New-York tribune., 1871-11-23
PPOTFCTION. LAND md U1GES.

To the EdtfOr Of The Tribune
SIR: AS an individual Frcc-Trader, not pre-
sumng to represent the FrccTrade League or any one
but myself hasten TO admit that, in your controversy
with John Stuart Mil. you have eficctually demolished
his argum, that the high wages of this country are due
to cheap land and sparse population. am ready to
acknowledge your triumph not only because MI Mills
theory Is palpably incomplete but because as Free
Trader deem it indispensable to down his leadership
He is esteemed popularity. as you say the most eminent
living philosophic champion OF FrecIrade' and yet in
his Political Economy Ill passage which beard you
quote to the Liberal Club in answering bis first letter he
distinctly admits that IN particular instances Protection
may not Durc Industry Rrputed our leader. ho thus
betrays who believe that Protection plumbers and
distorts Industry always In overwhelming hin. You
are supposed have vanqusbcd The Father Of all Free
Traders J. for one therefore hasten to come ont from
behind such blind guide.
You refute Mr. Mills theory that our higher wages
are due to cheaper land conclude that they
due Protection All true FrecTradcrs will meet you
here fair and square We hold that Protection lessons
the SUN OF National production and, by force Of
law distributes this diminished product unequay that
it gives to those who control our ttarf legislation
eonine share and thus. by double subtracon lowers
wages.
History affords what TO a decisive test OF the
theory that Protection high wages have
it alluded to- and respectfully submit 1t TO you,
with the request that II you deem Of Importance you
will give explanation Of it in the columns of THE
TRIBUNE In the Wealth Of Nations" Book l., Chap.
viii. Adam Smith says:
at Is not in the richest countries hut in the most
thriving In those which are growing rich the fastest,
that the wages of labor are highest. England is
tanly at the present time much richer country than
any part Of North America The wages of labor hoa,
Of England"
Then follow statistics Of the difference in wages.
This was written about 1870 At that tme Protection
fortified by centuries Of digcnt vglant legisation
was guarding the English borer with every known de-
vice for fostering industry The American laborer not
only had Protection but was impeded in every pos
sibe way. Now, II Protection causes q superiority of
wages why English after ages Of Protection
lower tb American wages which had been pro-
tectedi Respectfully, HENRY d. LLOYD, Asst secy.
O0s eth< Aneroan fre Trade LeaS 9E,sssus Nov a. Is1
The Iribune's Answer.
Mr.. Lloyd having admitted our complete
refutation of Mr.. Mills assumption, we say
nothing more on that head. We will here
consider only the new line of defense which
Mr.. Lloyd has constructed behind that from
which Mr.. Mill has been routed.
Mr.. Lloyd clearly assumes that we consider
Protection the only cause of higher and Free
Trade the sole cause of lower wages. But this
we never believed, and of course never taught
On the contrary, we know that wages were
very high in California (for instance) from
1s49 TO 1859, mainly because of the productive
ness of gold-diggng. So long as almost any
man, armed only with pick and pan, could aver
age five dollars per day by faithful gold-digging
it was morally impossible that the average
wages of labor in other pursuits should fall
much below that point. In other words, we
presume that there is no serious dispute as to
the fact that the average productiveness of
Labor governs it's average recOmpense. Hence,
when We find the labor that brings but $40
per month (gold) in Lower Canada averaging
- (cmIcncO per month when transferred
to N,...., 'n-.i's, nadiy days ride south
V.u.., ,.> r.hn.. .c-i "a, coDGuaion that