New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-13


IN somi.c;rcIc around our boyhood's home
BY means of those cities, the wages OF maies
have doubled and those of females trebled
since 1890 throughout that whole region;
firm nroduce sells far higher and mole
readily than it did; many fruits ana
vegetables have more than doubled III
vojue: while millions of acres of sterile,
rocky soil, which had next to no value
in 1920. are now worth $50 to 500 per acre,
because of their adaptation to the rapid growth
of timber and fuel Wood, which we helped
transmute into charcoal when it did not pay
fifty cents per day for the labor required,
counting the wood worth nothing, would this
day bring 800 cash per acre Qor the trees
without the land) if it stood exactly where
and as it did when cut off for coaling fifty
years ago.
Take another case already cited by us.
Democrat in northwestern Connecticut, who
insisted that Protection was calculated to btnc-
fit no one but manufacturers, hired one
hundred acres of his land cleared in 1912,
paying $40 per acre therefor A Protective
Tariff being enacted just aftcrward, char
coal smelling furnace was put INTO
blast near him; and now he sold
the timber (for cOaling) on two hundred acres
more of Just such land, receiving for 1t S@o
per aore-putting $4,000 into his pocket for
what he must have given $4,000 to get nd OF
in the absence of Protection.
We could multiply such facts; but to what
end? Mr.. Mill would not heed. and the Amer
lean People do not need them.
As to labor being merely transferred, not
increased. by Protection, we beg any American
to look at the State of Pcnnsylvania-not long
ago wholly devoted to Agriculture, but now
extensively engaged in Mining, Metallurgy and
Manufacturcs-and ask himself" SuppoSlng
"all these mines closed, these furnaces blown
"out these pOnderous wheels stopped, these
"trip-hammcrs stilled, what would be the
"eflect on the agriculture of the Keystone
estate? Would she have thenceforth more or
"fewer farmers growing Fruits, Roots, Veg
"ctables &C., in her rich valleys and on her
"hiIl-sdesY" In other words, would "a dimin-
ished. declining, stagnant market secure an
increased product? Common sense dictates
Che answer.
". Mr.. Mill thinks it mistake that Pro-
tcctiye duty may tax the producer rather than
the consumer of the article taxed. We can
best reply to his logic by facts. The circular
of a British hardware exporting house, sent to
IFS American customers in 1912, revising its
price-lists and reducing its charge Tor
those articles on which we had just raised
the duty, but not reducing the prices
of articles whereOn no advance OF duty
had been made, is in our possession.
Also. the circular, issued fifteen months
ago, by great British rail-cXporting firm
to its rail-rOlling customers, saying to them
in substance, "Oar hopes of an advance IN orr
"pricps depend on the prospect of reduction
"of the American tariff in other words, " II
"the Yankees take 60 of the the duty we can
"sticlz - on to the price'-wc published soon
after it was issued. Mind you that our an
thoritics on this point are wholly British, and
business men at that. They were intent on
selling their wares, and not on establishing
Economic theories; and were acting strictly on
the business principle" Get twenty per cent.
"pro6t if YOU can; but take three per cent.
4" rather than miss a trade ana lose your GUS
"tOmcr."
V. Mr.. Mil thinks that If we make for orr
selves Iron and Cloth which Great Britain
would sell us for less money than our pro-
ducers ask for them, the world loses by our
milking them We have fully considered this
position. and decidedly dissent from 1t. We
hold that the relative cost to American con-
sumcrs of a tun of Iron ICadc II Great britain
and one made in this country Is not indicated by
thenunber ofdol!ars they respectively command
in our markct-that the cost OF the American
Iron is largely made up of Ore, Coal, Timber,
Fruits. Vegetables, &c, &C., which would have
far less value, and would often be wholly
wifhom value, if our furnaces and factories
were remandcd to Europe. We believe that the
American Iron costs less III labor than the
Furopean, even when its price is higher i'll
money
VI Mr.. Mill says that, if he thought our
comparatively high wages in this country were
the result of Protection, he would favor Pro-
lection. He cannot, therefore, blame us who
do think so for standing by Protection. We
distinctly remember when, in the absence of
Protection, our laborwas far cheaper, less eagerly
sought, less generally employed, than 1t now
is; and we know that Great Britain was then
making the bulk of our Cloth and Our Iron.
So fast as we transferred these manufactures
TO our own soil, our wages rose; when, under
n reduced Tariff, they were allowed to slip
back to England wages fell; since we have re-
called them by Protection, wages rise again.
We can't help believing that night and dark
ness, day and hight, have another relation than
that of mere coincidence.
-" But your wages are high" says Mr.. Mil,
in substance, because land is so abundant and
"cheap with you" No, Sir land is still more
abundant and cheaper in the Dominion just
north of us than it is here, yet wages are very
much lower there than here. Why? They
have light taxes, modest debt, and that
"choice of two markets" which your disciples
think en- advantageous to the farmer; yet they