Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1890-03-20
TALKS ON THE TARIFF.

/ New York Press
Prof Simon n. Patten of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, in the current
number of the Political Science Quarter
ly, reviews the discussion of "Recent
Economic Changes" by Hon. David A
Wells, who lately published book bear
ing that title. Prof. Patten goes fol
Mr.. Wells free trade assumptions (as-
sumptions which most free traders
share) as follows:
The peculiarities of Mr.. Wells views,
as well as his way of presenting facts so
as to make them tally with his position,
are, perhaps, most clearly seen in his
discussion of the production of iron
and steel in America. In the body of
Mr.. Wells book he devotes much space
to the comparison of European with
American prices, in order to show the
cost of the tariff of the American con-
sumer. His method of reasoning is
very simple. 1t consists in taking the
price of the commodity on the English
market. Then he estimates the burden
of the tariff to the American consumer
by the difference between the two prices
The difference in the price of pig iron
in America and England, according to
Mr.. Wells, is 81 ton, and the burden
of the tariff upon American consumers
is measured in dollars by multiplying
the amount of pig iron consumed by
seven.
Besides this fallacious way of estimat-
ing the burden of the tariff there is
another fallacy into which free traders
are sure to fall. 1t is now too late to
expect that the American people will
ever consent to the destruction of their
leading industries, and hence it devolves
upon the advocates of free trade to show
that American production would not be
reduced if the tariff was taken off. On
the one hand they must prove that the
tariff is added to the price paid consum-
ers, and on the other hand that product
ion in America would not be less with
out tariff.
These two fallacies are both plauSi-
BILE, and when used with skill are quite
effective, but it will not do to bring
tuSlu iutO COO ClOoC COuuOCIlOA. L Hlo
error in judgment Mr.. Wells has COM
mitted, and the result may be surprise
even to Mr.. Wells himself. The facts
which he brings forward are very inter
esting and of especial importance, be-
cause they are vouched for by so good
free trade authority as Mr.. Wells. He
shows that the production of steel in
America is now so great that the addi-
tional quantity needed in America could
not be produced in England without a
great increase in the price of materials
in Great Britain and ON the Continent.
The result, then, of the taking off of the
tariff in America would not be reduc-
tion of the price of iron and steel in
America to that of Europe, but rise of
the price in Great Britain and elsewhere
throughout the world. Is this
not, however, concession of the very
point which American protectionists
have always emphasized?
AS free traders so often emphasize the
moral point of view, is it not
a most selfish policy to create high
permanent price for iron all over the
world merely for the pleasure of max
ing production natural and trade free in
America. The motive of some
protectionists is very apparent, but who
among them has been moved by as low
a type of morality as that which is coil
ed up in the position of Mr.. Wells?