Daily Kennebec journal., 1880-10-25
Who Are Benefited by Protec-
liour

fFrom the Bulletin Of the American Iron
and Steel Association. August II, 1850
That the workingmen of the United
States have no cause to complain of the
results of our Protective policy ought not
to require verification at this late dag, but
occasionally a workingman may be found
who has given but little thought to a sub
iect which is to him of so mnch impor-
tance To all workingmen of this class
the following brief statements are respect
fully commended.
The London Mining Journal Of June
26, 1880, contained a communication from
one of its English readers, over the sig
nature of Free Trade in which the
writer showed why the United States
could not become serious competitor
with England in supplying the worlds
market with manufactures Of iron and
steel. He said:
The reason of this is thai it is practically
impossible to regulate wages except upon the
basis of the highest prices obtainablc for the
article manufactured, SO that if the tariff per
mits the American ironmaster to sell to local
consumers at SO per ton higher than before.
the fuH proportion Of MGf $40 must be PU;d
to the n0rkmcR, and the British iroumaSter
IN all markets except the American as beae-
fitted 10 the eTteBt Of the erira wdges paid IN
America. 1t is obviously absurd for the
British producer TO complain of foreign
producing country lcvyng Al import duty on
the produce which he has to sell beca"ss that
duty extends has market eiseichere md ruth
In, Foo, al
ly well circumstanced for raw material and
labor can only compete with each other when
both have Protection or both Free Trade. and
when one onl, has Free Trade that one invari
ably has the best of Il. because the sale prire
the morks IS Of course cheaper. For this
reason think we should he well coutented
that the Americans retain their tariff. and be
content to retain our confidence in Free
Trade.
Ii is an English Free Trader who pays
this tribute TO the effect of Protection on
wages in this country. But he is not alone
in conceding this great benefit of Protec-
ton to American labor. The London
Times itself makes the same admission
In an editorial review of the speeches
made at the banquet of the Cobdcn Club
which took place ut Greenwich on the 10th
of July, 1880. the Times said, in speaking
OF the hopes expressed hv some of the
speakers that the United States would
soon adopt Free Trade:
The United States has not yet seen the er-
ror of their ways. 1t is doubtful if they are
in the way of seeing them. England as our
Philadelphia correspondent remarked in re
cent letter. has gone on for the last fourteen
years or so repeating that America could not
long put off adopting Free Trade. There is
not, our correspondent declares, the slightest
sign of the mtillment of this long-standing
prophecy. The United States do not ap-
proach the question from the same point of
view ourselves The object Of their states
men as not 10 secure the largest amount Of
redih for the country generally, but to
Keep up, By 'rhaterer means. the standard
Of comfort among the ioboring classes.
When the London Times can say that
the object of our Protective policy is to
maintain higher standard of comfort
among our laboring classes than Free
Trade England maintains for her working
people, it ought not to be difficult for an
American workingman to decide whether
the Protectionists or the Free Traders of
this country are his friends
A single illustration will show the diff
ference in Wages which now exists in Eng
land and the United States. The Pitts
burgh american Manufacturer for July
80, 1880. referred to the results of a recent
arbitration in England of u wages dispute
hotv sbn ,Nplllnrs III, ,,,J
their employers as follows:
The ironmasters offered to pay the men the
same number of shllings per ton for pud-
ding as the finished iron was selling for in
pounds per ton. That is, if bars were fS.
pudding should be SIS. The men wanted the
rate to be not simply "shiiiings for pound"
but one shilling more, in which case, with
bars at IS, the men would be paid 9s. per ton
for pudding. The dispute in question was
referred, rs is customary in South Stafford
shire, to arbitration, the arbitrator being the
Mayor of Birmingham. His decision was
that the men should receive six pence ton
over shillings for pounds, thus exactly split
ting the difference"
The writer in the Manufacturer then
proceeds to compare the proportion of the
selling price of y ton of Staifordshire iron
which the English puddler gets in wages
with the proportion of the selling price of
ton OF Pittsburgh iron which is paid to
the Pittsburgh puddler. He says:
comparison may here be made with the
Pittsburg price for pudding. With bar iron
as at present at . cents per Id. [S+i "a tom
and pudding $3.50 per ton of 2.240 10. the
price of pudding is nearly ll.2 per cent. OF
the price of bar. In England. with pudding |
1t Us 1920 and bar iron at ES [S40, the |
price of pudding is only SO per cent. OF the |
price of bar, or almost exactly half what it |
is in this country. Bars being at IS and pud- |
ding at IS 3D. s.. II, the latter is 5.3 per
cent Of the former, or less than one-half of
the rate in Pittsburgh.
He then asks: Can any one explain