The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-10-26
man, nan pLAoR snrnrw


The sheep rasers Of the 10th congressional
llstdlt are alarmed lest the election |
OF HANcoCK should contribute one vote
more 10 ward the reduction Of the tarih'
They are also alarmed lest this reduction
shall begot ayast depreciation to their indus
try. Let us now assume that the election OF
JupoE HANCOCK might, by singular com.
bnation circumstances, bring about such
reduction, would IL iniure them? To get
an insight into the true inwardness OF those
protectionists who contend that it would,
we will offer some experience as to the cost
of the farmers products under low tariil
eras A low tariff was enacted in 1916, ana
the rates were still further reduced in 1901
so that from that time until the breaking
ont of the war we had tariff for revenue
only, with o close approach to free. trade
According to the theory of protection
lists the farmers price should have been
low in that period and high
when the present tariff was enacted. we
have made a comparison of the prices OF
the principal agricultural products for the
four years preceding 1859, under low tariff
with the price of the same products for the
four years preceding 1879, under high
tariff. and with this result: The average
price of wool before 1859 was 80 cents per
Mound. and before 1879 81 cents. This, too,
after an average duty of Al per cent. had
been placed in 1861 on foreign woods. The
average price of wheat before 1859 was Sl'oZ
per bushel, and before 1879 $l.25 per bushel;
of corn before 1859, 81 cents per busnel' ana
before 1879, so cents; of oats before loo9, AZ
cents per bushel, and before 1879, 81 cents;
of butter before 1850, 20l cents per pound,
and before 1879, Is cents; Of lard before 1867
II cents per pound, and before 1879, cents
In every instance the farmer received bet
ter prices when the tariffwas low than when
il was high. We forbear to make any
comments on these facts-we only ask
the protectlonist to explain why the
farmers price has grown smaller
under the policy of protective tariff
Now. in the second place, we contend that
if the tariff on all the articles now taxed
and used by the wool grower were left un'
trammelled by the iniquitous rates, he
himself would be thus much better oil
He gets about "a per cent. tariff put ON his
product, and for the things that he pur
chases he pays tariff tax OF 81 per cent
averaged. Said manufacturer OF wooler
goods recently: If the government Woule
take off the duties on building material, OF
coal and iron, and machinery and wool, III
would consent that the duty might b'
taken off of what he manufactured. VIVA
was that but to say that all the increase
price protection gave him it took away IL
the increased prices of articles he was Obliged
to pay. AS the manufacturer is affected
by these payments to others, SO are al
persons. Hence we contend, in the thir'
place, that the wrong to the farmer which
the wool.grower in his mistaken selfish
ness would thus impose, should meet VIII
I its rebuke. Let us see what he would com
pei his neighbor to pay. For all manner
clothing, cotton, woolen, silk and satin; 10
sheetings, shirtings, blankets, hats, boots
socks and shoes; for all kinds of furniture
crockery and kitchen utensils; for al
manner of farming or agricultural lmple
ments, etc., plows, spades, shovels, cult
waters, wagons, harness for all sorts Q
machinery; for transportation on the rail
way through heavy tariff on iron and steel
for drugs and medicines, and for books AM
nearly everything used in health and sick
ness, and even for burial, the pee
pie of his district have to pay
I, tariff tax of averaging so per cent
Surely this is a piece of injustice tina
should bring its censure upon those VIII
insist on it for few paltry dollars forthem
! selves. As surely as shines the sun thes
truths will blaze out some day in noontid
clearness, and the wool grower viii
; astonished at even himself when IN pos
session of the truth.