Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-08-06

Der of articles on exhibition wa
about one thousand. John Hays, o
Boston, made a protective tariff
speech on the 4th, and ~thereupon, a:
we are informed by telegraph, the
following resoluti, rs were adopted in
the interest of the protectionists, viz;
RESOLVED, That we approve the prin-
ciples of fair and Just protection to nome
Industry, not only as applied TO wool and
woolens, but to other branches of protec-
ton and manufactures, as opening the
way for competition, for fair wages, for
an increase of home trade, home market,
healthy foreign trade, and best good ofthe
people.
Resolved, That we recognize the free
trade movement as a struggle on the part
of our British competitors for the control
and possession of Our markets by break
ing down our new industries, which con-
troll would be disastrous to our industry
and finances.
Resolved, That we ask the free trader to
take open ground tor free trade and low
wages, the latter being the inevitable re-
suit of their theory, and no longer claim
or pretend to be the friends of the work
ing man, when in fact they are his enc
mics, and their success will reduce him to
/ AhS NNhuBbA H1N ~ DlANALh AdlNDAN Wi n
men, or deprive him wholly of employ
ment.
Resolved, That we ask the manufactu-
rers of Europe to come here with their
capital, skill, workmen and machinery, to
help pay ourtaxes, be fed from our farms,
pay their workmen American wages, and
share the benefits of our free institutions;
and we welcome them to afull aud fair en-
iOyment of the benefits which they claim
we enjoy by reason of our protective
policy, and consider such fair compensa-
ton far more honorable than the effort to
reduce our people to national ruin by the
spread of free trade sophisms among us.
These resolutions are skillfully
drawn on the principle of being as
full of fallacies as they are of words.
We have had protection" for up
ward of forty years, and the benefits
have gone into the pockets of the
owners of factories, while the opera
tives have been kept poor, and their
wages have been forced down, instead
of going up as the result of protec-
ton. In view of such a fact as this,
the factory people are about as likely
to be misled for the benefit of the
huge capitalists as are the masses
of the people of the country who pay
two prices for what they wear
and consume only to enrich the man.
ulacturers, who have ever since 1923
held out the constant promise that a
protective tariff would operate to
cheaper manufactured goods. Forty
years have done nothing to realize
the promise, which was to be imme-
diately fulfilled. And the laboring
people of the country have grOaned
and toiled on for all that time, pay
lug twice as much for manufactured
goods as they would cost them if i'm
ported free. Their wages have been
kept down by the high prices of ar
ticles Of prime necessity, and it
is their employers, not themselves,
that have reaped the benefit. The
great mass of the people, rich and
poor, the laborers and consumers of
the country, have paid for the purpose
Of I" protection" and for the benefit
of individuals by means of this mode
Of indirect taxation double the sum
prOfessedly for the support of the Gov
eminent, which they would have paid
under a system of direct taxation.
And, the whole case being considered,
it may be doubted whether the appeal
of these resolutions to the factory
operatives and smechanic classes
is founded in any better reason
than if made to the poor
laboring man, who must pay two dol
lars for the shirt he ought to buy for
one, and ten dollars for a coat free
trade would give him for five.
These resolutions invite over the
manufacturers Of Europe to share the
blessings of the protective system
with us. Well, suppose they come;
how are we to expect augmented
wages of labor? Has not capital tri-
umphed over labor in Europe, as
under the protective system it gathers
the rich harvest from the labor and
toll OF the poor in thisl If wages are
to be increased by importing manu-
and manufacturing capital,
as the authors OF these resolutions
evidently intend should be under
stood by the laboring classes to whom
their sOphisms are addressed, what is
the reason that wages are lower In
England to-day than in this country?
Is ii not reasonable to suppose that
in proportion as we approach the con-
dltiOn of that country as to manu-
.factures, wages will go down to the
same level? The New England States
have been enriched in pursuance of
Mr.. Webster's policy at the expense
of the West and the South. In
1888, Mr.. Clay, seeing this partial
and oppressive operation of q
prOtractive tariff, was prepared
tOIabandon the protective principle, |
and after ten years to come to an Gd
.udiOre1H tariff, confined and limited to
the necessities of the revenue. He
for a time to Mr.. Webster's
in the apprehension that the
manufacturing interests Of the country
were then too much In their infancy
10 stand alone. But the idea of pro-
lection In 1870 was not, then enter
tanned even by Mr.. Webster, and was
repudiated as false and preposterOus
by the manufacturers themselves.
But now they have grown rich
and powerful, and the more
they grow great and strong the
more they cry give, give. If with
their present accommodations they can
not stand, and now need a greater
amount Of protection +" than ever
what are we to expect for
he future, and when is the country
be done with paying hundreds of
billions foztheir benefit? They pass
iesolutiOns not likely to be read or
have effect in Europe. But they
nave no more desire for an influx
Of European manufacturers, than for
Manufactured goods. On the other
hand the interest of the west and
south Is in direct antagonism
New England. We can
'ay sincerely let manufacturers
come and build up our towns and
lilies, for, unlike New England, we
nave not our own to compete with
hem. And we a say bring in man
lfactured goods in order that we may
)uy them cheaply. And we accord
ngly do invite them for our own
,eneft and not as n mere yyeteose If