Semi-weekly interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1881-1905, 1882-10-03
The rana

II is a favorite argument Of the
iree.traders that tariff protection ope.
rates to the disadvantage Of the la
borer, because IL compels him 10 pay
more, to the extent Of the import du.
ty, for the necessaries Of life than he
would pay in the absence OF the duty.
They insist that the increased price Of
living resulting from tariff taxation
more than overbalances the difference
between the wages in this country and
in Europe, and that, therefore, the
American laborer, though receiving
from so to 100 per cent. higher wages
than the European laborer, is, never
theless, in worse condition than the
latter. But, unfortunately for this
argument, il is not true that there is
40 great difference between the cost
of living here and in Europe as these
statesmen allege. The truth is that
80 far as provisions are concerned
they are far cheaper here than in the
old countries; and every body knows
that the cost of provisions constitutes
much the greater part Of the laboring
man'snecessary expenses. As compared
to this, the cost Of his clothingis insig
ni6cant Working people never dress
extravagantly, but always eat hearti.
ly. Besides, il is fact that many
articles of the clothing worn by la.
borers, such as the coarser cotton
goods, boots and shoes, &c., are quite
as cheap in America as in any other
part Of the world. But, suppose it be
conceded, for argument sake, that
undera freetrade system the Amer.
can laborer's saving in the matter of
the cost Of living would be as great ms
claimed by the free.traders, still he
would not he benefited a particle, for
the obvious reason that the same
cause which cheapened his living
would 10 the same extent cheaper his
wages. lie would simply be living
cheaper and working cheaper than be
did under the protective system. IL
the working man is to be always a
hireling and nothing else, always a
Rauper and the capitalists slave; il he
is b neither expect nor hope for any
improvement Of his condition, forany
ease, or rest, or comfort in the course
of his whole life, If he is to have no
home of his own nor any of the joys
that home can give-if, in word,
there is nothing for him but a life Of
ceaseless and hopeless toll, then a
mere substance is enough for him,
and it doesn't matter whether his
wages be high or low. In this view
of the case free.trade is as good for
him as protection, but certainly no
better. But If he is to be regarded as
a human being, and is to be allowed
to have the natural aspirations of a
human being, to wish for and hope
for the possession of place of abode
for himself and family and a chance
To educate his children aud save them
from degradation and misery-if these
blessings are not 10 be denied him,
then he must have fair wages, such
wages rs will enable him to save
something out of his yearly earnings
in order TO save those who are dear to
him from a life of servitude and igno'
rance and all the wretchedness that
such a life implies. IL the free-tra
ders think mere living is all that a
laborer is entitled to they ought to
have the candor TO say so and drop
the subject Of wages from their dis.
cussions altogether. If it is right in
morals and right according to the prin.
ciples Of true political science for the
poor man to be always a poor man
and to eternally serve the rich man
for his victuals and clothes, the dis
cussion of the question of wages is
not only unnecessary, but it is absurd.
Stanford, Oct 1882. j. b.