Daily Republican., 1882-12-15
An GUS ana Out Freetrador,

An Gus and out FFeetrador.
There is no mistaking the position
that Frank Hurd occupies on the tariff
question. He was elected at the late
election as member oP Congress from
Ohio as q free trader, and in fact he is
free trader, pure and simple, out and
out. He says he is free trader and
intends to fight antil protection is
abolished. He says he intends TO study
the whole question until he is thor
oughly informed and then no doubt the
greatest effort Of his life will be mad 8
10 have all protective tariff laws re-.
pealed. If MIR. .Hurd is correctly repor.
ted by an intervie yer, he is very much
in need of information when he says
protection gives the seller the absolute
disposal of half the wages of the labor.
or. He assumes that protection in
creases the price Of manufactured pro-
ducts fifty per cent. but he does not
seem to know that the most Of the diff
ference in the cost of goods msuufac-
tured abroad and those produced here
relates to the very wages he says are
one half at the mercy of the seller The
fact is that protection does not increase
the cost of products protected to the
consumer anything like nifty per cent.
If he will refer to the statistics Of labor
and production iu Europe and Ameri 6
ca, he will find that the prices of staple
manufactured goods, such as working
men most largely purchase Tuie higher
in free trade England than here un-
der the present tariff. We have not
examined the statistics Lately, brt we
do know that four or five years ago the
American laborer could purchase sta
pie goods as cheap and some lines of
goods cheaper than the same articles
could be bought by the Euk lish work
man, At the same time the lahorer on |
&his side was receiving from thirty t. !
sixty per cent. higher wages than
English laborers on the other side. I'm
dsr these circumstances we do not see
how the Ameri can laboreT is robbed 0
half his wages by protection. But even
II he was robbed IN that amount he
would in most cases still have remain.
ing wages equal to those paid abroad.
If Mr.. Hurd and all nis ilk of free ira
ders will say ia plain language thai
wages are too high in this country, and
that protection keeps them high, and
hence they mast be abolished, perhaps
they will be better understood. He |
will no doubt ret0rt that though wages !
are higher here than abroad, the ,pur
chasing power of tue dollar is lower
here than there, and the cost Of living
greater here in consequence. But this
is not true. Some years ago, and for
aught we know it is probably still sub |
Btantially true that a dollar would buy
more -four and other breadstuffs, more |
beef, more pork, more cheese, more but |
ter, more milk and more of nearly |
every food staple in the United States,
than the same dollar would buy in
England. The man who effects to wear
broadcloths, silks and satins can cor.
tainly dress more cheaply in London |
than in Wilmington, but we do deny
that the ordinary substantials Of diet
can be had at foreign hotels for 30 little
g0ney as we can get the same thing
here. 1t is presumed that living 3 !
cheaper abroad because our working
men would not tolerate such living at
all. They demand more variety, more
hesh food, better dwellings, better fur
niture, better clothing and better every
thing. They demand it and they have
it, because under a wise protective
tariff they receive better compensation.
1t is for them to say whether they will
continue to have it or not, and If the
time comes when free trade rules this
country, and our workiugmen get lower
wages, live in worse houses and on
poorer and soantier supply of food and
wear poorer clothing it will be because
the wOrkingmen of the country want it
so and voted to make it 30.