The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1883-02-24


Sir, these are not the aeeusa-
tions of an enemy to the protective
system; they are the reluctant
admissions and confessions which
memorable fact extorts. Behold,
sir, the fruits of the protective sys-
tent Depression, poverty, i'm
poverishment, and ruin in 1868; in
1878, impOtent to stem the tide of
financial ruin that swept far and
wide the wrecks of capital and Ia
Dor; and in 1888, the entire fabric
of manufacturing capital and labor
resting upon the narrow and un-
certain basis of Government taxa
tion.
Mr.. President, intended to dis
cuss somewhat in full the econom-
ical principles of this system, but
il has taken me so much longer
than | supposed it would to pre-
sent the historical argument that
| shall not do so. There is one
point, however, to which | will
call the attention of the Senate,
for i think it is one upon which
the advocates of this system main
ly put their support. 1t is this:
that the difference between the
wages of labor in this country and
in England and the rest of Europe
is so great that unless a tax is put
upon the imported article equiva-
lent to that disparity of wages the
American manufacture of the cor
responding article is unable to
compete with it; that unless sys-
tom of duties is arranged so u, to
cover by taxation this disparity
the American industry must per
ish in the unequal conflict.
! think the argument is a fallacy.
The general rule is, that the ma
tion whose capitalists employ labor
at highest wages has the advan-
tage in competition with those
countries whose capitalists employ
labor at lower wages. Who, sir, is
our most formidable competitor,
not only in the markets of the
world, but here in our own mark
ct? Is it the nation that pays the
lowest wages for labor? II is
England, sir, that pays the highest
wages for labor of any in the civ
illzed world, our own, perhaps, ex-
cepted. ! repeat, 1t ia England
that pays wages far above those of
France, or Germany, or Belgium,
or Russia, and yet occupies their
own markets with her products
until they are driven, even with
their low wages and cheap labor,
to throw up a wall of protective
and prohibitory duties against this
formidable commercial rival.
Tho products of the higher
waged labor of English manufac-
lures vic with MS on our own soil.
We, with our bulky and pershiable
products of the field transported
to the seaboard and thence across
the ocean, occupy and possess the
markets of the world against the
product of laborers whose wages
per diem would not pay for the din
ner of an American laborer. In
the markets of England, France,
and Germany our cotton and cere.
ais and meats meet in successful
competition the low.waged labor
of Russia, of India, of Egypt, and
even the slave labor of Brazil. Sir,
in the face of the fact that the two
highest wage.paylng nations of the
world are the ones whose pro-
ducts-England with her manufac-
lures and America with her staples
-undersell all others, this fallacy
of high wages must do disservice
to the cause that relies upon it.
1t is not high wages In the Uni.
ted States which binders the sue.
cessful competition of American
manufactures with the products of
England. The protective system
itself interposes q much greater
hinderance in the increased cost
of production which it has always
brought about. This has often
been shown by the history of all
protective tariffs. But if further
proof were required these two
large volumes given us by the
Tariff Commission are full of ire
sistible evidence that the whole
effect of all past protection from
1861 to 1888 has been to make tho
manufactures more clamorous for
protection than ever and more
afraid of foreign competition than
ever.
l do not therefore propose to
repeat the argument so often made
that high protective tariff raises
prices and thereby so increases
the expenses of manufacturing as,
sooner or later, to make the cost