Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-02-24
PROJECTION AND PRICES

Desperate efforts have been made In
Congress 90 show that protection does
not increase prices TO the consumer.
"Only the producers are benefited oy
40 increase OF prices on their products,
but, when these products reach the
consumer, this increase has olsap-
peared"
They claim that prices are lower IN
der protection than they ever were
uader low tariff, and that protection
is no iuiurv 90 the consumer.
They have circulated In the Record
very extensively a table Of comparative
prices i'm 1857 with 1890, compiled by
Mr.. Atkinson, which is too absurd Tor
aay intelligent person to waste time
upon.
Such buuco quotations were INDUCED
in by Mckinley during the last cam
paign. SONS OF which ] had the pleasure
OF exposing.
Most remarkable claims are made
concerning the tariff Of 1S43-ls46, aud
the general prosperity resulting from it.
This prosperity can DO estimated, from
the fact that during its continuance
wheat averaged 33 per cent aud cotton
so per cent. lower than during the low
tariff period preceding. As conse-
Quence, farm wages declined from an
average Of S19.O0 per month under low
tariff 70 $500 per month under pro-
tee ion.
TIE Whig administration OF lS49 TO
1873 desiring further proof the value or
protection gathered vast amount OF
valuable Information from the manu-
facturers concerning wages and prices
under low and high tariff from 1885 to
lS49. And after suPpressing some that
did not suit, published the remainder
In the Treasury report OF 1S49.
Horace Greedy mas given Us list OF
prices for 1859, so that we can dis
pense with Mr.. Atkinson's valuable
contribution.
From these reports we can get very
good idea of the effect Of protection
upon prices.
Taxing sixty distinct varieties OF
cotton goods, their average price under
low tariff 10 1912 was 9.2c. Under
high tariff in 1S45 9. Sc per yard. Under
low tariff in 1S49 Use.
But raw cotton under prosection IN
/ 1s45 averaged IS per cent. lower than
in 1912, while the goods averaged
per cent. higher. 50 also S per cent.
lower than in lS49 and the goods IS
per cent. higher.
Prices on the basis Of raw cotton al
/ SOC per pound as in 1s45.
Average OF cotton goods 1892, low tsrii......6 %
Average of cotton goods 1919, protector 50
Averags cotton goods 1919, low tariu.......3.lc
With raw cotton Gt the same price
the prices OF cotton goods average 40
per cent higher under protection than
under low tariff, before and after that
period.
Another very important point is
brought out Go this report. In 1S45
with an average price of Csc per yard
there were So pounds raw cotton pei
capita used, four years after, under low
tariff, and cotton goods reduced la price
twenty per cent. the consumption PEI
capita was 124 pounds.
Low tariff increased the con
sumption in three years fifty per cent.
Price OF cotton ........................ per cent
Labor. .........-.... ...--31
And yet the very same arguments
we're brought against that tariff which
are now brought against the Wilson
bill
Under four years Of protection con-
sumption increased only 20 per cent,
wages were cut down % per cent, and
cotton barely held it's own.
We see In this case low tariff re-
duces prices to consumers; 1t also in
creasas consumption, the amount OF
labor employed, also wages and prices
OF raw materials: and that will be the
case with the Wilson bill
Under protection in 1S45, twenty-oue
varieties of woOllen goods averaged
SI.24 per ward, or "a per cent. higher
than the same qualities averaged under
low tariff four years later (ls49), with
raw wool 90 per cent lower in lS45.
Average prices of twenty-One varieties
of wooden goods upon a uniform base
price of raw wool Protection, 1S45,
Sl.24 per yard; low tariff, 1Si9, 80 cents
per yard.
Based on a uniform price OF WOO
goods under protection were 20 per cent,
higher.
As in the case OF cotton, low tariff re.
duced prices 2S per cent, Increased
consumption, LABOR and price Of wool &c
per cent.
Concluded in my next
WM. c. WELLEs,
p0rtrr2blfrg FebruQrlL 1894.