The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1891-08-18

yet it is plain that they are mot in it 81
! far as the combine is concerned. Whethe
the Mckinley bill either directly or in
directly had any effect in producing thi
combine it is PLAIN that the friends of tina
measure are not reaping any of the bene
! fits. The enemies of the measure are en-
joying temporary triumph as they al
ways do when we cut off foreign sup
ply of any article and under take to sup
plant it with a domestic product. W.
may naturally expect slight rise il
prices until domestic competition is suf
ficent to bring them down. This ha.
been the case with every important in
dustry that has been built up here by
protection.
Now according to the dealers Mr.
Jacobs is right both as to the amount
of the increase in the price of glass jar:
and as to the increased demand alone
being the cause of that increase. They
say the increase is only from % to sc
cents per dozen which is only about 165
per cent on the price of half gallon jars.
They say further that the Mckinley bill
has nothing whatever to do with the in
crease. This looks plausible from the
fact that other glassware has not svmpa-
thized with fruit jars in price The i'm
plication contained in the close Of your
article, that the entire benefits derived
from cheaper sugar are neutralized by
the increase price of tinware and
glassware would be rather difficult
to prove in face of the fact that no less
than $50, 600, 900 year is now saved to
the people by the reduction of the tariff
on sugar. To attempt to prove such a
proposition would require more gall than
even K. =. Mills possesses. Since there
Is no increase IN the price of tinware to
consumers, and no appreciate increase
IN the price OF glassware, except the one
item of fruit jars, it begins to look like
the opponents to the Mckinley bill
would have to abandon still another out
post to the enemy. 1t is no use for them
to kick against fate, for they are hope
lessly In the soup. S.
Our correspondent and critic argues
his side of the case very cleverly, and
from the standpoint Of logic, quite con-
clusively. We shall not attempt to an
swer his points seriatIm, but will meet
them all with the same arguments he
uses, i. e. that our information as to
prices of the articles named was OBJ
tanned from dealers in this city who
gave the information without thought
or reference to the cause of the advance
in prices. S. halfway admits our state
mentS of fact to be true by acknowledge
ing that prices of tin and glass are
higher. His explanation may or may
not be true, just as he asserts ours is not.
AS to the price of tin S. denies that
the advance comes out of the consumer,
though he admits that somebody is loser
to the extent of the advance. mas
much as nobody on this side is benefited
SO far, except the combine on both sides
who stocked the market for months if
not years with the foreign product be-
fore the Mckinley law went into effect
and raised the price, where is the good
to the people Of this country? 1t cannot
be truthfully said that if comes from
opening additional markets for some
bushels of wheat or barrels of pork, for
the foreign producer, if he cannot sell
us his surplus, he Will not buy of us
w iioC nv AIh' = W Dull, IClCldIlCe
force of circumstances compel him, as
is the case in measure Just now, the
result of crop failures on the other side.
S. again refers to the SOC, 900, 900 saved
to the people of this country by the re-
moval Of the duty on sugar. The state
ment is literary true, though mislead-
ing. The removal of the duty was used
as the chief argument in defense of the
of duties on other articles to
make up the loss of the sugar revenue
and to provide the "bounty'' granted to |
The home product.
Lest the EAGLE be misunderstood on
1hese propositions we again reiterate
hat it is not the policy of protection it
nveighs against, but the inequalities of
.he law IN its operations ED.