Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1907-09-19


the Cheapening Process.
1t is gratifying to learn that some
body has solved the difficult problem
OF how to lower the tariff, increase
foreign competition and bring down
prices without decreasing either the
volume or the rate Of wages paid to
American labor. Senator Lodge of
Massachusetts is the man. In
speech at Nantasket Beach on the Sth
Of August according to the report in
the New York Press,
Lodge said there would be no re-
vision of the tariff before 1909; that
the party leaders were opposed to any
tariff tinkering preceding a presiden-
tial election; that revision would
not mean the lowering of duties on
any manufactures the importation of
which would hurt our workingmen,
and that new tariff act would be
along the old Republican lines of pro
lection for the American working
men"
Here we have the problem solved,
but with no hint as TO the process Of
solution. Like all the rest of the
tariff ''reformers," Mr. Lodge fails 10
furnish bill Of particulars. The
tariff, he tells us, is going TO be re
duced along protective lines and not
on any manufactures the importation
Of which would hurt cur workingmen.
In that case, how shall competition
be increased from abroad and prices
lowered accordingly? For it must
not be forgotten that the sole end
and aim of tariff revision downward is
to increase competition and force low,
er prices. If this We're not the end
sought, why talk of tariff revision?
Now, as general rule, there are
but two causes of price reduction.
One is diminished demand, and the
other is an increased supply offered
at cut rates. At present there is no
decrease of demand and no overpro-
duction to break down values On
the contrary, prices remain firm and
the facilities of every line of domestic
production are strained to the utmost
to supply the demand. Then if the
supply is to be so increased as to
break down prices, il must be by i'm
portations bearing lower values. This
is plain. Just how the tariff is going
to be tinkered to suit all the shouters
for downward revision Mr. Lodge does
not make clear. He does not tell US
how the tariff can be so manipulated
| in the revision process as to satisfy
the free-traders, the progressive" Re
! pUblicans like Cummins, who want to
! bring in foreign competition that will
| do away with the monstrous eXtor-
ton and graft" being practiced uader
the Dingley tariff, and the demand for
| free raw materials and reciprocity in
competitive products that is so strenu-
| GUS in massachusetts,, and at the same
time keep the peace with American la
Dor on the farms and in the mines.
mills and factories. The jaunty, Off
hand assurance that all this can and
Will be done when the tariff comes up
for revision will hardly suffice.
Gratifying it fs to know that the
tariff is not going to be touched until
after March 4, 1909. We don't know
how Mr.. Lodge has managed to settle
this thing 80 conclus!vely, but he
eeems TO have settled it to his own
satisfaction. But not to the satisfac-
ton CT Gov. Guild. On the same plat
form and within the sahhe hour Guild
reiterated his burning desire for i'm
mediate tariff revision. Not without
come show OF reason and consistency,
one would think. If the present tariff
is SO atrocious as it is thought to
be by Guild and Foss and Cummins
and Whitney and lot of other urgent
reyisio1tsts. why postpone the rem
! cdy for three years? II the country is
not now prosperous; If labor is un-
employed; If wages are low and pow
erty acute; II business halts and ruin
G.aiRs abroad; If commercial failures
md coup houses are the chief crop of
| The yc2r-if all these things are true
because OF the Dingley tariff, Guild is
| right and Lodge is wrong, and not
| moment ahouLd be lost in repeating
the Dingley tariff.
But, If none OF these things are
true; IL prosperity is at high water
mark: II labor is scarce and wages the
| highest ever heard Of and poverty is
almost unknown; if business is the
best and commercial failures the few
est on recCrd-if, on the contrary, all
these things are true (and they are
true). then both Guild and Lodge are
wrong. Then we should not only not
| be talking about immediate tariff re-
vision downward, bnt we should not
/ II f1Jl aIN o,.tH
! or three years hence; we ought not
to be talking about tariff revision at
all. We should let the tariff abso-
lutely alone.
Would Wipe 1t Out Entirely.
Tariff takers, who treat the ques-