The Iola register., 1891-10-02

il instead of the assumed increase OF
duty in the Mckinley tariff, we were to
put the increase of protective duties
under all the tariff laws since 1860, We
should then have, in all the rest OF
this example we have supposed, a cor
rect statement Of just how protection
has increased profits, and increased
wages. and reduced prices of its COM
modities to the American consumer at
the same time, in some branches OF
production more and in some less, but
| in all under the same economic laws.
1t will be observed that in the fore
going explanation of the subject we
have confined the inquiry to the imme-
diate and direct effects of the protective
system, and have left out of account all
| the collateral and indirect pecuniary
benefits which follow in its train, enor-
nous as they are. These indirect BEN
efits are such as arise from greater skill
and invention applied to the agencies
Of production: also from the reduction
of freightS, commissions, transporta-
tion charges and insurance between the
producer and retail consumer, and
such as arise from establishing collateral
branches of Industry, which afford new
avenues for the Investment of capital
and earning OF wages.
Our proposition is that, leaving every
! facility for the production and distribu-
ton of the given commodity exactly as
| it is. it will be found that the direct
economies of protection are affected in
the manner above demonstrated.
Under the free trade tariff system
from 1916 to 1860. the constant irregu-
| larity of the foreign supply of imported
goods. first a dearth and then a glut in
our market, due TO the improvement or
| failure of some one or more great mar
| kets on the other side OF the world,
made goods dear to the ultimate con-
/ sumner. the final purchases at retail. and
! prices of manufactured necessities kept
continually going up. Why so? Be
cause the American manufacturers had
then to charge much larger profits to
! guard against constant losses from iiuc
| tUatiOn of their market, and every mid
! dleman between the factory and
| the farmer also had to charge
a much higher commission tax on the
goods which passed through his hands.
| for the same reason. Thus the goods
reached :he farmer necessarily bur
dened by all these excessive specula-
! tive charges. and were so to 80 per cent
! higher in price than now at retail on
| that account,
As the foreign manufacturer came
with mis- goods to our market on pur-
! pose to get all he could for them-i c.
Ito sell in the dearest market"-he too,
sold his goods to rs at these high prices
and reiOiced. Such we're the workings
Of that free trade tariff system. as is
proved by all statistics of prices. and it
is an actual fact that over One-half of
the reduction o. prices OF many kinds
of goods. which protection has accom-
plished since 1875, merely gets us back
to the prices of the same goods about
1870, when the free trade tariff system
actively began to force prices upward
for the benefit OF the speculatOr and
mlddleman. by creating uncertain mar
ketS the world over: [ mean uncertain.
in the supply of foreign goods. which
would be thrown on these respectively
year by year.
1t is time that the American farmer
and every other consumer realized the
great economic truth, that to provide
certain market for the competition of
home producers of the necessities of
daily life economies the charges in
every branch of production and traffic
in those goods, from the crude materials
to the retail counter at which he buys
them. II is time tnat he realizes that
home competition, as a rule, when in |
sured the first chance at the home mar |
ket, bestOws all these savings we have |
shown upon the ultimate consumer in |
the shape of cheaper prices for the !
goods. 1t is time that he realized that |
the amount of these savings in our coun-
try, due to this effect of protection |
alone, far exceeds any that could posi-
bly, be realized from so-called free raw
Materials" which we are capable of
economically producing in this country
These truths are amply demonstrated
by the workings of the Mckinley BILL
since it became a law. Let us take the
knit-goods industry as a fair example.
What was the effect of the
increased Mckinley duties on them?
Did they go up in price?
not, for they are lower now
than before that law was passed. Why
so? A single quotation from the Free
Trade Tariff journal, Wade's Fibre and
Fabric. will show us why. 1t is as
follows:
NEwBURG, N. Y. June 20, T1S91L-l
What vast difference there is in the
appearance of things at present
the knit-goods district of
his state, compared with what it was {
rear ago! Manufacturers of knit.goods 4,
Ire steadily employed, and the only
drawback TO their business at present is ;
he low price at which goods must be
old. {
A great many knitting mills are {
'unning night and day, and many more
ire running overtime. The new two
tory addition to Dunn, Smith & Co.'s
uniting mills at Fort Plain, N. Y, will \
'e ready for occupation by August Ist
lext. The productive capacity of these
Mills will then be double what it is at
Notwithstanding the free trade fallacy {
bout low prices contained in the above.
i'd the Mckinley bill give nothing |
the knlt-goods' manufacturers when |
t gave them the first chance at the /
American market? Ask one of them s
That he thinks about the advantage of a
eing able to run his factory night and C
ay with low prices, instead of only t
art time or not at all with higher ?
rices, as before the Mckinley bill \
assed, and see how quickly he will |
augh you to scorn, because of the SIM d
licity OF your question. Ask him I
neither he is making more money in p
reducing the goods at cheaper prices d
} the consumer. which were formerly Il
nported at higher prices, by running b
is factory more economically. because d
is run night and day, all on account Il
the Mckinley bill giving him, land b
her home competitors the first C,
loice at the American market, and
e how he will smile at your free trade IL
of the practical business Of I'll