The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1894-02-14
Tariff Misrepresentation.

The amount Of wilful misrepresentation
or ignorance with reference to the tariff
question is amazing. AS an instance.
here is an article copied from Bucks
county Democratic sheet, the editor OF
which is highly-respected gentleman,
who would resent being considered either
ignorant or willing to mislead:
William Ii. Holstein, Of Upper Merton.
Montgomery county, writes to the Norris
town Herald as follows:
In contrast with the price OF wheat to-day at so
cents per bushel, give you an extract from my
diary Of date January 22d, 1856:
"Hauling wheat on sleds to William Pugh, Gulf
Mills. for which he is TO pay me 90 per bushel
The crop was three hundred End thirty-e light
bushels. at 81 per bushel."
Farmer Holstein evidently wished to
convey tariff object lesson TO the high
tariff editor of the Herald. Under the
Mckinley bill, the highest tariff messure
ever known in this country, the present
price OF wheat Is go cents bushel,
whereas under the low tariff of 1916 wheat
brought 81. But the lesson was lost on
the obtusc editor, who goes all the way
10 the Crimean war TO find a reason for
the good prices of produce under lew tar
in.
II the editor intends TO convey an idea
at all, he certainly intends 10 lead his
readers to the impression that the low
price Of wheat Is owing to the McKin-
ley bill. That, he ought TO know, is false.
IL the Mckinley bill had levied duties
twice as high as 1t does, the price Of
wheat, according to the above reasoning,
would go down to 80 cts. or less. That
10 nonsense.
The price of wheat 10 1856 was hig be-
cause the demand was as great or greater
than the supply, although mechanics and
laborers were then receiving only one-half
or tvo-thirds of what they were getting
under the Mckinley bill until Democratic
threat Of "tariff for revenue" threw
them out Of work. To day the price of
wheat Is low because there Is over pro-
duction. Since 1866, many thousands Of
farms have been opened in the West and
the virgin soil has produced immense
crops. Since 1866, India and Russia have
begun To raise wheat in great quantities,
and with their cheap labor come in competi-
ton with the product of the United Statee.
Statisticiaus think the time is not far dis
tant when our farmers will be almost
crowded cut of the European market by
these competitors. How would low
tariff benefit them2 II would net make
market abroad and It would reduce the
demand at home, because Of the reduced
purchasing ability of the work people. A
high tariff, on the other hand, would bene-
At them by developing home industries
and making an increased home demand for
wheat.
But no fair argument for or against the
tariff can be based on any one article OF pre-
duction, or a dozen, for that matter. II
the general effect OF protective tariff 10
good and the general effect OF free-tradc
tariff is bad, that is enough, no matter
how il works iu exceptional cases.
The statement that the Mckinley bill Is
the s.highest tariff measure" ever in force
in this country is another misstatement OF
facts. The Mckinley bill did increase the
duty on a very few articles beyond what
IL had been, but it reduced the duty on
many articles Of necessity, aud put large
number Of articles on the free list that
the Mills bill put duty on. The net
reductions in custom house receipts as q