Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1900-08-02
The Advocate Wants Proof

dBO Uy the Tree tTdutrS tiitJ our manu-
facturers of machinery sell their mach
ines cheaper in Europe than they do
here. We called its attention to the
considerable age and musty character
Of this claim and submitted letter
from the Deering Harvester company
recently received by gentleman in
this town on that subject, and as the
statement in the letter did not suit the
Advocate, it proceeded to question
their truthfulness and to call for more
specific statements and for proof
Now it is generally supposed that the
managers of the Deering company
know more of their own business than
does the editor of the Advocate, no
matter il his knowledge is extensive
and varied. When the Deering COM
pany denies the statements made by
the Advocate that they sell their mach
ines cheaper abroad than they do here,
it remains for the Advocate to prove
its statements rather than to throw the
burden of proof on the negative.
The Advocate has made the charge
that this manufacturing firm sells
cheaper abroad than at home. The
firm denies the charge. 1t now re-
mains for the Advocate to prove its as
sertion or be pointed at as irresponsi-
BILE. Will it attempt to prove its own
assertions.
The Advocate thinks we should not
ask the Deering company about its own
business and goes on to say:
"Such is the political breadth of our
friend who seeks information from
those who are complicated and turns,
with broad smile from his lofty Wis
age, to inform the people that it is
only another of the much used free
trade arguments. We are informed by
the all knowing that good evidence
of the so-called free trade argument
being untrue is the constantly declin-
ing price of the machinery. No better
evidence Of the truth of it could be
found. Could not machinery be man
ufactured as cheap fifteen years ago as
today? Yet We pay one half or even
less than we did then. Why is this
true? The competition is steadily in
creasing, thus forcing the price down
to what it should be. The price would
have been what it is today, fifteen
years ago if it had not been for the un-
natural obstruction of the competition.
You may be lover of political econ
omy, but if you are honest. argument
is more convincing than letters from
the Deering company. Better concen-
trate your long forgotten political
science, though it be scattered through
your entire length and breadth and try
it again. Remember we give facts as
shown by statistics and your free
trade howl is not an answer"
1t is hard to tell what the editor of
the Advocate is trying to say in the
above, but We believe he means to say
the decline in the price of binders here
is evidence that binders sell for more
abroad than at home. We do not see
how the latter proposition can be de.
duced from the former. There is no
ground for it No statistics or state
ments are given to show that the re-
duction in the selling price of Ameri-
can machines away from home has
been mere rapid or different from the
reduction at home.
In the above quotation is statement
which does not appear, in our opinion,
to relate very closely to the subject
under discussion, but which is q
strange one to be made by a demo-
cratic editor. 1t is that competition is
continually forcing the price of manu-
featured articles down to what they
ought to be. Protectionists have
always claimed competition would do
this, making home prices right, and
free traders have denied it, so it is
pleasant now to have them admitting
our theories are correct.
But as to the Advocates assertion
that machinery, referring to farm
machinery or binders especially, could
have been made Us cheap fifteen years
ago as now, and that the only reason
they were not, was because of the
obstruction of competition or obstruc-
ton to competition We suppose he
means-as to that statement we posi-
lively object. We claim that any we'll
informed person knows that compe-
tition between manufacturers has been
only one of the agencies for lowering
the prices on farm machinery and that
inventions, new processes in making
steel, the application of machinery, of
ingenuity in manufacturing, and the
advantage of large capital in manufac-
turing, that these and other similar
agencies have been as important in the
lowering of prices as has competition.
We deny the Advocates assertion that
machines could have been sold as cheap
fifteen years ago as to day, if competi-
ton had not been INSTRUCTED. Com
petition cannot force the price below
the cost of production. Inventions
and scientific progress have lowerd the
cost of production. Protection, the
policy of the republican party, has de-
eloped and built up manufacturing
and made these cheap prices possible.