Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-09-12
MIR. CAMpsELL OPENS UP.

4 uAIN hACCuCCCo ~ Ao'NNo ~ NaN $780,
paign" the other day at sherrsrd, IN Mar
shall county, that is 10 say, he avoided the
issues as much IS possible, and INDUCED
simply in a lecture upon the respective
merits of the abstract principles of protec-
ton and free trade, which have nothing to
do with this campaign.
He was addressing an audience Of farm
ers and biased his speech accordingly.
He told them that were it not for Wheel
ing and vicinity with their so, 900 inhabi-
tants, they (the farmers of MsrshalD would
have no market. He laid particular stress
on this tact, as il it were not self
evident, or as if it had anything to do
with the subject under consideration. Now
the tariff did not make Wheeling, any more
than il made New York, Chicago, Philadel-
phia, or any other city, town, village or
hamlet. Wheeling has existed and pros
pered and increased under low tariff, under
high tariffaad under free trade. live were
content to lay everything to the tariff, as
Mr.. CAMPBELL seems to be, We might say
that Weddings greatest period Of growth
and prosperity were under q low tariff and
most certainly, our farmers were most
prosperous and content under the lowest
tariff-for the farmer cannot be protected By
q tariff. He bears nearly all the burdens
of the present system Of exorbitsnt pro-
lection, but he gets not q cent of its bene-
fits. The farmer will always have his
home market and q high tariff serves but to
deprive him of his foreign market. If we
take nothing from abroad, We can ship
nothing abroad, for that is the principle Of
international trade. We ship our wheat
to England and get our pay for it in mer-
chaudise-not in money. Consequently
under Mr.. HARRIsoN's idea Of 'no traffic
with abroad" we could, it is evident, ship
nothing abroad, and in that case what
would our farmers do with their millions
of bushels Of surplus wheat? 1t is plain
that the only thing they could do to keep
soul and body together would be to form
a gigantic farmers trust ian imposslbihty
we may az well state to liuit the produe-
ton and force up the prics-as our highly
protected manufacturers do-at the ex-
pense of the American consumer. A pretty
state of things Tor our farmers to contem-
plate surely, for il would be equivalent to
sucking their own blood.
Mr.. CAMPBELL descended to Half-and-
half ATEINSoN's clsp-trap wool argu-
ment, which we were surprised to note,
for Mr.. CAMPBELL is generally .
fair debater. lie referred to the Demo-
cratic position, that allowing our manu-
fdcturers free foreign wool will raise
the price of domestic wool and lower the
price of clothing. He attempted to show
that this WAS self contradictory, by sup
DRESSINGS vital fact. Mr.. CAMPBELL knows
that we use in this country 600, 900, 900
pounds of wool annually, and he knows
that only 265. 900, 900 pounds of it are
grown in this country, the remainder
bsiug imported-115 O0O, 600 pound in
raw wool, and the rest 10 cloth.
And his knows that the bulk
i OF this imported wool does not come into
competition Nth our american ifOoI be-
cause il is of q different quality. He also
IL aware of the fact, that for about every
- - c.-,,., r,nn1 thay ,,oo nnr uvrnlAn |
manufacturers use two ponds OF American
wool to mix with it to make the proper
grade of goods. Hence, with the tax taken
fl the foreign wool our manufacturers
would use q great deal more OF it and
wonld in proportion, use just 80 much
more American wool, raising the price Of
the latter by this largely increased demand
md at the same time lowering the price OF
wooden clothing by the vastly cheap
ened bulk of the foreign raw
material used in its composition.
We believe this is as plain
and as simple q proposition az it is possible
to make, yet Mr.. ATKINSON and Mr..
CAMPBELL are going about the districi
like bowling dervishes holding up their
hands in holy horror at the notion
Of free wool" and ignoring entirely
the vital fact that American wool 10 Of o
different quality and Gao not come into
competition with the bulk Of import
ell woods. Let them quote the prices Of
domestic wool under q high tariff and uu-
der free wool, which we challenge them to
do, and then make their clsp-ttap argu-
ment. The prices OF wool under a nomi-
nal tariff, and under free wool we're from
two to four times the price under the high
tariff. Mr.. CAMPBELL, also unfairly, at
tempts to prejudice farmers by stating that
by the MILLS bill there is still left a high
tariff on wooden goods while wool is free.
But MI. O. does not tell them that the re.
ductiOR on The manufactured IcoOl is greater
than the reduction on the rdic rOOl, although
the latter is placed upon the free list, the
reduction on the textile fabrics being forty
points on the hundred, while the re.
duetiOn of the raw wool is thirty points on
the hundred, q difference of 10 points
in favor of the wool grower, who must
clothe himself and his family.
The American farmer ''feeds the world"
II is to him that other nations look TO
supply what is lacking in their crops.
What he sells eau not be protected"
Prices are fixed by the worlds production
IN the worlds market; except for specu-
latiye corners" and such temporary or
local Quotations, the quotations of wheat
aud pork and cotton are from Liverpool,
What the farmer gets is, in the long run,
Liverpool price les the cost of handling
and transportation. But of this he must
pay what his crop cost to raise. The rest
is proft-aud little enough it is.
IL is so little because protection"
which can not increase the price OF what