The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-08-30
SENATOR FAULKNER ANSWERED.

Mr.. hnnunlI Shows TINT Customs Duties 10
not Necessarily Fall on tho Consumer.
Senator Faulkner, in his speech at the
Capitol rink last night, made his chief
point on the stock assertion OF the Free
Trader, that tariff duty is necessarily a
tax paid by tile consumer. Hon. Sam
uel ]. Randall, OF Pennsylvania, who
has long fought the battles OF Democ.
racy, in his speech OF May IS, 1855, in
the House OF Representatives, fairly
met and squarely disproved this asser-
ton, Mr.. Randall is not in very good
repute with the Free Trade Democracy,
and he was not allowed to have hand
in making the Mills bill ;butasa thinker
he is at least Che peer of any Free Trader
in the Democratic party and OF any man
who helped to shape the Mills bill.
Hear Mr.. Randall against the Free
Traders:
Before proceeding to explain the prin-
ciples and provisions OF the bill which
introduced, as it affects the tariff, l will
stop to refer to few OF the fundamental
propositions which have been persistent
ly maintained throughout this debate,
and which appear to exercise acontroll-
ing influence over the opinions Of SO
many.
First-That duties are always added
to the price which the consumer must
pay.
On articles not produced in this coun-
try this is doubtless true, rs general
rule, and measurably true also on arti-
cies in part produced in this country but
not sufficiently to supply the entire de-
produced in sufficient abundance TO sup.
ply, or measurablysupply the home mar
ket, different principles control. lnthat
case competition, where it is free to
operate, determines tire prices OF the
various prod Lcts and the foreign pro-
ducer comes TO this as n market where
prices are fixed, and the duties are what
he pays for the privilege OF entering our
market. [Applause.
Another erroneous proposition is that
duties on articles produced in this coun.
try are tax or bounty which the con.
sumer pays TO the manufacturer, by
means Of which the manuiacturerderive
larger profits than prevail in other in.
dustries.
II this were true it is not easy to sec
Naturalization could be offered for the
committee bill any more than for the
present tariff laws. But that this, us a
general rule, is erroneous becomes up.
parent enough on closer examination
Of the laws OF trade which prevail under
all systems.
That there is tendency in every in.
dustrial system to an equalization OF
profits on capital and wages OF labor is
an admitted principle Of political econ
omy. Adam Smith long ago laid down
the proposition that larger profits in one
industry than in others could not long
prevail in the Sane Coultry. Other
economists state the same principle.
Suppose that, with our industries con.
stituted as they are, we formed world
by ourselves, would it be claimed that
one class, as consumers, paid q perpetual
tax to another class ~" producers
Would not rather the economic law Just
stated prevail? Such would be the
condition, too, under a tariff entirely
prohibitory. The same law operates
under tariff that covers the difference
in the cost OF production between this
and other countries.
OF course the tendency TO an equaliza-
ton Of profits on capital and wages OF Ia.
Dor never reaches dead.level, because
OF the varying conditions and influences
under which production and consump-
ton 80 on.
From these principles it follows that
all who participate in an industrial sys.
TEN are partakers oil its benefits, whether
they are employed in one industry OF
another-not the manufacturer alone,
but the laborer; in short, all who pro.
duce and exchange products are alike
benefited under this system, aud that is
the system l seek to continue by q
proper adjustment OF tariff duties. Only
those who have fixed incomes or are in
office for life with fixed salaries, would
be benefited by the overthrow of this
system and the establishment Of Free
Trade. But this is tue last class that has
a right to complain.
Still another assumption is that any
class OF produCers-for instance, the ag.
ricultural class or the wagc-earners-
could continue indefinitely to sell their
products, or their services, in our pres.
ent higher market, and at the same time
buy the products or the services OF 9TH
ers in cheaper markets. That this is not
possible becomes clear enough on the
most casual examination. II the farmer
ceases to buy the products OF the manu-.
faCturers, he will certainly cease to sell
to him, and must sell his products in the
market where he buyswhat he consumes
himself. Suppose last year we had man.
ufactured thousand millions worth
less than We did and had gone abroad
for these products, expecting to pay for
them with agricultural products; could
a thousand millions more OF agricultural
products have been sold abroad at the
price such products brought here? We
sold all the wheat and corn and meat
products that Europe would take
at the prices that prevailed. Who
can tell what prices Europe would have
taken even Ave hundred millions or one
hundred millions more OF our agricul-
tural products than she did take? The
mere statement Of the proposition is
enough to disclose the error on which It
is founded, and shows the importance OF
uniting manufactures with agriculture,
or, us Jefferson states it, put the manu-.
facturer by the side Of the farmer. In
fact, both must, in our country, depend
almost exclusively on our home market.
n Is folly, il not crime, to attempt a
change in these respects. II w0uld bring
ruin and bankruptcy Without hC possibility
Of huring any other result accomplished.
The greaterthe diversity OF industries
in any country, the greater the wealth.
producing power Of the people, and the
more there is for labor and capital to
divide, the more independent that
country becomes. Applause