Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 January 1884 — “WHAT CHANGE, AND WHY?” [ARTICLE]

“WHAT CHANGE, AND WHY?”

Chicago Times: To the Editor: After leading the newspapers and several political economies to get light on the tariff, I am yet unable to see clearly. Is a change from present rates best? If so, what change, and why? This is no idle request on my part, but arises, on the one hand, from an intense desire to know the truth, and on the other hand from disgust at the course of some would-be leaders. I have learned much from yeur pages on the finances of our country. On all points of that subject I believe your course has been correct. By anin P, ll1 * R a P ray Ra-

tion you will not only oblige, but benefit, yours respectfully. Frank M. Dyer, ’ Plattcville, Wis. One who has read “several political economies” worthy of the name should be able form an opinion upon this subject without much assistance from any newspaper. If Mr. Dyer has not read Bastiat’s “Sophisms of Protection” or Perry’s “Political Economy,” The Times would recommend

him to possess himself of the contents of those works at his earliest convenience. Any man who once gets a firm grasp upon the fnndamental doctrines of economies will be able to think in straight lines not only about the tariff,.but about most other economic questi ns. The first thing in this, as in every other science, is to get a firm grip upon the rudiments. The rest, will follow in the natural order of ratiocination. t . Why does any man exchange Droducts with any other man? Because each has a relative advantage in his production. The carpenter exchanges with the shoemaker because each possesses natuin I or acquired skill and dexteri' v f n his own trade, taols, facilities of one kind or another—in short, advantages in his own trade. The carpenter can get more and better shoes for a given amount of labor by exchange than he can by making them himself. • The shoemaker can get a better house with less labor by con- j fining himself to his own trade and exchanging with the carpenter than he can by building the house with his own

hinds. And so it is through tae whole round of varied occupations. These diversities of advantage extend to different nations and races, and to all parts of the globe. The free-trader saya let every man, every nation, every race, produce those things which he or his group can best produce by Teason of the favors of natuie, or of natura l oracquired taste, skill, capacity, and exchange freely with every other individual and group. In that way each gets the most because he gets the benefit of the special advantages of any other. Any obstacle to free exchange is an injury to all whom it affects, because it prevents them from reaping the full benefit of their diversities of relative advantage arising out of soil, climate, and individual capacities. Coming to the specific questions asked. The Times has to say to the first, emphatically, yes; a change from present rates is best. In answer to the second question—hat change, and why?”—only general views can be presented. It is not practicable to draft complete schedules. One thing can be said most distinctly: The aim should be at perfect commercial freedom at the earliest moment possible without producing an indus trial shock. We have placed ourselves in an artificial position. we are, so to speak, on the roof of|a high building.—* we want to get to the ground, we have to choose between jumping off and going down Btairs. Better jump than not get down, as the building is on fire. But the stairs are wayif we Only let it be understood that we are going to the bottom before we stop, and the rat*, of progress is not of so much importance, we may go 10 or 26 percent.at a time if we please, only let us understand distinctly that wq are going to the ground be fore the building bums down To drop the figure of speech’

say that we must get rid of the artificial system we have created just as soon as Ve can without doing damage to the general economic interests.— we m ust return from the artificial to the natural, because the natural—commercial freedom—Will Certainly give the best economic results, because cause there is sure to be injurious agitation so long as we uphold an artificial system, and because men have a right to sell their labor where they can get the most for it. The thing called protection is no more nor less than a form of slavery. No man is a free man who is forced by law to sell his products ‘in one place in preference to another—to sell for one dollar when he could, if permitted, get two dollars.

