Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1890-04-17
Vests Free Trade Logic

O6udIOI est lids HIIGG6u d IOIIOT u
BradstreeU in the interest of free
trade. We quote:
The direct effect of the tariff is to lessen
the results of the farmers labor to rim and
his family. We have it from very high
authority that "the American people want
markets, not ms Xims." That is unQuestion.
ably trua at this time as to the farmer. Let
US Then accompany an agricultural gentle
man, Mr.. jones for instance, with 5000
bushels of his wheat to the Liverpool mar
ket. He reaches there safely and is told
that he can have English clothfor his wheat,
but that reciprocity is the life of trade, and
the EnglIshman has cloth but no money.
Mr.. Jones is compelled to take cloth, and
when he reaches New York on his return he
is taxed on each yard of cloth the equivalent
Of one bJIshel OF wheat in order to enter his
own country. Does his illustrate lose any
of its force because Mr.. Jones does not lake
his whea to tho English market himself
but sells 1t in Missouri to be carried to the
same market by the purchaser?
Just why Mr.. Jones should be re-
quired to ship his 5000 bushels of
wheat to Liverpool, in order to find
somebody who has cloth to exchange
for it, Senator Vest does not attempt
to explain. Liverpool is 1850 miles
from Mr.. Jones' farm in Missouri. At
the lowest estimate it would cost Mr..
Jones so cents a busEel, or $1,000, to
ship his 5000 bushels of wheat from
Missouri to Liverpool, aud if he could
exchange it for $4,000 worth of the
Englishman'S cloth, it would cost him
for freight and the ''robber tariff" not
less than 25 per cent. of that sum, or
81 800 to get his English cloths back to
his Missouri farm. Thus poor Mr..
Jones must expend $4,000 in getting
5000 bushels of wheat to market, and
getting the proceeds back to his farm.
Deduct the ''robber tariff" from this
expenditure, and still Mr.. Jones'
freight bill exceeds the net proceeds of
his wheat.
Mr.. Vest does not suggest any reason
why the clothier who wanted to ex-
change cloth for wheat could not just
as we'll make cloth in Missouri or Hi
nois or Kansas as away over at Liver
pool. All the material for making
clothing can be produced in Missouri
and neither Mr.. Vest nor any other
free trade democrat will argue that the
81 900 which Mr.. Jones pays to get his
wheat to Liverpool and his cloth back
to Missouri would not twice over pay
the additional sum it would cost to
make Sc, 900 worth of cloth in Missouri.
Neither Mr.. Jones nor the clothier gets
any of this $4,000. 1t all goes to cor
porations and middlemen. If this
English cloth maker could be induced
to move his factory over into Missouri
where he could find wool, water power
and fuel inexhaustible, Mr.. Jones
could deliver him his 5000 bushels of
wheat without paying $4,000 to rail-
roads, graindealers and steamships and
he could get the cloth makers cloth
without paying 81, 500 to the same
corporations and to the government as
''robber tariff.
The theory of Mr.. Vest and the free
trade democrats is that it is cheaper to
transport all our extra wheat and corn,
all our extra cotton and wool, all our
coal and iron ores over to the little
island of Great Britain and then lay
them down at England's feet and say
to her, Take our extra agricultural
products for the support of your
laborers; take our raw materials, man
ufacture them and return them to US,
permitting us to pay freight both ways
and to pay commissions to half dozen
iddlemen.