The record-union., 1894-08-11
"a Novel Proposition. ,.

ga Novel Propositions
EDS. RECORD UNION: Your issue of
August 9Th contains an editorial critics.
ing the plank in the Republican platform
calling for Government reduction in the
cost of transportation of agricultural sta
pies from American seaports to forelg q
Eeaports. With your permission viii
reply to your objections, in the nope that
If I can succeed in overcoming them you
viii presently give your assent 10 the
practicability Of the proposition and
thereby see your way clear 70 advocate II.
You say;
Economy In the production Of an article ID In
its final market at frat inures to the dement,
of the producer; but this condition Is very
ephemerous. Competition between producers
forces them TO give TO the consumer all the ao-
yantages OF production, whether that produc-
ton relates 10 the methods OF planting, OF
harvesting or the decreased cost OF Transports
too.
The advantages as far as the methods OF
planting or harvesting, yes; but in cost OF
transportation, no. What can be easier
to demonstrate than the above? The pro-
ducers of agricultural staples in the
United States by the use Of labor-saving
machines were enabled TO compete sue
oessfully with the cheapest labor coun-
tries of the world; but the recent intro
duction of labor-saving agricultural ma
ehinery in the cheapest labor countries
has reduced the worlds price accord
ingly. In doing so, however, the ad-
vantage in the cost Of transportation re-
mains an advantage just the same. The
nearer Liverpool the place Of production
is the higher the price TO the producer.
Nor can this advantage ever be overcome
es long as Liverpool remains the world s
central market for these products.
To argue otherwise would be to con-
tend that canal through Panama or
Nicaragua even free of toll would be OF
no benefit. Do not India and other Ori-
entail countries gain much of their ad-
vantage through the Suez Canal? Now,
nearness to Liverpool or reduction in
cost of transportation to that city pro-
duces one and the same effect, which is a
higher price not only for the quantity ex-
ported but for the quantity sold for home
consumption. Whoever will have the
advantage in the greater degree viii reap
the most benefits therefrom, and II ls Tor
this very reason that wheat is worth five
cents q bushel more II Liverpool than in
New York, and twenty cents more than
IN San Francisco and as much as forty
cents more than in interior portions in
the United States.
Lowering the cost of transportation is
therefore the same as reducing the dis
tance between the United States and the
worlds market center. Liverpool and
Just as surely as we formerly had an adj
vantage in being the sole user Of labor
saving machinery, which advantage we
have recently lost, so, by the adoption OF
this proposition, viii we have an ad-
vantage in enhancing the price, not only
for the quantity exported but for the
much greater quantity for home consump-
tion as well. Now, there is no more dan
ger that we will gratuftously give away
our advantage in lessened cost of trans
portation than there was in the giving
away of the former advantage in produc-
ton.
There was q time when the producers
of agricultural staples could get along
without the new advantage now sought
for, but the time has come when II must
be had, and unless obtained the time is
lot far Oft when the independent land
ewner will be replaced by the dependent
Irish rock renting system tenant. Nor
will this be all, for inasmueh as the pro-
0ucers OF agricultural staples form in our
country the largest class Of purchasers
for manufactures, the diminished re-
turns for agricultural products must re-
ouce the purchasing power for manu-
1actures in a degree equal to the less sus-
tanned by the former. The diminished
return must reduce the demand for
labor, and which in turn must reduce the
rate of wages, and all this in spite of a
protective tariff or labor unions. Nor
have we to wait long for verihcation OF
this generalization. The condition of the
producer and its comcomitant effects on
labor are manifest to-day, and this is
wrongly attributed by those not familiar
with the facts to other causes. The re-
suit of this wrong reasoning has led the
multitude into false conclusions, result
ing largely in the formation of anarch-
istic tendencies, destructive to the best
~ J, .
RECORD UNION says:
1t is not contended by the protector OF this
plan that any value will be created by the
proposition. 1t is simply contended that the
expenditure of dollar by the Government
would increase the cost of the home con-
sumner three dollars. What the producer
would gain the consumer would lose; and as
both the producer and the consumer are
would lose what would be gained by the
other; and therefore the profit and loss would
be equal.
Yes, that is one way Of looking at it;
Aut there is another way. and it is this
manufactures are protected by a protect
Ave tariff, and are further protected by
labor organizations, thereby artificial =
enhancing their values to much higher
prices than they can be bought for in
Europe. Now, who is it that pays the
difference in the prices of manufactures
at what they can be had in Europe and in
the United StateS2 Who but the pro-
ducer of agricultural staples Is his not
the only great industry in our country
which, while compelled TO pay the arti-
ficially enhanced prices, is at the same
time compelled to sell its products al
home and abroad at the free-Irade world
Liverpool price? In what way, then.
would it be unjust to compel others to
pay him an artificially enhanced price for
his product? Can the editor tell US
What kind of a game would that be
where one gambler would be constantly
compelled TO 'sput up' and gamble with g
gambler equally skilled who would never
put up'' anything? Gamblers would
tell us this would be a one-Sided game.
Now, is not protection in the interest OF
manufactures just such gamer VIII il
not always be the same unjust game as
long as agricultural staples are COM
PEELED to buy manufactures at artifcially
enhanced prices and be further com
PEELED to sell TO the protected consumer al
the Liverpool price, less cost of trans
portation from place of production &c
Liverpool? And yet the product may be
sold and consumed within g stones
throw from the place of production. a
workingman receiving $2 day formerly
obtained wheat at 81 a bushel, why should
this Same-paid workingman now de-
mand it at fifty cents bushel? Canno
this same workingman afford to pay
sixty cents in place of fifty cents when ht
formerly paid 81? Would il be an injustic,
TO have him do 1t so? You say, What thl
producer would gain the consumer would
lose.D This is truly the case under pro
lection to manufactures only, but would