Connecticut western news., 1884-04-30
From the New York Tribune.l A FREE-TRADER'S CHOICE
A Consumer Opposes Change of Tariff


 THE COMPLAINT THAT GOODS ARE TOO
 CHEAP.
 To tue Editor oy' The Tribune.
 SIR: By accident house burned down and pig caught therein was roasted whole. Its taste was so delicious that the people burned down another house next day, when they wanted roast pig to eat" Those who consider pro tection the height of human folly use this as witty Illustration. Be 1t so; at last we can all meet on common ground. The pig having been roasted, even the savages knew enough to eat it. But MT Morrison would throw it away because 1t cost too much.
 Theorists may dispute until doomsday about the wisdom of burning down the house. I open my eyes and see the progress of industry in this country, and 1t seems to me the house has not been burned down at all Though think the cost of the protective system years ago was much larger than its advocates were willing to admit, I am not so blind as to imagine 1t has ruined this country. But, whatever the cost was, 1t has been paid. The pig has been roasted, and l am in favor of eating it.
 It has been proved, it seems to me, that the present cost of retaining the protective duties is not large. Some of its solid benefits have been seen; cheap or goods for all the world, goods so cheap here that we export many kinds to nearly all parts of the world, and won derful development of industries. l count it folly to throw away these bene- fits. I read the debate at Washington, and the arguments of the so-called free traders seem to me enough to convert consumers to protection by the millions. For they tell us that all our great indus tries are prostrated by over-production; that the tariff has given excessive profits to manufacturers, and so has encouraged too many people to manufacture, until collapse of prices has come. As con sumer, I like that state of things. If that is the fruit of protection, I want more of 1t.
 What do those blind men want ? Is it cheapness ?? Or do they care more for an empty theory? Even the prodi- gal son knew enough to prefer some thing else to empty husks. If we are getting cheap goods, am not going to quarrel with them because they did not come from free-trade shop.
 s'Look at the iron interest,"" they tell me, "prostrated because protection has built up too many mills" How 1t is that several hundred of the furnaces in free-trade England are idle also !? But if I get bar iron at S1 80 per 100 pounds and steel rails at $32 per ton, somebody else must do the grumbling. "Cotton goods, they say, ''are so abundant and cheap that many mills are forced to stop. Protection has induced people to put up mills at the South, where goods can be made cheaper than in New England" That is what protectionists promised. If 1t has come to pass, why should consumer find fault ? "Wool. en goods are at the lowest prices for 40 years, Says one follower of Mir Morrison. It is enough for me to know that can get cheaper and better goods than ever did under the latest Democratic revenue tariff of 1857. "Hear the complaints of the silk interest, and see the mills stop , ped because of r-production." I can remember that in 1860 we imported all our silks; now we make a considerable part-more, by far, than we then i'm ported-and get them all much cheaper. But the manufacturers are forced to reduce wages in cotton, silk, woolen and iron mills" Being a consumer I do not complain when the cost of production is lowered. But know that a dollar will buy more than it would in 1860, that the reduced wage are everywhere high CT than the wages paid under the Dem ocratic revenue of 1860, and still I gel cheaper goods.
 In my free-trade reasonings, see nc use in trying to cheat myself. If man ufactures have been developed, I face the fact, and am glad of it. But if man ufactures have been unduly or dispro portionately fostered, how comes it tha over production is also the burden O the farmers lament. ''Too mucl wheat" is the cry; "the lowest price! for 40 years; and yet something induces the farmers at this very time to go or sowing for another crop of 500, ,000, ,00( bushels, or 9 for each inhabitant, against 173, 100000 bushels in 1860, or less thar for each inhabitant. Something has induced the farmer to grow too many hogs, and lard Is painfully cheap, ana the markets of the world are but ius recovering from glut of cotton. Woo is said to be so low that growing does not pay. But the farmers were in somC way induced to raise 320, ,000000 fbs las year, or tbs for every person in this country, against 60,000,000 tbs in 1860 or less than 2 lbs per capita.
 The takers at Washington will never convert many consumers to free trade by complaining that protection makes goods to plenty and cheap. Men who are not anxious to deceive themselves will recognize two facts :
 L There IS constant tendency tc over- production, through increasing use of labor-saving machinery, where there is DO protection as we'll as here.
 1T. In some way, the policy of this country, whether the wisest conceivable or not, has operated to develop all the great branches of industry, agriculture manufactures, mining and transporta ton. We have too much wheat, toe much iron and cloth too much coal and