The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-27


Comparing the ten years, from 1850 to
1860 under low tariff, il will be seen that
the manufactures increased IS per cent.
aud 40 per cent per capita, against an in
crease OF IS per cent. in population, while
the increase in manufactures from 1870 To
1880 under a high tariff was only q per
cent against an increase of 30 per cent. in
population, while the per capita shows an
actual decrease OF 81.
Making similar comparisons down the
column II will be seen that the increase in
exports from 1850 to 1860, under low
tariff, increased 1875 per cent. against an
increase Of only so per cent under high
tariff from 1870 TO 1880.
The exports Of manufactured goods I'M
der low tariff from 1850 to 1860 increased
500 per cent, against an increase Of less
than 30 per cent. under high tariff from
1870 to $780, The exportso Of manufactures
increased from 1850 to 1850, fiom 90 cents
per capita TO $3.50 per capita, against an
actual loss OF from 80 so TO $40 per capita
from 1870 to 1880 under high tariff.
The exports OF farm products, 1850 TO
1860, increased 40 per cont, against an
increase Of 20 per cent from 1870 TO 1880.
This would appear on the face that the
high tariff Of 1870 TO 1890 had kept the
farm products ut home, but this is not so,
as the proportionate percentage Of the
exports Of farm products, rs com.
NAN al OIL -
all kinds, decreased from 9OH per
cent. In 1850 to 1851 per cent. in 1850;
while the per centagcs actually increased
from 7a0i in 1870 to 1924 in 1880, show.
ing that greater proportion Of the farm
products were kept at homo from 1850 10
1850 than from 1870 10 1880.
Under u low tariff the price OF wheat adj
yanccd from $3.50 a bushel in ls50to sl.52
in 1870, while the price under high tariff
decreased from si.65 In 1870 TO Sl.3l in
$780, or the same price obtained in
1850. The figures from 1886 show another
remarkable decline, ~ in that year the
average price New York quotations in all
instanccs) was in that year only 10 cents a
bushcl, or 10 cents less than Il was In 1850,
although the per capita production was
only 10 bushels in 1886 against 0 bushels
In 1880.
As 10 corn tho price from 1850 increased
from 6J cents bushcl 10 ~ cents In 1880,
against decline from 81 cents In 1870 10
IS cents In 1880 The average price OF
1890 was ~ cents, a decline Of q cents q
hushcl compared with 1880, although the
per capita production In 1888 was only "a
bushels, against - bushels In 1880 A
decline In production, as In value, an
anomaly In the tendency OF prices.
With q cotton production por capita Of
ioriy.Ryc pounds. cotton decreased in value
from l9i cents por pound 10 l0i cents in
$780, with per capita production Of soy.
cnty-six pounds. The decline In value
from 1870 10 1880 was from 20l cents "a
l2.i cents per pound. The 1885 prices
show that with production Of sac
pounds per capita, decline Of three
and half pounds since 1880, the
price Of cotton still further de.
clincd 10 o. cents per pound, or L.
cents per pound less than Il was in 1850,
when tho production was twcnty.ono
pounds greater per capita than II was In
1896.
These figures have been put together
Just ~ they were found, without special
regard to their relative value. From these
IL will h. seen that the low and decreasing
tariff from 1850 to 1880 was largely morc
favorable Tor the increase Of manufacturing.
for the exports Of manufacturers, Tor the
increase In home consumption Of farm
products, and for the increase In the
prices Of the same.
II high time that the country should
return 10 low tariff basis II Il desires
10 incpasc il manufacturers alta greater
rate than Il increases its population.
Something that Is demanded by the ext
gcncics Of the times and the needs Of the
country, In sending Il forward on more
expansive mad 10 prosperity and greatness.