The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-03-25

country, Yet II some ingenious, misery
method could be devised by which this
immense wealth could be kept at home
our only gains from it would be colo
| plate, rings, watch cases, spoons. forks
dishes, coffee pots, picture frames, ano
the like. They would make gooc
show, and bevond shat we should be
little better off than if the extra golc
had not been discovered. But left fret
to take its own course, this immense
find of gold would be exported, and
not considering gold product for the
moment, we should import $500 worth
of products to every 500 worth we ex-
port" which would also drain the
country of its surplus cash." making us
rich and prosperous because it did so.
But'these are the very results that NJ
op, onent lnveighs against; yet it i:
only by some such miracle IS the one
above supposed. that it would be posi-
BILE for the calamity y against which
he so feelingly pleads, to occur.
TOfollow any further this 'eOIuci0 and
Gbsurdum of the lines just quoted from
Mr.. Thompson, would be to offer an
insult to the intelligence of my readers
Ny friend still affects to believe that
he has not lost his army of figures.
claimed that each wool-groRer paid $50
more for wool clothing than under free
wool. He did not dispute this, but
but showed that the whole country
would lose SIS, 00O,G coo at that rate,
which was higher total loss than l
gave. In my next | showed how the
loss [ gave would easily re Oh that
amount. but he does not reply to my
explanation. He claimed that the man
ufacturers would lose $1,000 900, by a
removal of the tariff; this 1 refuted
showing they would gain much more
than that, and this also he does not
answer
Hoping that the readers have
forgotten, or have not seen my demon
stration that 500, 600 coo of protection on
raw wool increases to an untold loss IL
the finished product, he asks chow in
the ma pe of common sense is the pro
lessor gong to save that amount when
the whole wool production of the
United States does not bring that
amount laid down in Boston, imported
wool included?" As well might he ask
why every ton of finished iron costs the
country $3.50 more than il would I'M
der free iron, when the tariff on iron
ore. the raw material. is only 81. so per
ton! and then prove that 1t does not by
involving something that he labels as
common sense!"
Ny position was supported by quota
tons from eminent economists, one of
which l here reproduce: "a tax on raw
materials is equal to its own amount.
plus the usual percentage of gross pro
fit, multiplied by the number of pro-
cedures Through which it has to pass
until it reaches the consumers in the
finished state. a protection of SIS. 600,
600 on wool keeps swelling and swelling
at each intermediate stage until it may
be called nearer $100,OOO,000 when il
goes into consumption in its finished
state, without any adequate advantage
to manufacturer, working-m or con-
;umer."
And without even pretending to an.
'weT any Of the foregoing arguments he
lays he has all bis figures yet, and
proves it, forsooth. by writing them
Town again!
It will not do for Mr.. Thompson to |
dead his common sense" against |
principles he has never studied, nor to |
sy he would burn ''such cranky |
works." He must either disprove the
or show that for some reason
does not apply in the case of wool.
70 profess establishment because to
lin the result appears extraordinary,