Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1891-08-27
The Price of Copper.

An interesting letter on copper ap
peared in the Iowa County Democrat
last week from the versatile pen of Mr..
FIN. Dyer, presumably of Mineral
Point. The letter is interesting only in
the mis-statemenis made, evidently with
the intention Of creating feeling against
the Mckinley Bill. The letter was
called forth by an item previously pub
lished that the copper mines in Craw-
ford county were about to be reopened.
and Mr. Dyer says: If profoundly trust
that the report is unfounded and that
the mines will not be re-opened; for
from the time until today that the rich
est copper deposits the world ever knew
were opened in Michigan we have been
paying four to five cents per pound
more for it than before the discovery. "
Mr. Dyer must take the peculiar view
that The more an article is produced the
higher price it becomes, instead Of the
logical conclusion, demonstrated every
day. that only when the consumption
of an article approaches or exceeds the
production does the price advance.
Hence the more copper we can mine
the cheaper ii will become. But is
copper &c. higher? The market quo
tation for the 18th OF this month was
l2c; exactly a year ago-Aug 10, 1890,
the price was 16. sc. so that Mr.. Dyer
is only off % cents in his guess on an
article worth but y cents.
But in order to clinch the subject,
Mr.. Dyer attempts to illustrate and
tells the farmer the next time he wants
to buy copper he will find "that it costs
him thirty bushels (of wheaD instead
of twenty bushels for a ton of it, Well,
let's see. August 10, last year copper
cost TO- &c. 10, or 1887 ton, spot
wheat was CSC so 344 bushels would
have been required to buy ton; on the
same date this month copper &as quoted
al 12c. 10. or $40 per ton, and spot
wheat at S1.10 so that but 21S bushels
would have been required, making
difference in favor of the farmer of 126
bushels of wheat in his exchange for
copper this year over last, and placing
Mr.. Dyer only 1856 bushels out of the
way.
Evidently Mr.. Dyer does not feel
thoroughly satisfied with laying the
increased price of copper entirely to the
new mines, so he ingeniously works in
the Mckinley bill by saying that under
the tariff laws new tin mines will prove
a curse. he evidently has not noticed
that pig tin which came in free last
August sold for 215c, while this month
under duty of &c. per 10. the price is
20 l.5c., decrease of lc. per 10. This
may be a curse but consumers will fail
to discover II. The implication is that
copper has been advanced by the Me-
Kinley bill. We: the duty on copper ore
was reduced from pc. to J of per cent;
old copper Sc. to 1c; coarse, &c to 1c,
and plates, bars and pigs from &c. to
lie. while the price has declined cts.
Evidently Mr.. Dyer has not read the
Mckinley bill or he would not have
placed tin and copper on the same string
to be laid against the tariff, when the
duty on one is incressed &c. and on the
other decreased to PC. while the price
of both has declined But it is not the
province of the free trader to reason or
present facts. Inuendo does much bet
ter where readers are found who cannot
investigate for themselves