Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-04-07

thing done is TO diminish the production
thus turning employees out Of employ
ment. Wages are diminished or stopped
until times are flush again. With the
time estimated in which the labors are
not at work, the average rate Of wages
for the ten years preceding 1880 under the
revenue traiff. Indeed. in many BRAN
ches the wages have not been so high as
those received b. the pauper laborer. SO
called in Europe. But it is manifest
that the wages in these industries can
not for any long period be higher than
the average rate in the community. for
ii the wages be higher, labor will crowd
into the employments thus favored until
the rate is brought down to the general
level. So true is this that it is admitted by
many protectionists that wages are NOT
higher in the protected industries than
in others.
1t should not be forgotten that since
the adoption of free trade in England.
wages are more than three times higher
than they were under protection. In
Germany, with protection, wages are
lower than in England without. The
statistics of this country show that in
1914, with an average duty of As Der
cent, labor was only 1S15 per cent of
the value of the manufactured goods
while in 1860. with a revenue traiff of
only ~ per cent, the labor was 20 per
cent, of the cost of manufacturing. Tn
other words, with the traiff low. more
labor in the proportion to the amount of
goods manufactured was employed than
with the tariff high.
THIRD OBJECTION.
The effort of protection is disastrous to
most of the protected industries them
selves. We have seen that many of them
have in recent years been compelled to
diminish production. The cause of this
is manifest. Production confines them
to the American market. The high
prices they are compelled to pay for pro.
tected materials which enter into the
manufactures of their products disable
them from going into foreign market.
The profits which they make under the
first impuls of protection invite others
into the same business. As a result.
therefore, more goods are made than the
American market can consume. Prices
go dow to some extend through the COM
petition, increased as we have seen, by
the enhanced price of marterial reouir.
ed. The losses threatened by such com.
petition are sought to be averted by the
dimunition of production. Combinations
of those interested are formed to the stop
work or reduce it until the stock on hand
has been consumed. Production then
begins again and continues until the same
necessity calls again for the same remedy.
But this remedy is arbitrary, caprlcious,
and unsatisfactory. Some will not enter
into the combination at all. Others will
secretly violate the agreement from the
tegining. Others still, when their sur
plus stock has been sold, and before the
general price has risen, will begin to
manufacture again. There is nc power
to enforce any bargain they have made,
and they find the plan only imperfectly
curing the difficulty. They remain un-
certain what to do, embarrassed and
doubtful as to the future. The have
through protection violated the natural
laws of supply and demand, and human
regulations are powerless to relieve them
from the penalty. Take
AS AN ILLUSTRATION
of the operation of the system, the arti-
Gle of paper. One of the first effects of
the general tariff was to increase the price
of nearly everything the manufacturer
required to make the paper. Fifteen
millions of dollars year through the pro-
lection are taken from the consumer.
The manufacturer himself is able to re.
tain but part of it, as he is obliged to
pay to some other protected industry for
its products, they in turn to some others
who furnished them with protected ar
ticles for their use, and so on to the end.
The result being nominal prices are rails
ed all around; the consumers pay the
fifteen millions, while nobody receives
any substantial benefit, because what
one makes in the increased price of his
product he loses in the increased price
he is obliged to pay for the required pro-
ducts of others. The consumer is the
loser, and though competition may oc-
casionally reduce prices for him to a
reasonable rate, it never to any appreci-
able extent compensates him for the
losses he sustains through the enhanced
price which the protective system newt
ably causes.
1t is not to be disputed that many Of
the protected manufacturers have grown
rich. In very many cases it can be de-
monstrated that, their wealth has result
ed from some patent which has given
} them monopoly in particular branches
of manufacturing. or from some other ad-