The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-10-11
a.. wooDsFIELD, OHIO FRIDAY, OCTOBER II, 1914


that. The average would be 10 or II l-2 cents
What would be the cost abroad? Some OF it or
Z cents-the mass Of it. What is the duty? Why
you must value the yard at 90 cents, a that value
pay duty of 80 cents on the dollar. You value il
at two or three times as much as it is worth then
add thirty per cent-thus making the duty sixty or
ninety, and as the tables will show one hundred and
twenty per cent. Take those who can afford the
shirtings and sheetings that abroad cost 20 cents
What do they pay' Thirty per cent duty. Here
the true principle is reversed. The necessary ar
tcle is taxed the highest if not entirely prohibited
Take up the tables of importations, and you will
find the beached cottons coming in on the highest
valuations. Take the cacoes. Value every
square yard at 30 cents, then charge duty of 80
per cent on that All ofyou purchase Calico
What do you pay for the mass of wear in this coun-
try! Twelve and half or sixteen cents. But the
statute values it at 80, and then charges duty OF
30 cents on the dollar. Take calico which costs
abroad 80 cents. That pays 30 per cent duty;
while the plain and cheap article, in common use,
pay double and TRIBE that duty. Here the prnci-
article Is the highest taxed There is discrimina-
tion--bm the tcrOng tOay. And here think the
law defective l doubt if you don't discriminate
enough on these goods, when you make uniform
duty on the value on ALL If it is necessary to tax
cottons 80 per cent. tax all the same. Not put an
artificial value on the poorer article to increase the
duty. Still, would protect generousy--and go
to the full extent of what is just-these manufac.
turers of cotton and wool. They should be pro.
tected, but not in this unequal way.
Let us consider CONTINUED Mr.. W. as con-
nected with these articles the probibitory policy,
for that is the policy of our opponents Suppose
we carry our duty on woolens and cottons up to
prohibition-and to protect our manufacturers and
incidentally in the article of wool, our farmers
We go SO high with duty as to prohibit impor-
tation. We first gave our manufacturers monop-
oily of the market. Then we have only domestic
competition to protect us from exorbitant prices.
But we lose six millions of revenue and we must
be taxed on some other articles to make il up
And ask any man who has the curiosity to
examine this subject to go to the tables of import
ations, for any number of years, and see on what
he can lay duties to supply this deficiency of six
millions made by raising this prohibition. know
of none but the tea and coffee, which are now
free. And would it be right to give the manufac.
turers OF wool and cotton a monopoly of the
market. and then tax the whole community on
these necessares of life' believe it would be
unjust, unequal, and impolitic.
But, we are told, this policy is necessary to
protect the labor of the countryand that it is the
productive labor of the Union which we desire
to protect by this prohibitory system. Let us see
how far the labor of the labor of the country can
be protected-how far it is in the power of Con.
gress to protect it. We have already seen that
labor employed in raising grar beef, pork, butter
and cheese, cannot be protected, because you can
not by duties change the value of them We
e1pOt them.
Then you cannot protect that class of the labor
of the country You can protect in this sense, the
manufacturing labor. Let us see how it will
operate, and how far labor will be benefited
Here [alluding to the village of Watertown] are
manufacturers, | believe, of cotton and wool, and
all about you farmers raising grain, beet, pork,
and making butter and cheese. Now the manu-
facturers are protected by duty of say, 80, 40,
so, 60 per cent. on these articles-at least an
average OF 80 or 40. We will assume that they
can afford to pay 20 or 80 per cent more for labor
But the farmers all about theu, the mechanics in
the village, not engaged IN these branches of
manufacture, cannot afford to pay more. Will the
manufacturer say, "Here is a farmer-he can't pay
more than seven dollars month-but / am pro-
tected-I can afford Is dollars" Is that your
experience? doubt not there are many laboring
men here. Or will the manufacturer come to you
and pay just as little as will hire you away from
the farmers? If the farmer pays ten dollars the
manufacturer will pay eleven. But though he can
afford it, will he pay ffteen' My experience is
not SO. My study of human nature teaches that it
Is not so. Every man will hire labor cheaply as
he can and pay ough only to hire the best labor
One farmer turns his attention to growing wool
He wants two or three hired men. A neghbor of
his raises wheat and he wants one, two or three.
Another neighbor raises cattle and keeps dairy.
on wool. Does he pay 40 per cent. more for the
labor he hires, than the man who hires labor for
his grain or beef' No. All pay as little as they
can command labor for. If there was a defcien-
cy of labor, the wool grower would most likely
get it, for he can give most. Don't understand
me TO suppose that the farmer receives the same
compensation for labor that them anufacturer
does-but I mean according to the branch of
labor in which it is employed. What controls
the price of labor' The aggregate demand for
labor in the whole. All who want to hire will 60
into the same market, and all pay nearly the same
rate of wages, in proportion to the description of
labor they want. Now you can't protect but one
out of several branches of agricultural industry
How then can you protect labor by extending
monopoly to them' No further than you can
extend the aggregate demand for labor and raise
up the whole. And you can judge now far pro
lection on wool will raise the price of the whole