Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-03-23


do them an injury. As for the most
Of the other manufacturing industries,
protection takes away from them near.
ly all it gives them. From two Of
the principal protected industries we
have testimony to this effect. A lead
ing paper manufacturer told me that
manufacturers of that product could
well afford 70 have the protection Ia
ken off from paper il protection were
also taken off from everything they
were obliged TO buy to make paper a
wooden manufacturer, at the tariff con-
vention recently held in this city, said
that if the laws wolld give him free
trade in brick, mortar, building mate
rial, coal, machinery, and wool, he was
willing to take free trade for his wool
en- product. What is this but to say
that all that protection gives to the
wooden manufacturer it takes away
from him in the increased price it
compels him to pay for the articles
needed in manufacturing? Protection,
too, limits, the market of American
manufacturers. They avowedly make
for the fifty millions of people of the
United States only. The time surely
comes when there is more than this
country consumes. What Is TO be.
come of the surplus? The increased
price which protection occasions dis.
ables it from going abroad. 1t there
fore remains to stiffie the very sources
of It's protection. The larger and freezer
the market, the greater the demand.
The greater the demand the greater
the manufacturers prosperity. Why
not manufacture for the thousand
millions of people of the world? Eng
land does. With what magnificent re-
suits?
From lS4O to 1880, under free trade.
Englands exports increased from
$500, 900, 900 to nearly Sl,500,0O0 600
and the total of her foreign trade
from SSOO,OOO,OOO to nearly S4, OOO,-
900 600. Last year America sold
manufactured goods to Australia, Asia
and Africa, $2O,OOO,OOO while, Eng
land to the same countries sold $780,
100000 The total of American expor
tations Of manufactures was SS5,.
900, 1000, while of English it was more
than $lO,O0O,OOO,OOO. The world is
to be supplied with Manufactured arti-
cles. Why should England do it
all? We have raw material in the
most profuse abundance. The cotton
ripens in our fields. Iron and coal
can be tumbled together from the
sides into the furnaces, while
for them IN England they must seek
them under the land and under the
sea. Boundless acres of fruitful har-
vests furnish the cheapest food for our
Loilers. We have skill and ingenuity
at least equal to England's Why not
commence here to manufacture for the
world? Break down the barriers of
protection and it will soon begin, and
| predict the day will not be far dis.
ant when America will have more
han half of that immense forei gn
,rade which England now monopo-
ICES. A leading English manufac-
urer said the other day that as an
he did not desire Amer
ca to adopt free-trade, for he was sat-
SIZED that it was protection, and pro-
ection alone, which disabled Amer
ca from becoming a formidable COM
,etitor of Great Britain in the markets
}: the world.
But the object says We can not COM
oete with England because of the high
n wages paid to American labor. Pro
ection, 1t is claimed, increases wages,
md for that reason should be main
aimed. A more monstrous untruth |
vas never uttered. Free trade and |
llgh wages 60 together. The wages
n England under free trade are SO per
'ent. higher than under protection.
They are 30 per cent. higher than in
he protected countries of the continent;
and-the most astounding fact of ALL
he statistics of the late census show
hat the actual wages in cash received |
oy English operatives in the most i'm
oortant industries are higher than
hose paid in this country. In the
voolen mills of Massachusetts adult
operatives received in 1880 $3.50 per
week for 60 hours labor, and in Man
chester they received SIS. per week for
IS hours labor. In the iron and steel
Industries the average wages to adults
n the United States in 1880 was ST.
10 per week. When we consider that
or the past five years laborers have
oeen out of employment IN these indus
;rles in this country from ne-fourth |
% one half of the time, while in Eng
and the employment has been steady
Ind almost uninterrupted, l have no
lesltation in saying that the wages paid
% English workers in iron and steel for
;he last five years have been higher
han those paid to- American. And
his, it must be remembered, when the
expenses of living to the laborer are 40
per cent, cheaper in England than here.
How preposterous to maintain that we
need a tariff to protect our labor
aginst the pauper labor of Edgland,
when that pauper labor is actually in
ihe most important industries better
paid than our own! Nor should these
facts surprise anyone. There can be no
of voroc ,,plocc tb boro 10 ~, :,