New-York tribune., 1903-07-05
"DE4RLOAFERS."

The British political vocabulary promises to
be enriched with a new epithet. The disciples
Of Golden have taken to calling Mr.. ChamDer-
lain and his followers "Dearloafers." They e1-
pect that word will catch the fancy Of the null
titude and will stick; in which case they joy
ousIy anticipate an overwhelming victory at the
polls. The latter may or may not be. 1t is
something for the British electorate TO decide,
and something in which Americans have only
the impartial interest of outside observers. In
the interest of historic accuracy, however, some
question as to the propriety Of the ear tickling
nickname may perhaps be raised.
The implied argument is, of course that Mr..
ChamberIain's fiscal programme involves tax
upon breadstuffs and that such tax will raise
the price Of bread or make the loaf more dear.
Now it is not quite certain that grain tax is
necessary to Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, though
it probably is included in it as an essential and
dominant part. Still less is it certain that such
a tax, or tariff, would raise the price of bread.
The examples of history surely do not indicate
that it would but rather the contrary. AS we
have already pointed out, the present grain duty,
which is now being repealed, did not increase
the price of bread in the slightest degree. On
the contrary, while it has been levied the loaf
has actually been little cheaper than before.
If we 90 further back we find similar prece-
pretty high protection, and the loaf was cheap.
In 1865 the grain duty was abolished, and with
in a few years in a time of peace the price of
wheat in the English market rose more than
one-third, and as soon as serious foreign wars
came on it went up to famine figures. Again
in 1915 the tariff was reimposed, and the price
of wheat rapidly declined, in 1885 being less
than 10 per cent of what it was under free
trade. In 1916 the Corn laws were once more
repealed, and in the thirty years following that
repeal the price OF wheat in England averaged
more than two shillingS a quarter higher than
under protection.
Now, We do not pretend that these figures are
altogether conclusive to the effect of Mr..
Chamberlain's proposals. 1t is evident that they
are something like the prOverbial two edged
sword For if the price of wheat in the English
market is higher under free trade than under a
grain tariff then the CObdenite may argue that
free trade is the better for the farmer But
upon one point we think, the figures are rea-
sonably convincing. That is that it is rash to
predict that the imposition of a grain duty will
raise the price of bread, and it is positively un-
true to say that Corn laws have meant dear
loaVes and free trade cheap ones. 1t is notori-
ously untrue that the Corn law repeal of 1916
was made necessary by scarcity of wheat and
high price of bread. 1t was really caused bv
scarcity of gold and contraction of currency by
the Bank of England in a strenuous effort to
save itself from bankruptcy. The chief moral
Of the figures is that other factors than the
tariff enter into the problem of prices of food
as well as of other commodities, and all these
must be duly considered in justly passing iudg-
ment upon a fiscal programme "Dearloafers"
may be an attractive campaign cry. But it
may also be an embarrassing one for it's invent
ors TO explain and to justify