The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-07-07
GOLD OR THE TARIFF
High Cost of Living Blamed on
 Yellow Metal
THE REAL CRIMINAL IGNORED

Friends of Protection Select a Seape
 goat to Bear the Sins of High Tariffs.
 A Theory That Is Difficult to Prove.
 Relation Between Duties and Prices.
 The theory that the increased gold supply, indorsed as it has been by so many able economists, is responsible for the high cost of living has been eagerly grasped by the friends of high protection as a weapon of defense in their present trouble. It is perfect godsend to them to be able to throw the blame on ''too much gold" The Massachusetts commission on the high cost of living has lent the weight Of its authority, whatever that may be, to the fashionable doctrine!
 We do not say that there is not some truth in the doctrine, but we do say that it is fer from being proved and that considerable part of the high cost ot living can be shown to be due not to the plentifulness of the yellow metal, but to our old friend tie tariff. We therefore protest against the gold depreciation theory being made the scapegoat to cover the sins of the real criminal.
 The commission says: with regard to the tariff the facts that prices have fallen and risen during long periods without relation to change in duties, that prices have been rising in Great Britain under free trade and that large increases have taken place in the prices of commodities not appreciably affected by the tariff show conclusive ly that the tariff has not been the ac- tive factor in the recent upward move ment of prices in this country"
 These are reckless statements con- ing from supposedly judicious and unbiased body of men. We shall show that there is a relation, and an 1nti- mate one, between high duties and high prices, that the rise in prices in free trade England since 1896 has been only half what it has been in this country and that the tariff has been an active feature in the upward movement of prices in this country since then.
 First, then, as to the relation between duties and prices.
 We will take the last three tariff laws before the Payne measure for examination. During the four years of the Mckinley tariff the average duty collected on free and dutiable goods was 22.56, while prices according to Bradstreet's index numbers were on an average 7.6346. During the three years of the Wilson bill the averages on duties and prices as above were respectively 2O.93 and 6.4153 During eleven years of the Dingley bill the averages on duties and prices were 261S and 7.SS16. We thus see that prices were higher under the McKin- ley tariff than under the Wilson tar in and that they became high again under the Dingley tariff. That is to say, prices were high when tariffs were high and low when tariffs were low. As matter of fact they show a mark ed advance after the passage of each high tariff.
 Now as to the rise of prices in free trade England. It is true that prices have risen in England since 1S96.- But they have risen there only half as much as they have here. With us the rise has been about 60 per cent, according to Bradstreet's. But in Eng land the rise has been scarcely 30 per, cent, according to the London Econo- mist's figures.
 As to the tariff not being the active factor in the rise Of prices since 1896, 1t is a well known fact that the era of trust formation was ushered in by the passage of the Dingley' bill. that great breeder of trusts. The function of trusts is to raise prices, or at least not to reduce them to the competitive standard, and so brazenIy did they carry out their purpose for the first few years after the Dingley bill was passed that by 1902 the cost of living. which was largely in their hands, had risen 40 per cent above the 1897 stand ard. The extent of their extortion may be gauged by two things-the lower level of English prices and the lower prices charged by them to foreigners for the same articles. The persistence of the trusts in the policy of discrimi- hating against home buyers caused great uneasiness in Washington at the time, leading President Mckinley to alter his views. so much 50 that the offending manufacturers were warned of what might happen to their protec- tion if they continued their discriminat- ing policy. It may be that within the last four or five years the trusts have not appreciably raised prices, but there was no necessity for them to do SO. They got their fine work in during the first few years after the passing of the Dingley bill. Gold may have done the rest.
 In the face of such facts as the above there is no use in harping con- t1nually upon the plantifulness of gold as if that disposed Of the whole ques- tio1. In so far as the gold standard is at fault the question is an information al one and we can only solve it in conjunction with other nations, but in so far as the tariff is at fault we can apply the remedy at once without wait ing for any other nation The remedy is plain-too plain for the Massachu- sets investigation committee to see it. They were not looking for a plain remedy; they wanted recondite renl- edy, something that would mystify the common people and make them look with fatAlistic resignation upon their grievances instead of setting about to ran1nCp fham bv ronooIipc ho ,to t11to a