Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1896-07-03
The Sling OF a David.

James Hamilton Lewis literally
strikes the "I,i,' : eye" when he meets
some OF The propositions OF the P.-L
on the currency question. in COM
Iuunica'.un t. that journal, under
date 81 the 9th nit. The P-I asserts
that " Protection, OF a high tariff is
thc necessary accompaniment OF the
gold standard" when the David OF the
silver cause fractures the skull OF his
opponent 10y the following unanswer-
able suggestion:
Ii the policy oi protection means the
raising oi duties So high a. tu exclude
foreign goods, does this not avoid the
Necessity or opportunity 81 trading
abroad. and render unnecessary the coli
>ldcratiUn a.: the Kind I'll money USED 10y
other c"untri,s And does not the trad
iu- wholly among ourselves likewise per
NIT the adoption and regulation wholly
among ourselves 81 any kind OF money
ior the purpose OF money trading among
ourselves?
Thus is not the adoption of the gold
standard only consistent with absolute
free trade with gold countries and wholly
Incompatible with a protective tariff:
The second proposition stated by the
able gold-bug organ is that "protec-
ton is the real issue, and necessary to
this coast for its proper preservation
against undue competition"
And the little giant punctures that
assumption by the bare suggestion of
logical sequence, quite as expedi-
tiously as he dented the big journals
cdpm with a missile from his sling
He says:
Again, ii the cooperation of other
countries is essential, as is asserted, to
the harmony of business in those coun-
tries with which we deal, does not that
argue that on this coast where We hope
for a trade relation with Japan and
China and South America, and does it
not necessarily drive us to the adoption
OF such a standard and kind of money as
those countries have, and is not this sill
yer? Thus for the reason that the East
demands gold for Europe is not silver
absolutely necessary to us dealing as We
do with the Oriental and silver cOun.
tries?
Now, if the Japanese, Chinese OF
South American can sell his product in
this country for our dollar and get gold
and then returning exchange his gold
dollar for two silver dollars of his coun-
try Ga fact asserted that dispute) then
purchase two dollars worth of his own
commodities, will not such foreign coun-
try then sell in this market for one-hal1
of our price, and then underselling oul
farmer or toiler one-half, monopolize oul
markets and yet in his own country have
a purchasing sum equal to the full
amount of the price charged in this
country? Would not such foreigner
then avoid your high tariff? You
charge so per cent. on the dollar tariff
as he gets-under your theory-two dol.
lars worth of goods in his land for one
dollar Of our money, he can pay the 81
cents tariff, sell at our price and make
SO cents proht-or selling % cents less
than our price make 25 cents profit
Where in such case does the protective
tariff protect? Is not the only true pro-
lection in such case to the toiler and
farmer the adoption of a standard and
klUu Vi eNClldlSc tildl SlNCo w thS iOi
eign country no such advantage II. e.
silver with their silver?
The third proposition OF the Pr. is
is that "The adoption alone by this
country of silver serves to drive gold
away and lessons the effect OF pro
tective tariff" In reply MIR. Levi;
says:
Admitting that gold will leave us tenn
porarily with the reconciliation OF Sill
yer. still is such not true not because OF
the adoption Of silver, but because and
only because silver creates rise II
prices of commodities, and that in any
event of rise in prices from any cause
gold always as an economic result goes
to the vaults to be used purely as eX
change with gold countries? l cal
YOUR attention to Sir Robert Peers re
mark (while member of Parliament) OF
this view-his speech on the report o
the commission OF 1857, saying, IN an
swer to Mr.. Hobhouse: "There will al
ways he a rise of values with an increas,
of circulation and by such it always hap
mems that there is drain of gold"
Mr.. Lewis respectfully asks the P.-l
to state whether its conclusions wer
reached after ample consideration o
those premises, and if so to state SOM
reason for their rejection. So far thi
very pertinent request has not elicite'
reply from the big champion of tn
Republican party.