Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-06-18
Free rrnd.rs.Lnhnr.


Free Trade vs.. Labor.
Advocates of foreign or special interests, who
oppose protecting American industry, can not
often be induced to state the question truly and
discuss it on its own merits. Generally, they
have confined themselves to misrepresentng
the aim of the protective policy. They seek TO
persuade the public that il has been contriyed
solely for "the benefit of few monOpolisis."
1t does not require much honest thought to ex-
pose this Misrepresentation; but it has been
urged industriously, and many, imposed
upon by inscriptions reiteration, have as
sumcd it to be true. We notice, however,
that it is not now put forward with quite
so much assurance as formerly, and that some
of the free trade organs feel it necessary to
discuss the relation of their policy to the inter
estS of labor. This matter is the topic of lead
ing article in a recent number of the "free
trade" sheet published in New York in the in
terest of importers and English manufacturers.
The writer attempts to make several points to
break the force of the argument against him,
two of them being as follows; labor dos not
really cost more in this country than in Europe;
and, if it did cost more this would be immateri
al, for labor does not constitute more than 10 or
90 per cent of the value of manufactured goods.
These positions are both false and wild. At
the present time, in view of what is known of
the wages and condition Of wOrkingmen in En-
gland, il is shameless lalsehood to say that the
relative condition of labor in this country is no
better. The second point, also, is untrue.
Take machinery for instance; labor began with
the iron and steel when they were ore in the mine,
carried them through all the processes of manu-
facture until they were in condition for use in
the machine shops where labor transformed them
into machinery. Did more than fifteen per
cent. of the value of this machinery consist of
anything besides the labor bestowed upon its con-
struction and upon the materials of which it was
constructed? 1t seems plain enough that to
produce such manufactures here as cheap as
they can be produced in England, labor must
be paid here as poorly as it is paid there; and
who will consent TO have England impose on
the United States her starvation system of deal
ing with labor? We oppose it, and, therefore,
uphold the protective policy by which our
country is defended against its influence. No
one who aims honestly TO promote the interests
of American industry, can allow himself to deny
incontrovertible facts and talk as if the condi
ton of labor were as low, in this country, as it
is in England. Only those who aid importers
and English manufacturers in their crusade
against our industry, find use for such falsehood.
These free traders talk of "monOpoliesp and
yet, their policy carried out would subject this
country TO one of the most arrogant and
atrocious monopoles the world ever heard Of
They would transform this country into com
mcrcial province of Great Britain. They would
make the great English manufacturers supreme
in our markets, swell the business and the
profits of importers, and take from the great
majority of our working men their accustomed
business. All this they would do, if they could ;
some of them because they are special agents of
the hostile interests and others because they are
dreaming biologists, whose eyes are not used to
seeing realities in the eight of common day"
Suppose apoicy should be adopted which would
allow England TO supply this country with all
the wares now manufactured in Worcester Is it
not manifest even TO those least accustomed TO
reflection, that our shops would be closed and
our workmen thrown out of business? "But
the English goods would be cheap, much cheap
er than ours" say the free traders. Well, what
advantage would there be in this for men de-
pryed of work, and thus made destitute of
means to buy such goods at any price? or for
the owners of unused shops, empty houses, and
deprecated real estate? or for the farmers aud
gardeners whose productions the workmen
could no longer buy? or for those western
communities whose wheat, corn, fruit, etc.. we
now use so abundantly? 1t is something worse
than folly to tell Americans they can have Eng
lish clothing and other goods much cheaper than
they can produce them, provided they will cease
work and thus have nothing to pay with. The
same things are cheaper in England than here;
but English workingmen can not get means to
buy proper supply of necessary food, not 10
speak OF clothing, and of other things which we
Americans deem essential. If higher wages in
creases the cost Of production here, it also in
creases the workman's means of buying what
he wants.
What would be done for Worcester, in the
case supposed, is what the English manufacture
ers and their free trade agents desire TO do for
the whole country. They have the assurance TO
say that we Americans should confine ourselves
TO agriculture and leave them to supply us with
manufactured goods. Instead of manufacturing
our own goods and filling the country with man.
uiaeiuring communities eager to buy the grain
and other productions of the farmers, our me-
chanies must all quit their shops and 90 to farm
ing, aud thus bring disaster upon our farming
industry, as well as upon all the others, bv de-
priving it of markets. Doubtless our people, un-
der such circumstances, would contrive to keep
from starving; bat what would become of the
great prosperity and growing wealth of the
country, which have been secured by our pro-
tectiyc system? 1t is a consolation to know
that the free traders can not carry out their
policy. We must have a tariff for revenue, and
1t will be so arranged as to protect American
industry All articles which we do not pro-
duee can safely be put on the free list; but the
interests Of American labor must and will be
projected.