitled to protection as Pittsburg.
The fallacy relied upon is as strong in one
case as in the other. Now let us see what
the injury Is that is done to the purchasing
househoders. The eggs and chicken dealers
buy when those articles are in excess, and
therefore cheap. In this way the seller
finds wanted customer, when otherwise he
would be without one. When these articles
become scarce, and consequently dear, the
dealers bring out the reserve, and the scar
city ia lessened by just The amount they had
retained; consequently the price is decreased
in proportion to ths additions they make to
the supply. The consequence is the house
holder is not injured,. but benefited; and, ,.
while he gets the eggs and chickens cheaper
in consequence of the dealer having saved
them up, the seller gets more from them
than if be had been left without the dealers
custom. There is, therefore, no injury in
hicted and no evil TO be remedied. We think
the reader cannot fail to perceive the fall
lacy of the plea for protection made
by the h1der. Is this plain case
all there is in the matter? No, the
Inde1 did not see which thimble really had the
pea under it. If the dealers are kept out of
town by tax, then when eggs and chickens
become scarce the town storekeepers, having
a monopoly OF the market, will get such
prices for them as they fix upon; and when
chickens and eggs are in excess, the dealers
being out of the.way, the storekeepers will
buy al justsuch low figures as they can run
the seller down to. Tne real beneficiaries
therefore from taxing the outside dealers
would be the inside store keepers. The per-
SONS really injured would be the housekeep-
ers who, having no dealers to run to, must
submit to the storekeeper's terms. Here is
tie key to- the uhoIe juggte Of protect on as
played on the wide stage of the United
States. Let the reader observe how the Inde1
article, without the writer having any suspi-
cion of it. makes it out that the sufferer is
the housekeeper, yet all the while it is the
storekeeper who loses and the housekeeper
who gains by the dealers trading. Such
kind of substitution OF falsehood for truths
as this; such misleading of the mind by
cunning, or, as in the present case, by uncon-
scious misrepresentation, is at the bottom Of
the whole argument by which attempts are
made to support the grand fallacy of pro-
lection.