The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-22
srrRxT OF TEE PRESS.
Editorial Opinions OF the Leading Journals
upon Current Topics Compiled Every
DAY for the Evening Telegraph.
A PRoTECTIoNIsT SPIDER CAUGHT IN
HIS OWN WEB.

'There Is no reason on earth for assuming that
given amount OF labor would not, upon ike ma
chnery produce cotton fabrics in Minnesota at least
equal In quantity and intrinsic value 10 the product
Of as much labor in the mills of British Manchester.
We all know that it would. And the goods so pro-
duCed in Minnesota would Ind markets. througuOui
toV To .underseIl Manchester They would De dearer
than those OF Manchester only because laoor De ter
paid In Mnnesota than In Manchester, and TO the
the cotton to England and bringing back the faorics
In short-though we have never argued that the
sofa through the production of fabrics her precise
area-we have no doubt that such protection would
increase her population and wealth. aud elevate the
condition OF labor generaly.n-N. ]. Tribune.
We know of no process so well calculated
to abridge the tediousness of debate as to
refute an opponent from his own admissions.
This method saves all the labor of establish
ing premises, and leaves nothing TO be done
but to draw easy conclusions.
THE Tribune affirms (whether truly we
stop not to inquire) that cotton cloth can
be manufactured in Minnesota with as little
labor as in Manchester. If this be so, the
manufacturer obviously needs no more pro-
lection in one place than in the other Dis
tance and the cost of transportation are an
effectuaI protection for both. If the Mime
sofa manufacturer should send his cotton
goods to England he could not sell them
there, because, with equal cost in the factory,
they are burdened with the expense of freight.
than it is from mine to yours And SO, 0ice
versa, the Manchester goods would be de-
livered in st. Paul at an equal original cost
Gin labor) of the Minnesota fabrics, plus
charges. profits and five thousand miles
transportation. Why then (the original cost
of the goods being equaD does one need pro-
lection more than the other?
Only, says the Tribune because wages are
higher in Minnesota. But for this there are
several compensations. First (and chief,
cloth is manufactured by machinery, and so
far as wages is an element of its cost, the
difference between yard of cloth manufac-
tured in Manchester and at the Falls of St.
Anthony would be ininitesimal. Secondly,
the Minnesota manufacturer could use water
power, and save the expense of coal to run
his machinery. Thirdly, the grounds on
which his factories and warehouses are
erected cost comparatively nothing. Fourth
ly, his personal expenses for food, rent, etc.,
are bagatelle. Why then, with five thou
sand miles of costly transportation between
them, does Minnesota need to be protected
against Manchester, any more than Manches-
ter against Minnesota? The cost of pro-
ducing the goods in the two places being as
sumed equal, the thing is Just as long as it is
broad.
1t must be apparent to every reader of
common sense that great fallacy turks some
where in the 1ribunes reasoning.
To make the absurdlty still more glarine,
let us apply to grain the self-same reasoning
which the Tribune employs about cotton
cloth. The soil and climate of England are
we'll adapted to grain, the average crop per
acre being as great as in the United States.
We will assume, therefore, that wheat is pro-
duced in England with the same amount of
labor as in America. Now, American labor
being great deal dearer, and mere muscle
without machinery being more largely en-
ployed in the production of grain than of
cloth, why does not the American grain
grower, as we'll as the American weaver,
need need n.n0or to ,a%o, be protected -, against
ready answer is that distance. the cost of
transportation, and cheaper land afford super
huous protection. If land were equally high
in this country as in England, and labor
equally low, distance and transportation
would still afford adequate protection. When
the cost of production is equal, any other
protection than distance is needless; and in
all other cases il is mischieveus, as prevent
ing producers from profting by their natural
advantages. If Minnesota grain plus trans
portation is cheaper in England than English
grain, it is an advantage to the English con-
sumer to buy it. SO, on the other hand,
IT Manchester shirtings plus transportation
are cheaper in Minnesota than cloth made in
St Paul, the wearers of the Minnesota che
misses (Of which the Tribune modestly sus-
poets the existence) would be wroneed If thew
were not permitted to buy it,
When cloth can be produced as cheaply in
Minnesota as in Manchester, the manufacture
of it will inevitably be established there
without any other protection than the cost of
freight and the profits of importers. If labor
is too expensive to permit it now, ii is be-
cause labor finds more profitable employ
nent. Why are wages higher in Minnesota
than in England? For no other reason than
because there is greater profit in raising wheat
for expectation in Minnesota, than in manu-
featuring goods for expectation to England.
For wages are paid, in both cases, out of the
prices received for the exported products, and
if the Minnesota labor did not yield larger
returns, it wsuld not be possible for its em-
ployers to pay higher wages.
chester2 Why not take Lowell instead, and
free the question from one element of com
plication1 If the same amount of labor will
produce as much cloth in Minnesota as in
Manchester, it will also produce as much ir
Minnesota as in Lowell. But the Lowell
manufacturers pay American wages so thai
in this respect the competition is equal
Why then have not Massachusetts, capital
lists built new mills in the Mississippi vale,
and saved the cost of transportation WheI
the Tribune shall have given a solid answe
10 this question, it will have laid bare tn
fundamental fallacy of its whole reasoning
We leave it to make the attempt, when W
shall have further word to say.