The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-25


To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal
Having greatly enjoyed the general manner in
which you have conducted your discussion of the
tariff question, though compelled generally to
differ from you, both in your reasonngs and
conclusions, and knowing at the same time the
freedom with which you open your columns to
all temperate discussion, / take the liberty of
calling in question certain facts and conclusions
in your editorial entitled 'Tafif Reduction :"
found in the issue of April o. In discussing the
consequences of tariff reduction you rightly at
tribute as l think, the decline of the decrease of
customs in successive quarters to increased pur-
chase abroad. Singing out the firm of Powers
& Weightman, you affirmed that they
transferred their manufacture of quinine to
Germany on account of their ability to manu-
faeture it there more eheaply But you
drew from this and other considerations the fol
lowing conclusion, which seems to me entirely
erroneous, viz: every dollar sent to England
for goods manufactured by English artisans, is
dollar taken from industries that employ
American mechanics" affirming, moreover that
if this does not mean more work for transatlantic
mechanics and correspondingly less for Ameri-
can workmen, it means nothing For the sake
of Powers 81 Weightnnan as a concrete illustra-
ton. The free-trader will not deny that the re-
duction of the tariff will work individual hard
ship OF that it will have some effect on the dis
t1ibution of capital III its forms of employment.
But what he will deny is that on the whole,
it will work anything else but increased pros
perity to large extent Tor the entire nation
Respecting this firm, you implied that the reduc-
ton of the price of quinine, owing to the aboli-
ton Of all duty on it, to the consumer was of lit
tie account compared to the withdrawal of it's
manufacture to a foreign country. You affirmed
that the reduction of cost to the consumer was of
no material value. Herein lies question of fact
in which think your statement misleading
am informed by the druggists of this place that
the wholesale price of quinine has been reduced
more than LOO per ounce 1t now quotes at
81 30 a 81. 40 whereas year ago it ranged as
high as $3.50 If the consumer does not reap
this profit, it is becaues he does not demand it.
and surely the distribution of so much
clear profit as must, at this rate,
accrue to retail dealers in this drug is of no
small moment. One druggist informed me that
it was currently reported that that single firm,
in one year, sold 900 ounces. If this be
true and if, as is surely the case, we may soon
see the profit of this reduction shared by the re-
tai1ers with the consumers it looks as though
there were q distribution annually Of several
millions of dollars among those who feel the
value Of money, however small, rather than its
transference in bulk to the Golfers of few
wealthy firms. And if this additional statement
that was made to me be true, viz: that they had
transferred their manufacture only Temporarily
until they could rebuild their works in this
country it follows that all this benefit would
operate with scarcely any corresponding disad
vantages. But assume for the sake of
this argument, that your statement be true;
that the transfer is permanent and was