Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1851-05-22

Gas it surely will if they oppose general pro-
tective system) under the delusive idea of get
ting foreign iron cheaper for any length OF
time.''
Now there many truths contained IN the
| above, but the editor departs from sound logic,
in his deduction, as we will endeavor to show.
1t is doubtless true, as is stated, that "wealth
and luxury are on the increase, with the in
crease of business-and so are poverty and des-
titution.' The rich grow richer, and in many
employments, the poor poorer" Ho,o this is
done, the editor of the Journal explains by
stating that 1.-THE employer too often increases
his own profits, while his workmen and work.
women compelled to receive less and less
for their scanty subsistence''-but WHY it is
done. is not attempted to be shown. Accord.
ing to wing theory, business is the only basis
of labor, and an increase of business a sure evil
dence of SUCCESS and prosperity among the la
boring classes. Thus, establish high rates of
duties, by which foreign goods will be exclud-
ed from our markets, and the business of man.
ufacturing be increased in our country, and the
laborers will consequently be furnished with
business and be benefited. This has been
wing doctrine, although contrary to human ma
ture, and disproved by history of its operation.
The idea strikes one as plausible-it is natural
enough 70 suppose, at first blush, that an in
crease of business, in any department, would
result to the advantage of all employees
does it so operate in many of our large cities
does it so operate in great Britain. Let US
credit the opinion of our whig brother that it
does not And now let us look at it phlo-
sophically, and see ,chy it does not. The rea-
son is directly traceable to the natural cupidity
of the human heart. The love of gain elves
on what it feeds on" 1t is as rare thing to
find cupital sympathizing with labor as it is to
find perfect man
We would not, of course contend that labor
is not subject, in some degree, to business fuc
tuations-but it is clearly demonstrable that
the highest state Of prosperity among capital
isis,-when they are piling up their princely
fortunes, as was the case in Massachusetts,,
among the manufacturers when the monopoly
of the markets were secured them by protection
it is clearly evident, We say, as appears by
the fgmes which we cited recently-that pros
perity among iaborers is by no means certainly
incident to prosperity among capitalists
The state of things depicted in the extract
above is correctly attributed to a surplus of Ia
Dor in particular department, and it is no
doubt bringing things down to the European
standard" Now where is the remedyf 1t is
simply to divert labor from all channels in
which it is overdone, and in the ability to do
this through our multifarious industrial inter-
ests, consists the great difference between our
country and Great Britain, and which can
never render a comparison between the two as
parallel.
Now comes the fallacious reasoning of the ed
itor of the Journal, in his statement, as follows;
"but the fact that reduction on the wages
does not necessarily bring down the prices of
goods, demonstrates the soundness of the whig
argument, that removal of protection from
our industry will by no means enable the
American consumer to purchase foreign manu-
features at reduced prices" Now we do not
know whether our Tribune brother,-in the
face and eyes of the figures which we quoted
in our recent article on "money and business"
adopts the above reasoning-if he does we
can only refer him to the aforesaid figures, and
ask him to explain them away, for they clearly
show that while the great consuming interest of
the country, under high duties received less
for their products, they had TO pay higher for
the necessary articles of consumption. Were
this not demonstrated by actual experience, it
would require but slight examination into
the philosophy or reason of the thing to show,
what has so often been shown, the manifest
m- soundness of the wing argument
OF the comparison in the concluding para
graph of the Journal extract, between free
trade and our present partially protective
(democratic) system" we have nothing to say,
inasmuch as its limits seem to imply an acqui-
escence IN our present system.