The Wichita daily eagle., 1894-01-17
WILSON'S sOPAIsTRY.
To the Editor of the Eagle.

from Mr.. Wilson's speech opening the
tariff debate on the s inst. In comment
ing on the Mckinley bill he said: ''Un-
der the operation of that bill taxes in
every one of the important schedules
have been mercilessly and needlessly
increased. In manufactures of wool
they had been raised from an average OF
80 to 100 per cent; in manufactures of
glass they had been raised from an aver
age of 81 to Go per cent; in iron and
steel, although the year 1888 had been
one of immense production, the
tariff was raised from an average
of SO to an average Of SO per cent;
in cotton goods. although the tariff of
1888 had been made by the manufactur-
ers themselves, the duties were In
creased from an average OF 10 to oI
per cent.
There Mr.. Wilson stops, but by in
uendo he labors to create the impression
that the articles he mentions had been
increased in price to tie consumer by
just the amount of per cent stated.
For the sake OF argument we Will ad-
nit that he states correctly the per cent
of increase, for, without having made
thorough examination of the matter,
we are inclined to think that he Is
about correct. But what Mr. Wilson
wishes the Incredulous to believe from
his correct statements of fact, viz;
that the articles mentioned had been
increased in price to the consumer by
just the amount represented IN the IN
creased per cent, is absolutely and un-
equivocally false, He would have us
believe, simply because mis- fool theory
SAYS so, that suit of woolen clothing
costing, under the tariff of 'S3 but $40
must now cost $l5 since the per cent OF
"tax" had been increased from 90 to 100.
According to Mr.. Wilson an article of
iron OF steel manufacture which cost
under the tariff of 'S3 only So with 30
per cent tariff, should cost, with no tar
iff at all, but So. 20, and under the Nc
Kinley bill with the tax" increased 7
per cent, it should cost $6. 80
A calico dress which cost 81 under the
tariff of 'S3 with a per cent of tax of
Is as stated by Mr. Wilson should have
cost free but So cents, and under the Nc
Kinley bill it should have cost SLIP if
the per cent ives raised from Is TO 81.
Now it requires neither scholarship
nor craftsmanship to prove that the
whole truth disproves the inference MIR.
Wilson intends in stating half of it.
AS matter of fact, as every intelli-
gent person knows. not q solitary item
in any of the schedules mentioned by
Mr.. Wilson, has been raised single
cent or per cent in price by the Nc
Kinley bill or any other cause, but on
the contrary many, if not quite all of
them, have been cheapened to the con-
sumer, a circustance which. by the way,
would naturally increase the per cent of
tariff if the duty be a specific one ard
remain unchanged. When Mr..
Wilson was making his blood-curd-
ling statements of the awful in
crease in taxation" as represe nted
in the "needlessly" increased per
cent. of tariff levied in the Mckinley
bill. he certainly knew that there was no
increase in price to the consumer. But
he jugsles with per cents instead of
prices in order that he can the more
easily gull the unthinking. Another
thing Mr.. Wilson is careful never to
mention is that every Item III the
schedule he mentions is cheaper under
tie awful "per cents OF taxation" III the
Mckinley bill than they ever were with
no ''per cent. of tax" at all. or under free
trade. If free traders would substitute
prices for per cents, and facts Tor
theories they would make themselves
less ridiculous.
Mr.. Wilson says protection diverts
business from its natural channels" and
again he is right in stating half of the
truth. The inference he intends is that
it is diverted from us, but he sigpaliy
fails 10 prove it. Protection does change
the currents of business If left free
and unrestricted manufacturing, and all
other business in which labor is the chief
element of cost. will naturally flow
where labor Is cheapest. Protection is
the jetty system by which we compel
the current 10 flow where we will
whether it would or no. Not only do we
control it and compel it to bear heavy
wages, but we also insure safe and
certain channel IT all times through
which the great business Of the country
can be freghted. Nor can cheap labor,
the f1atsam and jetsum of the
whole earth, settle in this great
artificial channel and obstruct its steady
flow so long as protection is maintained.
The national channels" of which Mr..
Wilson speaks are those that would let
our business flow at random, subject to
a merciless competition that would be
ruinous to wages. Remove the jettie5
and the waters spread out and become
yery shallow. Likewise remove pro-
lection and labor spreads out, but like
the waters, it becomes very thin and
shallow as laborers have too often found
to their cost.
The burden Of the free trader argu-
ment has always been that manufactur
ers are lot of mercenary and hsartless
monopoliss who are not entitled
10 any consideration whatever at
tho hands of legislation, and
yet we find them eioquenily plead
ing for ''free raw material for these
same "robber barons" in order. as they
say. that they may compete successfully
with other nations in manufacturing.
If these ''robber manufacturers could
only be persuaded to ''lop off some Of
the enormous profits which free traders
have contended all the time that they
were making. instead of asking for and
obtaining free raw material how
much better it would be for those who
produce raw @ material" If the
country has been robbed for thirty
years for their benefit why give them
| further advantages now in the way of
''free raw MATERIAL If protection is
unconstitutional il ought, at least, TO be
morally wrong to enter into a compact
with robbers to perpetuaie the robbing.
| by giving them protection for their pro-
ducts. and at the same time taking it
away from those who have been the
! least offenders in this so-called rob
| berry This is what they do in urging
free raw material while leaving many
of the articles produced from that ma
| terial protected.
/ ,au-ai ei. H.