Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-10-26
8snlatratit NuFttmsst.
PROTECTION AND WAGES.
Prof. Simmer Before the Tariff Com.
mission.

mission.
At the session of the Tariff Commii
sion at Philadelphia, Saturday, 14th inst
Prof. Sumner. of Yale College, read
paper on the relation Of protective take
to wages. From the reports of the pre-
ceedings before the commission, he sal
some people might believe that protect
i've taxes made wages high, and at tn
same time that high wages made pre-
tective taxes necessary. These two nc
tions contradicted each other and pre-
duced an absurdity. They were bot
false. Protective taxes lowered wages
The interests Of the man who paid wage
and those of the man who received them
were antagonistic. Whatever taxes wer
laid for any other purpose than to pro
vide civil order, peace and security, gov
ernment approaches by just SO much to
wards the Turkish pattern. Such wa
the case wherever protective taxes wer
laid.
Protective taxes did not aim to produc
good government or 10 accomplish an,
civil purpose at all. Their aim was in
dustrial. They were planned to hell
some people to get living. Anything
that lessened the number of persons com
peting for wages, or that increased tn,
amount of capital, increased wages. Th,
protective system involved the following
expenditures: Custom. House expenses
wages and profits to those employed
losses incurred by the protected indus
tries. All these outgoes had to be borne
by the non-protected classes. How, then
could protection increase wages or the
average amount of these goods that car
be obtained by each laborer? There
could not be more flagrant error. II
was impossible to raise wages by oppos.
ing cheapness and abundance. The pro.
tective system lessened wealth and en-
HANGED the cost of ;:ll articles of clothing,
furniture, crockery, utensils, tools and
machinery. Protective taxes had never
been laid in view of any true knowledge
of industrial circumstances and never
could be. A thousand commissions for
ten years could not win a knowledge of
the industrial system Of the country, and
if they could acquire such knowledge of
given day, that knowledge would be
good for nothing the next day, on ac-
count of new intentions, discoveries,
processes, lines of transportation and f.
nancial arrangements. To try to place a
system of artificial relations of industry
on such nation as this was most ridic-
ulous undertaking. Any one who talked
of reaching permanent adjustment of
the tariff to fit the needs of all interests
and to do injustice to none talked the
widest nonsense. He denied the allega-
tion that protection brought capital into
use which would otherwise be idle, and
he asserted that the rate of wages OBJ
tanned here was due to the economic
forces at work. I.
Mr.. Sumner then took up and under
took to refute the argument that free
trade would drive the population to agri-
cultural pursuits and would thus reduce
wages and all other remuneration for
labor. Agriculture. he said, now sup
ported itself and all other industries, and
therefore. even if under free trade the
whole population would take to agricul
ture, it was mathematically certain that
agriculture would support them all bet
ter directly than under the present ar
rangement. He who believed that the
way to raise wages was to hinder people
from getting at things easily and cheap
ly, or to refrain from the most profitable
modes Of obtaining goods, must believe
that workmen raised wages when they
stopped working and went out on strikes.
or lowered wages when they went to
work again.
The way of prosperity for human So
ciety was by industry, economy, thrift,
skill, energy, painstaking, excellence,
liberty, abundance, and not by some
crafty and artificial devices to produce
scarcity and bad work. The talk about
wages was all for effect. 1t was only so
much smoke and noise Imported into the
contest to obscure the issue. In England
wages were higher than anywhere else
In Europe, and how did England beat all
competitors if wages were the controlling
consideration? The nearest approach to
pauper laborers in Europe was in agri.
cultural laborers; and yet American far
mers, paying high wages and transporta.
ton, beat these pauper laborers in their
own market. How could this be done if
the criterion of possible competition was
the comparative rate of wages? The ex.
istence of high wages here was proof
OF industrial superiority. A true analy-
Sis of the facts, therefore, showed that
protective taxes lowered wages, and that
high wages were not reason why pro.
tectlve taxes were necessary. The re-
of labor was high because
the advantages were great. 1t would be
higher if the laborer were let alone to
use the advantages. without any re.
straint or interference. The more the
case was studied in all its respects the
more thoroughly was the free trade SO.
luton of it confirmed; because, instead
of becoming entangled in ridiculous alb
z \ -