Jasper County Democrat, Volume 10, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 August 1907 — BURDENSOME PRICES. [ARTICLE]

BURDENSOME PRICES.

Dr. A. R. Tucker of Noblesville, who bus been prominent in Grand Army circles in Indiana for many years, has announced his candidacy for Congress against Charles B. Landis. He made one race 10 years ago. Congressman Landis will seek the re->nomination and Harry Sheridan, of Frankfort, became a candidate a few weeks ago, making three in the raoe.

A long-suffering-father, who has to provide shoes for twenty feet, writes thus: Will you please hammer away at the trusts that control the staples—meat, sugar, salt, coal, oil, etc? Let’s have unfettered competition in these at least, so that they shall get to the people at the smallest cost. I foot the bills for twenty feet, and so I observe how the leather trust will not let prices go down. And he refers to a Dun report, in which is the following: The feature has been the relatively better demand tor high-grade shoes, and all quotations are well maintained. Little improvement is noted in the demand for leather, but prices are sustained by the curtailmeut of production which has prevented accumulation, and tanners are confident that shoe shops can not defer action much longer. * * * A little increase is noted in the sale of hides, but the leading tanning interests stilt delay operations. While it is probable that a large order might baye obtained special prices, the small business of the week was transacted at former figures. We fear our friend does not understand the situation. There would be no sense in maintaining high prices for articles that nobody wants, or that few people want. If mouey is to be made, it must be out of necessities. This is recognized by our Government, which imposes monopoly duties on leather, wool and woolens, cotton goods, iron and steel, glass, tinplate, hides and leather, cattle, sugar, salt, oil, etc. Most of us have to have shoes, and so a duty of 25 per cent is levied on them. It is so with other things. The wage cost of manufacturing woolen goods is less than 20 percent of the total value of the product. The duty is supposed to compensate for the difference between the wage cost here and that abroad. A duty of 20 per cent would not only do that, but would pay the entire wage bill. Yet we maintain tariff taxes on woolens which ran from 80 and 100 per cent np. The “protection”—graft—thus is at least five times the total wage cost. This, of course, is because woolen clothes are necessities, Oil is another necessity, so we proteot the Standard Oil Company by a duty which is probably more than 100 per cent. Another difficulty which our correspondent ignores is that the President has told ns that there is no connection whatever between tariff duties and trusts. The two thingß, he has said, must be considered apart. And they are being so considered. Meanwhile we are attacking and “dissolving” trusts, and leaving

prices just as they were- As we have shown the pries of paper has ftdvanoed heavily since the paper trust was "dissolved.” The President apparently baa no quarrel with high prices, but only with tbs railroads and trusts. This is a faot of some importance. Another fact ia that the Republican leaders including the President, have decided that the tariff shall not be touched for some two or three years. There is to be no revision till after the presidential election. We ere glad to “hammer away at the trusts that control the staples,” and are specially glad that many others are engaged in tbe same ocoupation. Possibly the hammering may produce results after a time. But surely our friend who has to pay monopoly prices for shoes to cover twenty feet must understand that high prices are a blessing to a poor man—and that tbe Dingley tariff is the perfection of human wisdom, if not the product of divine inspiration.

Senator Foraker is at the present time beginning a formidable campaign in behalf of the tariff as it is. And there are other distinguished statesmen like Mr, Cannon who think that we should “let well enough alone.” The trouble with our friend is that he does not know when he is well off — does not know what "well enough” means. Let him think of |the vast earnings of the Standard Oil Company, of the wopderful showing lately made by the steel trust, of the great profits in the sugar business, and of the money there is in the beef business for somebody—and then let him reflect. Would he, simply that he might buy staples at a lower price, attack the whole principle of our tariff legislation, which is that necessaries should be highly taxed in order that the sellers of them may get high prices? Would he be bo rash as that?—lndianapolis News (Ind. Republican.)