The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1894-12-07
CHE 9e,ltotrat.
"Those Grain Bags"

A very reckless person writing under the
signature Of 'Citizen" has an article In
Sundays Herald in which he seems TO have
been engaged In a hertulean effort to dodge
the truth and facts as often as possible. In
order that our readers may fully understand
the matter at issue we give "Citizen's" ar
tiele entire:
notice an item in the Democrat, where
they claim that the Albany Farmers bought
50, 900 grain bags at 4 y cts and claim il Is
an act of free trade in bags. 1t is a fact
that there is always surplus OF bags left
after the grain season Is over. Your cor
respondent with others did buy toe, 900 bags
delivered in ALBANY few years ago, while
the tariff was IN full force, at AZ cents and
at the time wheat was selling at IS to So
cents per bushel. 1t requires cash to buy
bags at these prices AMI you will have 10
hold these bags eight months before there
is demand for them.
$4,000 bags cost. ..............$ 2a5o
Interest S months. s.... I5o
Freight, storage and insurance, added 100
Aosai COST. ............... zS0o
Making about cents per bag instead of
SOFA.
CITIZEN.
The DEMOCRAT is informed by one OF the
directors of the Farmers Co that the 50, 900
sacks which they purchased are cot to be
delivered until next July, and that they are
not to be paid for until delivered. He
further says the company does not have
any freight, storage or insurance to pay.
He says in other words that the Az cents
per sack covers the entire cost to the COM
pany. II this be so, (and we give full faith
and credit to the statement of our infor-
mant, what becomes of the reckless and
extravsgent statements OF "Ciiizen." 1t is
evident that Citizen" is very fearful that
republican farmers will see and comPre-
hend the benefits Of free trade in sacks and
viii be moved to sustain the new tariff law.
He would like republican farmers to believe
that this great blessing of cheap sacks is
due TO some other cause than the removal of
the duty by a democratic congress. But he
is very careful not 10 assign any other cause.
But why should "Citizsn" attempt to refute
the position Of the DEMOCRAT that the re-
moval of the duty from grain sacks will
cheapen them in price to the farmers: Is
not that conclusion The very vital principle
of protectionism? Does no, the hop grower
say that reducing the duty on that article
will compel him 20 sell cheaper? Do not
the mine owners and the manufacturer in
all projected interests declare day in and
IL. t.,t . =.
products similar to what they produce will
be imported and sold here so much cheaper
than they now sell for that they will be COM
relled to sell cheaper or go out ct business'
1.-THE removal of the duty from protected
article does not result in the reduction CT
price at which the manufacturer sold the
article while th. duty was on, then is there
nothing in protection? Citizens statement
that he and others several ysars ago bought
Ioo, 900 sacks at y cents price Wnen the
duty was on may or may not be true. AT
all events the prevailing price several years
ago when the duty was on was never less
than 6 10 7 cents. 1t is not likely that ciii-
zen bought 100, ooo sacks of the quality and
size of those recently bought by the Far
mers Co for AZ cents each. lie is request
ed to tell the public ~hat kind of sacks he
bought and in what year he bough; chem.
The above argument of ''Citiz-n" is in
keeping With every argument made to sup
port the tariff scheme. a plain, palpab!e
fallacy nccurs in i. Mckinley, Reed ,Hoar
and every leading republican says that re-
moving the duty will reduce the price at
which manufacturer sold while CITIZEN
argues otherwise.