New-York tribune., 1891-02-06
A FREE TRADE DODGER.

Scripture does not forld the answering Of
people of a certain sort. but only according 10
their folly. "Thc Evening Post" in regard 10
tables If prices recently printed n.y. THE TEID-
ryE. sec, ht to eyadc the iS>ue which those
tables mot, and to raise an entirely different
one. thus
What was the Mckinley b FOR II II had no Influence
on prices? Why did you fight 50 hand and run SO
many risks In trying to pass IT. Have yo'.
auy tables about you showing what effect the McRn
lsy bill ha, had or vii have II It doe, not raise The
prices Of commodific,l II it lowers them. l. II 40.
free trade measure. and does it not expose our man
ufacturcrs more freely than before to f'nien com
pctiuoni
one thing at time Mr. "post" Either
the tables in question di1 or they did not com
plotcly disprovc what "Iho Post has 80 often
asserted that prices Of products generally have
boon raised 10 consumers by the Mckinney bill.
If this assertion WIS not true, and It's Wtruth
ha, been proved by the selling prices OF many
firms in different branches Of trade. sot-rSpoct
and regard for journalistic dcccncy require
from "Tho Evening Post" manly admission
Of lis error. and Withdrawal Of the charge.
II i. is claimed that the quotations OF re'ail
dealers are inaccurate. or tha, they fail 70 prove
what TIE TEIHUNE maintlins they did. il is
in order to show their iuaccmacy or their in
,urcirncy But it is not decent or manly TO
meet such IN array Of evidence by dodging the
issue and trying 10 raise another.
The answer is not q now one. nor has il ever
been found effective. If prices have not been
raised in consequence cf increased duties. The
only objection Of the millions who are con
sumor5 10 duties for the encouragement of pro-
ducion vanish like pullcd-out candle. Even
the closest thcoriS; can offer no logical argu-
men. against a measure to encourage productive
industry. except on the plea that il must on
hanca the cost of products TO consumers. and
therefore the cost Of living. and therefore in
the lJng run the cost OF production, and thus
must bccomr in the end Snlfdcf,ating De-
privcl Of this linz of reasoning the Fro Trader
lis really Of no more account than Mr.. Bc"chcr's
dog Noble, who spent his life in barking at
an empty hole. But the answer made b. he
Evening Post" is by some supposed to be cf
fec,yc because quotations of prices being not
oh,ainaJlo or obtained readers are apt - infer
that prices must be raised, since IF they were
not manufacturers would realize no benefit
from the increase of duties. But the answer
is simply mpertinent when quotations are pro-
duccd and facts can be taken instead of in
fcrcnces
Ii it were pertinent the answer involves "A
stupid logical bundcr. IL assumes that man
ufacturcr can make no more money by selling
more goods nj the same prcc. lie cln sell
10000 tons al SO per ton. but against profits
Of half a dollar per ton, the costs Of maintenance
anl management. the depreciation o. plant,
and interest on capital. take $1,000. and the
result is a loss. Make him able to sell 10000
tons al the same price, and at the same rate Of
profit per ton, he has $4,000 with which 10
pay general charges amounting TO $4,000. An-
other manufacturer, running works part time
and able to buy materials only as they are re-
quired by orders, finds his goods costing 90