The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1891-03-26
M.klNLEY PRICES AGAIN.


Testimony Of Two Protection Trade Pa
,pcrs-The Mckinley Law Has Raised
Prices and Has Degraded the Quality of
Goods.
Protectionist papers deny with much
i'll temper and with liberal use OF
harsh epithets, the fact that the Nc.
Kinley law has increased the price OF
goods. Anybody who has the hardf-
hood to assert that prices have been adj
vanced by Mckinley is at once pounced
upon and berated as an enemy to
American industries and as free trade
liar.
But the fact that many prices have
been mysteriously advanced is one that
any body can verify for himself. 1t is
seen from the market reports of almost
any trade journal; and most of these
journals, too, are in favor of protection.
Such a journal is "Wade's Fiber and
Fabric" which is published ut Boston,
Mass. In recent number of this paper
its Philadelphia correspondent points
out what seems to him the satisfactory
effect of the Mckinley law. "Worsted
manufacturers have profited most thus
far" says the correspondent, lowing to
a readjustment of duties in their favor,
which has caused an advance in prices
of worsted yarns varying from five to
twenty-five cents per pound, according
to numbers"
The correspondent thinks that this re-
adjustment of price ought to have taken
place several years ago, and fewer fail
ures would have been the result. 'This
assertion" he goes on, "can not receive
any better Endorsement than that daily
received from the worsted manufacture
ing centers of England, through cable
dispatches to our daily papers, report
ing the closing down of large factories
owing to loss of trade in the United
States, caused by the imposition of
higher duties on yarn, cloth, etc"
In other words, the measure of harm
which we do to England in closing up
the factories is the measure of good we
do to ourselves in raising prices to the
consumer.
But there is another very significant
side to this matter of raising prices.
Some prices which were at first raised
by the Mckinley law have since
dropped again to the former level.
How does this come about? Is it veri-
fication of the wisdom of the Mckinley
measure and the promises so profusely
made that it would develop competition
and so reduce prices?
This question can be answered by
quoting few sentences from the N. Y.
Dry Goods Economist, which is another
protectionist trade paper. In it's latest
number this journal says: "The effect
Of the new tariff has been to bring into
the market several novelties which
give the effect of value without cost in
| the manufacture. So in imported
hosiery we still have what is known in
| the trade as the '25-cent stocking but
in quality and workmanship it is slight
ly inferior. 1t has been adroitly cheap
ened. The customer gets the article at
| the old price, but it is not as good, and
no advertising lies can make it as good"
The Economist says it predicted
some months ago that manufacturers
would slilfully cheaper their goods SO
as seemingly not to increase prices; and
this, it claims, has been done in vary
many cases. And it says: eve also
have maintained that on very many
articles the prices would necessarily be
increased by the tariff. This also has
occurred, and it is utter nonsense for
the partisan press to deny it."
But the partisan press does deny it
and is quick to cover with abuse any
paper which prints the facts about
higher prices. The question for the
high tariff organs to answer is, what
was the purpose of the Mckinley law
if it has not raised prices? Was it just
passed for fun; fred off like a blank
cartridge?