Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-02-03

ming of tie session protested. A tariff
for protection, otherwise than as a
revenue tariff affords, oppose. This
Il no.new theory. 1t has been pro
claimed in every National Democratic
Convention since the organization OF
the party. ! only desire to emphasize
he doctrine now, and present some OF
the reasons urged by its advocates.
In this letter / shall call attention to
those great facts which in my iudg-
men. incontestably demonstrate the
folly and wrong Of tariff for protec'
tion. First, Il takes money from one
class to put Il into The pockets Of another.
Every dollar OF increased price which
protection makes must be paid by
those who buy and consume the arti-
cles protected. Whoever buys a suit
of clothes, pair of boots, or a hat,
pays it. Whoever buys kitchen
utensils, or stoves, or carpets, or
blankets, or salt, or sugar, pays it.
The farmer who buys hoes and plows
and other agricultural implements
paws it. Indeed, there is scarcely an
article which one purchases to be used
iE daily consumption on which there
is not tax for protection. The pay
ment of this tax in most instances
creates no revenue to the Government,
but goes to support the manufacturer.
This interference with private business
is a usurpation. 1t is beyond the
scope Of governmental power that it
should be exercised to compel per-
sons to buy of particular parties 1t
distur6s, against common justice, the
pntrol of the individual over his own
property, for when man has earned
his money it is his own, and he ought
not to be compelled to pay it to build
up the business of another, but should
be permitted to spend it where it will
do him the most good.
Secondly, A protective torif d'mln-
isles the income achich the laborer receires
from his ,coges. Suppose that Congress
should say to every head OF a family
who makes four hundred dollars a
year, you nut pay efourth Of this
amount to the support of the Govern
ment, would he not object that it was
too heavy tax on. his income. If the
tax collector went every Saturday
night to the employer of such a laborer
and took the proper weekly proportion
out of the earnings in order to make in
a year a tax of one hundred dollars,
how long do you suppose the laborers
would bear it? But what is the diff
ference between the Government tax
ing one hundred out of every four
hundred dollars Of wages before they
are paid, and the compelling the labor
er after he has received them to pay
in one hundred dollars more than they
are worth for the articles he is obliged
to buy, to help the business of some
body else? In both cases the laborer
really only gets three hundred dollars
for his years's work. In the one the
Government keeps the money for its
own use, in the other 1t gives it to an,
other citizen. Nearly one-fourth of
the income of everp head of family
who does not make more than four
hundred dollars year has been taken
from him annually by protective
tariff for the last eighteen years.
Every artisan, mechanic, railway en-
ployee, blacksmith, carpenter, pro-
fessional man, clerk on salary, day
laborer, and farmer has been daily for
years contributing of his income to
help other American citizens no more
entitled to the government bounty
than themselves. But it is said that
the wages of men in the manufacturing
establishments protected are increased
by the tariff. Admit it; but there
were onlv 5000 of them in 1870
while there were 100000 of labor
ers in unprotected employments, ex-
elusive of persons engaged in agricul-
ture who were six millions more.
Why should the wages of the lS,000.-
600, be diminished to increase the
wages of the half million, discrimin-
alton which protective tariff always
makes? But it is not true that the
wages of operatives in protected in
dustries are permanently increased by
protection. Whenever wages are in
creased by protection, that increase is
more than consumed IN the increased
price which the same protection COM
pels them to pay for the articles they
buy. Besides 1t has been demonstrated
that the wages of such operatives were
less in the last ten years with protec-
ton than for the ten years preceding
1860, under d revenue tariff The
wages of manufacturing operatives in
England, since 1916, under free trade
are more than three times greater than
they were before that time with pro-
lection. In Germany, with high
protective tariff wages are lower than
in free trade countries or those with
tariff for revenue only. 1t is said that
protection makes more labor in o
country, and therefore more wages are
paid to laboring men. The statistics
show that in 1870, with an average
duty of As cents, labor was only Isl
per cent Of the value of manufactured