The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-19
.nAu. HAN. nLACk sHEEr,"


The sheep raisers of the 10th congressional
district are alarmed lest the election
OF HANCOCK should contribute one vote
more toward the reduction of the tariff.
They are also alarmed lest this reduction
shall beget avast depreciation to their indus
try. Let us now assume that the election OF
JUDGE HANCOCK might, by singular CON-
bination circumstances, bring about such
reduction, would it injure them To get
an insight into the true inwardncss OF those
protectionists who contend that it would,
We will offer some experience as to the cost
of the farmers products under low tariff
eras. A low tariff was enacted in 1876 and
the rates were still further reduced in 1851
so that from that time until the breaking
out Of the war we had tariff for revenue
only, with close approach to free. trade
According to the theory of projections
lists the farmers price should have been
low in that period and high
when the present tariff was enacted. We
have made 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 So cents per
pound, and before 1879 "a 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 $l.52
per bushel, and before 1879 $l.25 per bushe;
of corn before 1859, 81 cents per bushel, and
before 1870, 80 cents; of oats before 1859, AZ
cents per bushel, and before 1879, 81 cents;
of butter before 1859, 20l cents per pound,
and before 1870, Is cents; of lard before 1859,
II cents per pound, and before 1879, cents
In every instance the farmer received bet
ter prices when the tariffwas low than when
it was high. We forbear to make any
comments on these facts--we only ask
the protectionist 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 tho articles now taxed
and used by the wool grower were left un-
trammelled by the Ubiquitous rates, he
himself would be thus much better Off.
He gets about 81 per cent. tariff put on his
product, and for the things that he pur-
chases he pays u tariff tax OF 90 per cent.
averaged. Said Il manufactures of wooden
goods recently; If the government would
take off the duties on building material on
coal and iron, and machinery and wool, he
would consent that the duty might be
taken OIL of what he manufactured, What
was that but to say that all the increase of
price protection gave him it took away in
the increased prices ofarticles he was Obliged
to pay. As the manufacturer is affected
by these payments TO others, so are all
persons. Hence We contend, in the third
place, that the wrong to the farmer which
the wool.growcr in his mistaken selfish.
ness would thus impose, should meet with
its rebuke. Let us see what he would COM
pei his neighbor to pay. For all manner of
clothing, cotton, wooden, silk and SATIN for
sheetings, shirtings, blankets, hats, boots
socks and shoes; for all kinds OF furniture,
crockery and kitchen utensils; for all
manner of farming or agricultural imple-
ments, etc, plows, spades, shovcls, cult.
vators, wagons, harness 10 rl sorts of
machinery; for transportatic IN the rail
way through heavy tariff Oh iron and steel !;
for drugs and medicines. and for books and
nearly everything used in health and sick.
ness, and even for burial, the peo-
pie of his district have to pay u
tariff tax OF averaging so per cent,
Surely this is n piece OF injustice that
should bring its censuro upon those who
insist on it for few paltry dollars for them.
selves. AS surely shines the sun these
truths will blaze ~ some day in noontidc
clcarness, and .ho wool'grower will DO
astonished ut even himself when in pos.
session of the truth.