The Portland daily press., 1888-09-07
Free Trade FaIlacIas.

In yesterdays Argus the Hon. George
Talbot picks up the free trade cudgel that
the Argus itself ceased to WELD some time
ago. Though apparently long and very
solemn production, Mr.. Talbot's article will
we are convinced, afford repayment for read
ing it to all men whose bumps of humor are
well developed. One of the gems which we
hasten to quote
The practice of making nominations of men
capable of contributing heavily to the Corruption
Fund has filled the House largely with solid men.
such bodies feel at once the Inconvenience Of the
rich and hasten to relieve them. They have no
feeling for the burdens which the poor bear for
the most part in silence.
will we are certain be vastly entertaining to
the Hon. William Emery, of Allied, who is
no doubt thinking on this subject at the
present time. But Mr.. Talbot aims to enter
tain not only the capitalist like Mr.. Emery,
but also the "small farmer" to whom he
says
Does the small farmer want Congress to inter
yene between him and his customer, and add AZ
per cent. 70 the price of every dozen Of eggs, or
carcass OF lamb, or pound of butter he has got to
sell? Is he not perfectly willing to live and let
I'VE, 10 require his larger price when his stuff is
g9ou ana scarce, and submit to bis small price,
when they are poor and plenty?
There is no doubt whatever that the s'small
sAhASA 40 pOAtOObl9 Willie w nave OOuSItbo
arrange for him better market provided no
one else suffers. and our Democratic friends
have always said that everyone else was bet
ter off under the tariff than the farmer.
But aside from this, fit is wrong for Congress
to interfere between the farmer and his con-
sumner, how does Mr.. Talbot make the per-
formance any more moral when the interior
ence is to the extent of 40 per cent, as is
claimed for the Mills bill, instead of AZ per
cent. as Mr.. Talbot implies that it is under
the present law? On the effect of duty,
Mr.. Talbot puts himself in line with that
eminent philosopher, Grover Cleveland, who
first determines his theory and then makes
his facts to correspond, each agreeing in the
language of the former that the effect of the
tariff
Is clearly to add the duty TO the market price,
and make them SO much more expensive TO the
consumer.
This is not so, and piece of recent Dem
ocratic experience that has. been often COM
mented upon in these columns, shows the
fallacy of it. In 1887 Mr. Cleyeland's admin
istration advertised for bids for the purchase
of blankets for the army. There were
English and American bids. The English
bid about 1925 for four-pound blanket, and
the American bid for the same was about
thirty cents higher, so that for 1900 blankets
the English price was $4,5o4 and the Ameri.
can price $5,120, difference of $616 in favor
the English manufacturers who were award
ed the contract by Secretary Endicott. Now
If on a protected article the effect of the
tariff sis clearly to add the duty to the mar
ket price," as Mr.. Talbot and Mr.. Cleveland
say, this $6l6 additional cost in the 1000
American blankets must represent the
amount of duty on that number of blankets,
Now as matter Of fact the total duty on
those 1000 blankets would be about S3,016
and If Mr.. Taibot's theory were correct the
total cost of those American blankets would
be over 81 800 instead of only about $500.
We would recommend that Mr.. Talbot go
and commune with his staunch Democratic
brother, Hon. George Walker, who does not
believe that the duty increases the price at
all, or at least appears to so believe from his
remark that the removal of the duty on lum-
Der would not make that commodity any
cheaper.