There is no need of going into details. But this may be said, that we can get from the artificial' to the natural without hurting much sooner than is commonly supposed., Take, for example, woolen goods.— The writer of this has not less than fifty samples of suitings sent him by an American now in Europe, giving the prices per suit, men’s wear, in London and in Heidelberg. Prices range lower in London than in Heidelberg, as Germany indulges m the supposed luxury of protestion while England does not. Good judges of cloths who have inspected the samples agree in the Opinion that, q ality for quality, suits can be bought in Heidelberg for half, and in London for less than half, what they can be bought for in ChicagoThat means that Mr. Dyer, in comm >n with the rest of Us, is taxed over 100 per cent, on every suit of woolen clothes he | buys. Let Mr. Dyer once comprehend that fact, and he will ibe able to give a partial anI ewer to hi* question, “W hat change?” He may well ask himself why he should be

! reed to pay S4O for a suit of othes that he could get for ::'oif he were free to buy withit paying enormous duties on j reign goods, or an equiva-J at bounty to the America n ' anufacturer and wool-grow- \ It may quicken his appre- • insion somewhat to pass his iMgers over Ihe surface of his at-sleeve and pull out the i: st little knot he finds, and peat the process until he fids how many little bits of iioddy from a quarter to three ghths of an inch in length he ~n pull out of a half-dozen uare inches of cloth. He v ill find that he is paying very gh prices for very poor stun ' ne prosecutes his mvestigaon some little distance in this \ rection. and, if he possesses lie faculty of putting this and <sat together, he will perceive kat it is the protection mode : slavery that robs and cheats im in this fashion. But the present purpose is to nnt'out that this robbery and mating can be stopped short ithout driving a nail in the >ffin of any industry. When le more tariff convention was i session in Chicago, a year ?o last summer, a represe tave of the woolen manufactring in New York stated that ' he could have free wool he ould not ask for a protective iriff on the class of goods he as manufacturing. He was protectionist because woolrowers wanted protection, id he did not want to |be so ilfish as to oppose the produ3rs of his raw material. Gencous fellow; but his admission mounted to a good deal, as ill be seen a little further on. .nd now comes Mr. Robert lakie, who has for years been lccessfully running three or inr large woolen-mills in New ingland, and says, in answer i the question how free wool r ould affect -his business: “I ould make goods to sell in any art of the world. I’d defy he world to compete with me. "ake the duty from wool, and will guarantee that it wouldn’t be six weeks before , r ool would have advanced in ‘to knd so he continues. Now he aay be mistaken as to the adance in the price of wool, tho’ f he mistakes at all it is, no loubt, a mere matter of deTea But as a successful buiness man his admission that e ooulddefy competition with ree wool is most significant, ake the duty off from wool, nd Mr. Blakie is not afraid to ace the world as a manuf actirer. What then? Mr. Dyer an buy for S2O such a suit as low costs him S4O. Perhaps 'e buys two suits a year. If o, he saves. S4O a year tax, the aost of which he pays to home >roduoers, and not to the gov rnment. Then nn underwear, vhich is an item of some im)ortance, and on blankets, and 11 other woolen goods he conumos,he would realize a like aving. Sho would be hurt? Not the manufacturer, accordn? Blakie’s admission; lot the wool-grower, if he is ight in saying that the price >f American wool would adance. Then nobody would e hurl and Mr. Dyer, and all he rest of us who live in these atitude® where woolen goods re a necessity, would be benfitted ta the extent of, say, '6O a year each on the average, lut suppose the price of wool hould fall, as it might do.— Then only a handful of fanners in western Pennsylvania, "Jest V rginia, and Ohio wo’d empoianly suffer, ifliysho’d ffr. Dyerand the restof us be ;pxed 100 per cent, on every fit of woolen goods we use for he benefit of these very vorthy farmers? They could tuickly turn their land to omething better, and their temporary loss would be amere ; irop in the bucket to out large *ains. As with woolen goods, so mm manyotherarticles, the prices of which are greatly enhanced. Take off the duties, md _ m most cases the many v >uld be benefitted and the c ® w be harmed very title Hat aIL A very adical a s >rmation of the tariff is possible without serious harm o any interest that has enjoyed a forced, hot house growth, fut coming to the practical natter, we must deal with men i various and conflicting

views, and be content with such gradual progress out of the darkness of commercial slavery into the light of commercial liberty as it is possible to make.