The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1883-09-01

General Durbiu Ward. Of Ohio, is an in
tellipent man, thought by many members
Of his own party to be worthy Of seat in
the United States Senate. 1t his recent
speecl at Gallon, after he had talked about
cardinal principles" and the common
right Of mankind TO use stimulsnts, he
buckled down 10 the tariff and planted
himself squarely on the free tradepIattorm.
He told his audience that the protective
principle taxes the farmer, mechanic,
workman on the implements Of his indus
try, on every article OF clothing and COM
fort OF home, not barely to support the gov
eminent but to enrich the manufacturer"
Mr. Mongtedien, the official writer for
the Golden Club, choice selection OF
whose ingenious pamphlets lies before us,
arguing in the same way, estimates that
the tariff compels American farmers to pay
four hundred millions Of dollars year as
an oyercharge On all the manufactured
goods they consume-almost equal to the
value Of the whole wheat crop OF lSSO-an
average of 500 to each farm, and csrlously
enough just equal to the average value OF
the farm implements in use on each farm
in 1880. How long could the farmers stand
this drain? From 1860 to 1880 the value Of
farms increased 2l2 per cent.
No statement Is more frequently made
by free traders than that the duty is added
10 the cost Of production and is paid by the
consumer. The fallacy Of this statement is
easily shown. Judge Kelly, in 1875, made
the House smile at the absurdity OF the
thing. He took the principal agricultural
products for 1877 and, following the free
trade theory, showed that consumers. had
been forced TO pay two hundred and fifty
six millions Of dollars to protect the bloated
agliculturalist. The single item Of wheat
will illustrate the reasoning: Bushels pro-
duced, S6O,OOO,OOO; bushels exported, 81
0l393B: bushels consumed at home, 3O2,-
05G,OG4, on which there was duty OF 20
cents a bushel; gross imposition on home
consumers, SG0,5Ol,2l2. Yet the price OF
the wheat consumed at home was fixed by
the price Of American wheat in England,
admitted without duty.
There is scarcely manufactured arti-
Gle that is not cheaper now than it was in
1860, before this "robber tariff was put
on. Under protection the farmer buys
more with his bushel OF wheat than he
bought under free trade; 80 with bis pound
Of wool and his wiie's pound Of butter. 1t
is the lament OF English manufacturers
that the American consumer does not pay
the duty. II no did why need they
complain? The foreign manufacturer has
TO grind his workman and accept less profit
than he thinks be ought to have for the
very reasonl that he cannot make the Amer
lean consumer come to his terms while the
American manufacturer stands between.
The ISTELLIGKScER has already quoted
the testimony OF the Bradford (England)
manufacturer who said to Mr.. Porter, Of
the New York Tribune, ave are obliged
to sell our goods in France for the came
price as We did before they enacted their
higher tariff, and the Bradford manulac-
turer is paying the duty, not the French
consumers OF the goods. l know from
practical experience what l am talking
about" This truth was perceived by Alex
ander Hamilton, who said, in his report OF
1901, that the ultimate effect Of tariff
was to bring down price, and
he showed why it was 80. 1.-THE internal
competition which takes place soon does
away with everything like monopoly, and
by degrees reduces the price Of the article
to the minimum Of reasonable profit on
the capital employed. This aCcords with
the reason OF the thing and with expert
ence."
General Durbin Ward was entirely
frank when he said, "The Republican
party advocates the protective principle,
and the Democratic party the revenue
principle" Democratic stumpers and
writer's do good deal Of lodging, but Cen
eral Ward correctly places the parties.