Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 October 1882 — The Tariff Question. [ARTICLE]

The Tariff Question.

Prom the remarks of Hon. Thoma 3 J. Wood, Democratic candidate for congress, delivered at this place, we make the following extract: “I am told that my opponent [Mark L. DeMotte] is telling the people that a high protective tariff makes goods cheaper, and higher the tariff, cheaper the goods. This is laughable. Does he pose upon the ignorance of his constiuents and does he think he think he can deceive the people with sucoh nonsense as this? Qr does he believe this himself? If so, he ought not to go to the next Congress. What {6 the purpose of a high tariff if not to increase the price of nIJ tariff articles? If it did not do this, then the tariff would be no protection' If a high tariff made goods cheaper then it would be no protection at dll, A protective tariff to make goods cheap! Is that what the knit goods monopolist wanted when be got Congress to increase the tariff from SB to 85 per cent? Did these monopolists want a bigq tariff in order that they might sell their unit goods cheap? The knit

i goods industry is in the hands of a i feff favored monopolists in this country and the, w mted a high tariff on knit woolen goods to prevent outside competition, so that they could cell their goods cheap. According to De Mottes speeches the monopolists wanted a high tariff. He got them 85 per sent on the dollar. For what? To give them protection. From what? Against al outside competition. Why that? 80 that they could sell the goods eheaner. Who ever heard suen a weak proposition retailed about the country by a member of Congress? He says you can buy a wo len shirt for one eollar, and if the purchaser paid 85 per cent, there would be only 15 cents left for price of material and labor. This is another deceptive argument lo reach uninformed peopleWhy should a number of Congress take such an advantage of some laboring people who have not studied the tariff? Does he not know that you cannot buy a woolen shirt for one dollar? Don’t he know that such goods are bankrupt stocks in which there is a heavy loss in the sale? Don’t l.e know that $2 is the average price of a knit woolen shirt and that $1.50 cents is the prioe of the lowes, j grades of such goods. Don’t he know that such goods of lower prices than ; this are heavily mixed with cotton? Figure the eost of au average woolen shirt, which is $2 in any store in the land and they go up from tdn.t to and $5. They are made by much in- | ery at the labor cost of 7 to ill cents each. One pound of shirt ynu will make from two to three shir s. The medium prices of such yarn is from j GO to SO cents per Take the highest and call it 90 cents. Th > eost of a woolen shirt figures up:

"Saif pound yarn 45 cent to Oont of making it... .....10 “ Total 55 cents. Add the 85 per cent tariff and you have the cost of a woolen shirt at $1.40 cents, figures on the highest prices for material and labor and tariff. The shirt sells for $2 ana ;he 60 cents represents profits independently of the 85 per cent tariff. Now my opponent had better stop retail* lug his arguments on cheap bankrupt stocks and half or three quarters cotton shirts and thus deceive the peo pie as to the outrageous character of his vote on the side of the monopolist. And these facts hold good as to all knit woolen goods. Tbe cost of a good oolen shirt does not exceed 55 cents and is often much less than that, yet they sell for $2. Without this 85 per cent, tariff this $2 woolen shirt would sell for from 75 cents to $1 and then give 25 to 50 per cent, profit. Tije fact is the knit goods industiy is in the hands of a few manufacturers all welded into a disgraceful monopoly, and these monopolists want astouudidg prices—they want to rob tbe consumer and obtained from Congress a tariff law to enable them to do it, They considered 25 j per cent, and 50 per cent, and 50 per cent, profits on knit goods two small and wanted 85 per cent additional and they could get it, as this duty I would shut out all outside compeli- j tion and they could charge the con- ! sumer what they please. What is the i profit ou a woolen shirt including the ! 85 per cent, tariff? Figure ifljfip and it reaches $1.45 on a $2 shirt! Yes, $1.45 profit on au investment of 55 cents! Mr. DeMotte, do you stand up ! before the people and defend the robbery? The tariff makes goods cheaneil Why did foreign manufacturers and wool growers sell woolen goods and wool in the United States fii 1880 to an amount that paid a duty to the government of seventy million of dol lars? Why did the importer of cotton goods in the same year sell enough to pay ten millions of duty to the government? How could the importers sell in this country at all, unless they sold at the same price that the i ome yroducer and manufacturer soldthern ? If the high tariff on these article made the prices lower, then the horns manufacturer ought to home manufacturer ought to have undersold the importer and run him out. But the importer came here and paid the high duties and paid the high duties and sold his goods at the sumo price as the home manufactured articles. Now il protection cheapened the price of goods the importer certainly could not impete with the home manufacturer, put he did sell his articles at the same price? Let any farmer or working man or mechanic figure up the first cost of all his clothing, of his tools and everything he uses in his business and he will find the difference, between the first cost and the price he pays to be astounding profits, as due to protection in the tariff. Cut down the tariff and make goods cheaper. That will not hurt the’mam ufacturer any He quadrupples his sales by lower prices. How many more sewing machines sell to-day at $25 to S4O each than were sold at $75 to $100? DeMotte’s vote to increase the tariff was a vote to' rob his constituents in broad da3dig.lt. Ladies Rubber Gossamer’s only $2 at Hemphill & Honan’s