The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-02-26
Mr.. Paul Explains a Few Al
legged inconsistencies.
A STRONG ARRAY OF FACTS.
Where Readers, Those Interested In
Free Trade Versus Protection, Will
Find all the Controversy.
BY ]. H. PAUL.

more OF less OITeCLy, IAfSo pAoPoSi'Aoho :
THAT my first and subsequent ar
Giles are not consistent.
2.-That the woolen manufacturers
loss would be $50 900, 900 a year accord
ing to my reasoning, if the tariff were to
be removed.
3.-That if the country should send
abroad 500 600, 900 year for wool, that
amount of money would be lost, at
least, that it would be saved by spend
ing it for homegrown wool instead.
1t will be noticed by the reader, that
the whole of his first clustering array of
figures has entirely disappeared, and
that by filling up his article with quota
tons from me, he has been able to
avoid most of the slang of his first arti-
Gle; although his blunders in grammar
and construction continue to appear
wherever he ventures to write for him
self. What induces me to answer his
last feeble but spiteful effort is that he
iunocently reasserts his former PROPOSE
tIon, that the country saves all the
money it pays for homegrown wool.
The fallacy involved in this proposition
is OF so much importance to every one
Investigating these questions, that l
make no apology for taking up space In
entirely demolishing it.
1. The alleged co itradic lion between
my first and subsequent articles. at
which the gentleman grasps like a
drowning man catching at straws. are
not contradictions at all when taken
In their proper places. Tor the
purpose of defeating them in their
own stronghold, my first article
is based on the wool growers
assumption that they receive 10 cents
per pound on their wool because of the
tariff, and admitting also, for the sake
ofargument. their assertion that for
eign wool is competing with ours of the
same grade, and it followed that our
manufacturers pay duty of 10 cents
per pound on "shoddy, wooden rags,
mungo and wool waste" because these
are the articles enumerated in the tariff
schedule on which the duty Is 10 cents
per pound. The duty on clean. pure
wool varies from % to 1872 cents per
pound, according to quality.
In reality, however, [ do not admit
that the price of homegrown wool is
materially increased by the tariff, nor
that foreign wool of the same grade is
competing with western wool; and l
argued at length against these propo-
sitions in my second article. Mr..
Thompson brings a passage from
each article, places them side
by side and adds, 1.-The abov Q
needs no comment" He might
have added. with more truth, Conn
ment will be fatal to the decepta an I
am seeking to practice" for fl was
either greenness or deception, Snd per
hsps both at work, when an. opponent
that had studied py articles pointed
out. with beyish glee, passages that at
I first sight would seem contradictory.
II. Upon losing bis vast array ~
ures. Mr.. Thompson heats - a ns
that part OF the $751; wv is DUO neIDn the
1ariG on osaes D .terials than wool,
m mn1In sF' Hse in the manufacture OF
woo.es' ~ first article said the in
J,' price of homemade woolens
@"F to the tariff was $81 000,O0c" l
} .dded that "were we to remove the
whole tariff on WOOL" (meaning all the
tariff that directly increases the cost oil
woo!ens) we should save over SIS ,0O0, 0OO
a year, etc. If my language was not at
first perfectly clear on Lhe point,
make 1t so now. 1 observe. also. that in
the note appended to my long article, the
word '.etc." was omitted after the word
wool, though it was in the manuscript.
The above point is not necessary to nv
argument, nor does it affect the general
result. A manufacturer estimates that
the increased price of the whole wooIen
product of the country is ISL 900 600,
and is due to the extra price of the
taxed materials; and Mr.. Thompson
again says if the tariff were removed,
the manufacturers would lose $59, 000,-
coo. What does this ever-recurring
hlunder of his mean? Does 1t mean
anythingP
III. There was an old man who
had abundance of gold. And the sonnd
OF the gold was pleasant to his ears, and
his eyes delighted in its brightness.
But he was faint with hunger, and his
trembling limbs shivered beneath his
rags. Aud there came child to him and
said: Father, have found secret.
You shall not be hungry and miserable
any more. Gold will buy all things
Then the old man was wroth and said:
Would you take from me my gold p"
ancient Fable.
Mr.. Thompson's remarks on the
money question reveal the lamentable
fact that he has never read any stand
ard work on finance, and lead to the
suspicion that he has not seen the in
side of any work on political economy.
Suppose that by a remova, of the
tariff every sheep owEer in the country
had to sell out and buy horses and
cows,I as he suggests (Which 1 by no
means admit yet, even then, the only
necessary loss would occur from the
delay incident TO starting in new bust
ness, and from the fact that profits in
this usiness might be less than in sheep
culture. We should then paw the
former sheep owners 100000 900 for
horses, beeves, hides, etc., instead of
for wool, ship these articles to other
countries tor money, and with the
money buy Australian wool. Who
loses the 500 100000? If none of the
narties cor cerned have lost Sit, no one
has. The country at large still has ex-
actly DIS much money as it had before: :