Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-11-18
DAILY LEADER,
Protection Explained,
BY HORACE GREELEY.

To increase at once OF individual, natlona
the and general wealth. Whatever render
III human labor more efectiye@that is, NOR
ion Observation-Disclosures to this end. T.
n lure a larger and still larger proportion o
= the human family from idleness to indus
II try, from want to thrift, from squalor Il
70 comfort, such is the aim Of the true econ
inc omist.
cal Diversity of pursuits is an inexorabl,
'ss condition of our thrift and prosperity. A
he community exclusively engaged in lum.
tSr bering, mining, fishing, grain7growing, OIL
is anything else, will nave no employment
nd for a large proportion ever of its adults,
nd and must permit many if not most of its
n n children to grow up idle, unskilled and
lie. dependent. The child reared in daily
I, contact with the diversified and complex
y operations ola country like the Middlesex
of Massachusetts or the Allegheny of
!, Pennsylvania, can hardly fail to be more
efficient in after life than if acquainted
n only with the rude cultivation of a sea-
!. island, or the silk manufacture of a Spital-
fields or Lyons. Industry is the chief
ne education Of a majority of our race, who
al rank higher or lower in the scale of being
as its processes wherewith they are famii-
: lar are more or less varied and perfect.
ia Protection has been prejudiced in the
n eyes of thousands by being invoked lat
% least, its opponents so say to achieve i'm
possibilities-to insure the growing of
pineapples in Greenland or the breeding
of reindeer at Timbuetoo. ; Political
economy and common sense alike con-
denim such absurdities as the attempt to
make a business of extracting sunbeams
from cucumbers or boil a tea-kettle with
: the heat latent in snowballs. Show us
i that nature forbids the prosecution of any
: pursuit in this or that region that an
article, staple, or fabric, can only be there
produced at a cost of double or treble the
, labor required for its production elsS~hSrs
l and we agree that it is not there a
!, proper subject for protection. Rest as
sured that we have considered our ground,
and are neither madmen nor idiots. None
are more averse than we to superseding
( good and cheap articles by rivals at once
inferior and more costly; and non more
ready than we to agree and insist that
raw materials and bulky staples should
be gathered from all quarters and subject
ed only to light revenue duties, if to any
at all.
Wherein, then, do we differ from our
adversaries, the so-called Free Traders? 1
answer. .
I. We insist that the money price at
s0hich an, article Is sold affords nc absolute
criterion of It's cost. For instance the
State of Iowa buys cloth and sells grain.
Let us suppose that, with our factories and
workshops in Europe, the average prices
obtained by her farmers should be fifty
cents per bushel for wheat and twenty
five for Indian corn, while they bought
their fabrics Of Europe at prices Indicated
by the retailing of good satinets at enc
dollar per yard. Now let US suppose that
a protective tariff imposed which would
levy a duty of fifty cents per yard on i'm
ported %satinets, and thus transfer their
manufacture for our consumption to this
country, and in part to Iowa and vicinity
thus creating aud maintaining an adequate
home market for our breadstufs, thereby
raising the price of grain in Iowa TO one
dollar per bushel for wheat and fifty cents
for corn while the homemade satinets are
retailed for one dollar and twenty-five
per yard. Is it not plain that the Iowa
farmers obtain their fabsics really cheaper,
though nominally desrer than before p
that each farmers supply of wheat or corn
will buy him more cloth at the EXCHANGED
than it did at the lower price? And does
the circumstance that the former is termed
artificial, the latter natural, make any eS-
sential diference2
But why is the homemade cloth really
cheaper to the farmer than its foreign ri
val, though it is, possible to sell him the
latter at a lower money price2 l answer
Because the fabrication of his cloth in
Europe necessitates the expectation of his
grain, and the consequent graduation Of
its price by that ruling in Europe, deduct
ing from his returns the cost of transpor-
ting it thither. Let us suppose that Iowa
grows mainly wheat for sale, and must
send the larger portion of her surplus
across the Atlantic to find consumers, sell
ing it at Birmingham or Sheffield at two
dollars per buehel, whereof one dollar and
fifty cents is absorbed in the cost and
charges of transmission. OF course, her
farmers can receive, in the average, but
fifty cents per bushel. But transfer the
production of her fabrics from Europe to
America, and much of it to Iowa or its
vicinity, and now the price of grain rises
by q law memorable as that of grayitation.
It is no longer depressed by the necessity
of finding a market for a good part of it
four thousand miles away, but rises to a
far higher level. And not only is wheat
dearer to the farmer, though cheaper to
the manufacturer, than it was, but the far
mer now finds a ready market for fruit,
vegetables, hay, etc, etc. which he could
scarcely sell at any price so long as our
peoples productive energies were devoted
10 agriculture alone
II. What we seek by Protection is to
shorten the distance which separates
farmers from manufacturers, and thereby
diminish the too heavy cost of exchanging
their products respectively. If a thousand
farmers growing grain in Iowa, and a
thousand manufacturers making wares
and fabrics in England, exchange their
products across four thousand miles OF
land and water, employing the services
and consuming the time of three thousand
forwarders, boatmen, railroad hands, sea-
men, &c. &c, in SO doing, it is manifest
that the whole five thousand must be sub
sisted on the products of the two thousand
actual producers. Now bring the manu-
facturers SO near the farmers that one
thousand men can easily perform all the
labor required to exchange their products,
and it ~is'clear that we have liberated two
thousand from various non-productive en-
ployments or functions, and added them
to the number of producers. We have
more grain grown and more cloth made,
more wealth created and less capacity alb
sorbed in pursuits which, however neces-
sary under certain circumstances, add
nothing to the sum of human comforts.
The Protection we advocate is simply
the saving of human labor. We maintain
that, instead Of sending wool, grain and
meat from Iowa to England, and bringing
back fabrics in return, it is cheaper and
better to bring the lubricant, once for all,
from England to Iowa or near it, and there
feed him from the products of our generous
soil. We hold that the farmer and the
manufacturersare alike benefited by this
course and that it insureS to each a fuller
reward for his labor, and a larger measure
of ~sustenance and enjoyment.
Protection, then, is not narrow, nor
selfish, nor exclusive. 1t does not ignore
the brotherhood of man; nor seek special
advantage at the expense of general good
1t seeks to build up our W country by
drawing hither the better portion of the
population of Europe, through the profer
| of higher wages, a better position, and
greater comfort, than they enjoy or can
expect in their native land. Why not2