The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1891-03-20

BOGUS M'KlNLEy PRICES.
= rroteetionlst Attempt 20 SHOW THAT the
Mckinley law Has Reduced Prices a
"thesP and NASTY isumbug 90 Deceive
the Ignorant.
The American protective tariff league
II circulating i'm the newspapers Of the
country some price lists taken from the
-. Paul Journal 81 Commerce. 10 show
that prices are lower now than year
ago. About half Of these lists are devoted
10 cotton cloths Of various kinds. Tie
price 81 each kind In January 1890 and
1891. is given in parallel columns. Eut
this comparison is a very cheap dodge.
The items in the com parison Of cotton
cloth prices are only forty-eight In all;
whereas full report Of the cotton cloth
market. as printed in the New York
Commercial Rullctin. contains some
1900 separate items. Naturally in a
market report covering SO many articles
be found forty-eigh. or even more cases
where prices are lower now.
An actual examination of two such
reports in the Commercial Bulletin, one
| for February -. 1890. and the other for
February Is. 1891. shows that most
! brands 81 cotton goods are sold at the
| same prices now as last year. also that
| some are lower. but that Others are
| higher. Among the forty-eight brands
| which this bogus protccticnist coinpari-
! son represents as lower. some are found
10 be the same as last year.
/ But why should not cotton cloth he
! ..l.on,... .,nxu tl.an Ia v.nrr Midi no
| upland cotton is now quoted in New
| York at % cents per pound. while
year ago the price was IL BID cents.
| Cotton being more than two cents a
| pound lower. cotton cloth ought TO be-
considerably lower AL around; but il Is
not So. Most prices are unchanged
while some are actually higher.
This bogus comparison is printed un
der the heading Mckinley Prices
But the Mckinley law does not make
great change in the duties on cottor
cloth. Many are unchanged. Some are
lower and some are higher. To claim
that the increase Of duty on some kinds
OF cloth has already produced competi
ton and thus lowered prices. according
TO the orthodox protection doctrine. i
in the highest degree absurd As 1
simple matter Of fact this has not oc
Cured
A part Of this laundering comparison
Of mckinley prices" is devoted I,
drugs and paints. Here suphate o.
quinine is given at AZ to ~ cents al
ounce last year, and 81 10 ~ cents Thu
year But how can this be a "McKi in
ley price" as quinine has been on thu
free list since 1850? II is rather fre'
trade price. Another item is cas-
tor oil, on which a reduction
in price Of from five % Tel
cents gallon is claimed. But the Nc
Kinley duty on castor oil is precisel!
the same a. the old duty. That dut!
is so cents gallon, which is equal y
200 per cent ad valorem on the oil i'm
ported. Where the Mckinley law doe
not change a duty il is only a piece 0
cheap humbug to claim that any chang
in price is a Mckinley price"
Another part Of this list is given Il
groceries. The only two commoditie
on which comparison is attempte
here are sugar and soap. Thirteen dit
fcrent makers Of soap are given, and
HllKnI It0utNAOn - ttottiAt*A WI te4<A
But how can this be "McKinle
price, since Mckinley left the dut
on soap unchanged. except very Sigh
increase on CASTLE soap? The reduction
in the price Of sugar is undoubtedly du
20 the fact that the Mckinley law re
moves the sugar duty on April |. TIL
fall in price before dutyis actually r.
moved only emphasizes the truth tina
the tariff Is tax The 'Mckinle
| price in this case is another free trad
price.
But why should this protective TART
league claim that lower prices are Mo
Kinlcy prices?" Does il not know tina
this same cKinlcy is going about tn
country trying to persuade the peopl
, that cheapncss is an evil which "
must struggle against-that cheap IN
nasty 90 together?