THE TRIBUNE.

r...,.m =, Michigan.
{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5719, "word_count": 1028, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9318000078201294], "ccnet_perplexity": [1796.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Some sfnafferer IN POLITICAL EcoHoHiy HdS 'hi


osed mon the Senate Of that State, or rather its
scornntttee on State Affairs an ant-PiotectIre
ess,v which is so reckless IN It's missia'encnts ana
unreason as to indicate very gross ignorance or
very culpabIe carelessness in the Committee winch
,yas persuaded 10 father the production Let us
illustrate


The writer premises tina;


ResuAr itnporationsof given article never take place
any Country unless there be deficiency IN ,e
nc supply Aud it is cny under such crcunsanees 'st
import duties can protective bat IN s1c oose' M
protection IL 70 TIE fug amount Of he duty


He means here to say, IN the foggy assertion
which he puts in Italics, that whenever an article
continues TO be imported IN spite OF Protective
dciy, then the entire consumption o. that article,
no matter where produced, ls enhanced m Prtee oy
the full amount Of the duty To illustrate this ne
assumes that Wheat IN England would be worth IN
the average about Sll per bushel II tree OF duty;
but there is duty upon It equal to % cents
bushel, whereby the average British Price Is raisec
10 So per bushel. Now, he says, England requires
llOOcoO 900 bushels OF Wheat per annum; but her
ANIMAL product NAV b1 stated a, 1O0GoO,0O0. She
bpvs The requisite 10 bushels and her treasu-
~ receives thereupcn 81, 100000 IN duties. But
The irnposion of this duty the price OF the
bou,.grow,n Wheat az well as the imported, so
that the British consumers (who are not producers)
actually pay fifty cents bushel on al they con-
sumo. whether homegrown OF imported. This ls
evident, says the writer from the tact that w neat
is uniformly higher by the amount OF the duty IN
Great Britain than in the adjacent little Isles oi
Wight and of Man to which the Corn Laws do not
apply Therefore, (says he) 1t we impose duty
of forty per cent. Woolen fabrics, and import
Sl.O00.Oe0 worth Of these while we produce at home
sIJ 600 Oo) worth, we do really by the Tariff raise
the price of all these Wooens forty per cent above
what il would if they came IN tree OF duty


Now. assuming that this writer's premises were
correct (as they are noD II s unaccountaele that
he docs not apply the test to Wooens winch lie
finds so conclusive with regard 10 Wheat lie
proves his position by the alleged TACT that Wheat
is uniformly higher by the amount OF the duty IN
t,reai Britain than IN the Isle OF Man; but pity
does he not al once TO TIC PoiHt and Worc nat
Jgooens are higher i,r Boston Detroit ttam they
ar, IN MoHheaiO Or Mdiden by ne amount 81 me
duty? Highly as he estimates his logical powers,
he mus, be aware that 10 most OF his readers
naked fact directly in point would be more conc!u-
siye than his roundabout, inference. Now as the
thing 10 be proved is the higher price of Woolens
by forty per cent. IN the United States than IN
Canada. why did he not take his illustration direct
from Canada rather than crcultousy from England
and the Isle Of Wight! Had he honestly attempted
this, he would have found that instead ol paying,
MS he alleges, 81 100000 more for their Wooens
on account of the Tariff, the People ot the United
States, as whole, are actually clothed as cheupy
IN 1915 as they were when our Tariff was down 10
twenty per cent. while our Farmers are receiving
a far better price for their Wool.


Let us now point out fatal error IN hlsreckonng
II is not true that the British CornLaws enhance
the average price Of Wheat in England by the full
amount of the duty. Ii that duty were taken oft,
the obvious consequence would be Il largely IN
creased Importation. This would cause inevitably
a rise Of pce il those countries from ,ckich The sup
rly ,cas dra,ru tor instance, England, we will
suppose, would take Of vs. ten million bushels OF
wheat instead of one million or less Would not
The increased demand inevitably increase the rrce
h.,.s l. not that the reason why we should like
~ have her Corn-Laws abolished And II the
nae here should be but ten cents bushel, must not
,hn, be deducted from tha reduction IN England
con.eouen, on the repeal of the Corn Laws


Vet il Is true that the Corn. Laws oi Great Bri-
ain enhance the price OF her whole supply oi 1raln
above the natural price-and why :! Because h1
capacity Of advantageous production IS shmted'-
She could raise Fifty or Seventy Millions OF bush
els as easily as her ncghbors; but her population Is
yery dense, and requires. say One hundred and
Ten Millions of bushels. These she cannot pro-
duce except by taking lands that are needed Tor
other purposes, or which are only made 10 produce
Wheat by an extra amount of care and labor
This enhances the natural, inevitable cost ot the
Cram and the larger the amount required, the
dearer Wheat will be. But is this the case with
regard TO our production OF IPooiens! by no
means-lnst the reverse. We have every natural
element of this proGucuon-labor, skill, water
power, &c. IN illmltablc abundance and zee could
produce much larger amount Than ,ed no,c 40 at a
less actual cost. Suppose now make Five Mil
lion yards OF Broadcoth. but need Seven Millions
These we could produce less price per yard than
the smaller quantity. There would of course be
uonen,ary rise at the outset; but this would be
rested as soon as labor and capitacoud be diverted
from other pursuits from idleness TO the growing
Of Wool and making OF Broadclo,h. In the end,
greatly increased demand, il steady, would lead 10
an actual diminu,ion in price The Michigan es-
says, then speculates lnapparen' ignorance ot the
law that an increased demand for -igricaItwat
products tends 10 increase Their lee, while Si.''-
larly increased demand for Manufactures tends
,ltimeteiy TO reduce their cost 10 the consumers