The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1880-11-17
The Real Issue.

The Real I.sme.
Senator Dawes, in speech to the
Boston Merchants Association. Oct, %.
1850, said:
ain 1850 the products Of American
manufactures amounted to 81 ,SOO, OOO.-
900; in 1870 to 81, 2OO, OOO, 600; the same
rates Of increase would give an almost
incalculable amount. Whether in 1890
it be $500, 900, 900, or 5000, OOO, 900. or
SOON, OO0,0 900, it mattered but little the
life of no man would be long enough to
count the units that made up the ag-
gregate.
This is the utterance of one of Mas
sachusett's Senators in Congress, of
whom his colleague, Senator Hoar, says:
upon this special question he is the
highest authority of all living men i'm
public life in this country.
When it is known that the PROTEC-
TlON given to American manufacture
ers, by the present Tariff schedule, aver
ages at least 30 per cent. on all the pro-
ducts of our manufactures, it is easy to
see what is being paid by the consumers
for this protection. In 1860 the con-
,''mers paid comparatively a small snm
rs the tariff schedule then embraced
fewer articles and at lower rates, aver
aging abount - per cent, and amount
ing to an aggregate tax to the consumer
of S270,00O,000. In 1870 the Tariff
schedule embraced great many arti-
cles not on the schedule i'm 1860 nor ON
the present schedule, and all or nearly
all at higher rates than now, averaging
about 10 per cent. and amounting to an
aggregate tax to consumers of 81 $780,
OOO,OO0. In 1880, taking Senator Dawes
lowest estimate, and with many arti-
cles Topped off the Tariff schedule and
the average lowered to 80 per cent, say
30 per cent. on $1,000, 100000, aggre-
gates cost to consumers yearly of /
g, 100000, 900, or sum equal to the
National debt, yearly paid by consum-
ers for protection to American manu-
featuring capital.
In order to meet any charge that these
figures contain over estimates as regards
the sum paid for protection, let it be as
srmed that One-halfof our manufactures
are not embraced in any Tariff schedule,
and reduce the above estimates of the
cost of protection of our manufactures
to One-half of the several sums given.
II any one will read carefully the sew
al schedules cited, it will be seen that
nearly every article manufactured in
the United states is protected either di-
rectly or indirectly. But even taking
The estimates last given, the sums are
frightfully large. Now who pays these
large sums of money? Unquestionably
the consumers. Who are the consum-
Frs : Every man, woman and child i'm
The L nited states. Every farmer, every
mechanic, preacher, lawyer, doctor,
every merchant, even every factory
hand pays his share of this sum. II is |
tax upon every one, i'm whatever sta
ion of life, who buys anything to eat :
Dr. wear. 1t is tax upon every dweller
IN house, whether he BE- owner or
renter. To whom does this vast sum
90, raised yearly by taxing the consum-
nr for the necessaries as well AS the lux
lries of life? Not to the United States
Government, for less than Sl5O,OO0, 900 4
S paid annually into the treasury as re- j
,eipts for tariff duties. Not to the |
States, for they, as mass, are consunl-
,rs. Not to the factory hands, for they I
ire merely the hewers of wood and |
irawers of water, and do not own 6
'pindle or loom of the millions that run 4
inder this protective system. They I
wen have to pay out of their earnings ,
he extra 30 or ~ per cent. on all arti- I
lies they consume and a like increased {
ate for the houses they live in. Then I
who are benefited by the large sums of I
money, forced by Protective Tariff
rom the people OF this country: We {
answer, the manufacturers and mill '
'wners of the United States. They i
cap all the advantages and they only i
rom the Protective Tariff System. 1t !
$ a base fraud upon those whom these C
and manufacturers employ, I
o say that but for this protection they t
'ould not give employment to hands or L
given, at inadequate wages. But for '
he tariff, factory hands, with wages '
'reatly reduced from their present rates,
'ould save more each J ear than they do C
low, because all they consume would n
Ne 80 or 40 per cent. cheaper. 1t is Y
raud to parade as an argument in favor t