Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1891-03-14
BOGUS M'KINLEY PRICES.

A Protectionist Attempt to Show That the
Mckinley Law Has Reduced Priccs-A
"Cheap and Nasty" Humbug to Deceive
the Ignorant.
The American protective tariff league
is circulating in the newspapers of the
country some price lists taken from the
st. Paul Journal of Commerce, to show
that prices are lower now than a year
ago. About half of these lists are devoted
to cotton cloths of various kinds The
price of each kind in January 1890 and
1891, is given in parallel columns. But
this comparison is very cheap dodge.
The items in the comparison 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 Rulletin, contains some
1,500 separate items. Naturally in a
market report covering so many articles
and SO many different grades there will
be found forty-eight or even more cases
where prices are lower now.
An actual examination of two such
reports in the Commercial Bulletin, one
for February 2s, 1890, and the other for
February IS, 1891, shows that most
brands of 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 protectionist compari-
son represents as lower, some are found
to be the same as last year.
But why .hould not cotton cloth be
cheaper now than last year? Middling
upland cotton is now quoted in New
York at 914 cents per pound, while a
year ago the price was II 5-16 cents.
Cotton being more than two cents a
pound lower, cotton cloth ought to be
considerably lower all around; but it 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
a great change in the duties on cotton
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, is
in the highest degree absurd. AS a
simple matter of fact this has not oc-
cured.
A part of this laundering comparison
of MCKINLEY prices is devoted to
drugs and paints. Here sulphate of
quinine is given at AZ to Al cents an
ounce last year, and 81 to AZ cents this
year. But how can this be a "McKin-
ley price, as quinine has been on the
free list since 1880? 1t is rather free
trade price. Another item is cas-
tor oil, on which a reduction
in price of from five to ten
cents gallon is claimed. But the Nc
Kinley duty on castor oil is precisely
the same as the old duty. That duty
is SO cents gallon, which is equal to
200 per cent, ad valorem on the oil i'm
ported. Where the Mckinley law does
not change duty it is only piece of
cheap humbug to claim that any change
in price is Mckinley price"
Another part of this list is given to
groceries The only two commodities
on which comparison is attempted
here are sugar and soap. Thirteen diff
ferent makers of soap are given, and a
slight reduction is claimed on each.
But how can this be a mckinley
price" since Mckinley left the duty
on soap unchanged, except a very slight
increase on CASTLE soap? The reduction
in the price of sugar is undoubtedly due
to the fact that the Mckinley law re-
moves the sugar duty on April l. The
fall in price before duty is actually re-
moved only emphasizes the truth that
the tariff is a tax. The mckinley
price" in this case is another free trade
price.
But why should this protective tariff
league claim that lower prices are NC
Kinley prices?' Does it not know that
this same Mckinley is going about the
country trying to persuade the people
that cheapness is an evil which we
must struggle against-that cheap and
nasty go together?