Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1884-03-26
CONCENTRATIONS.
;srtain Considerations Considered.

CONGREGATIONS.
Certain Considerations Considered.
Te the Editor Of the JoUREAL AND oouR1nR:
Mechanic. I" in your issue of the 22d, is
pleased to offer something for SET. T. B. g"
consideration, for which SET. T. B." returns
thanks, and with your permission will pro-
ceed to consider the something offered.
did infer from eng letter that he be-
heved part of the worlds commerce was
greater than the whole. and SO expressed my
understanding of his meaning. As he does
not deny it, the inference is that he so be-
ieves. Indeed unless he so believes, he
cannot advocate the bounty system. which he
apparently does. The whole gist of the
free trade question is, whether il be better to
have the worlds trade or only part of it.
s'M'' claims that it is not. claim that it is
The issue is simple, or at least it seems SO to
me. If I mistake tsMechanic's" position I
shall be happy to correct it. He believes
that bounties can be given to A, B and g
without wringing them, plus the cost of col
lection, from the rest of the alphabet. I
don't. Ne doubs s'Mechanic'' will have an
opportunity of proving his position. His
argument will at least be original, for his po
sition has never yet been successfully main
tanned.
'tM' attributes the growth of these United
States to the tariff. If that be his theory he
would explain the growth of a child's foot
by the ightness of it's shoes. I have yet to
learn that construction ever evolves anything
but an unnatural growth. You may pinch
woman in a corset till she looks like fun
mel but then she won't look like woman
as created, nor like woman that is healthy
and strong. You may pinch nation with a
tariff, and the bigger you get one end (the
protected end) the smaller will be the other
(the unprotected labor end Tariffs never
made a nation any more than corsets made q
woman.
reiterate my belief that this country has
grown in spite of the tariff, not on account
of it. IN" and agree on one point-that
this country has grown enormously. We
differ as to the cause. ''M'' ssserts, and no
doubt with truth, that New Haven has grown
more in twenty five years with a tariff for a
master than it did in one hundred and fifty
years with Great Britain for a mistress.
never denied that but do believe, Just as a
matter of faith, that New Haven industries
would be five or ten fold what they are if
they had five or ten fold the markets they
now have in which to buy and sell. Per-
haps this may be verbosity, but it is an hon
est faith and seems to me to be the most
prosaic common sense. s'M'' must remem-
Der that to buy We must sell, and to sell We
must buy. That is exchange trying to sell
without wing is charity; trying to buy
without selling is theft This may be YER
bose, but it is veracious; and neither stMe-
chanic" nor any other sane person will de-
ny the above three propositions, nor any one
of them. With the above axioms as foun-
dation, claim that free trade as a national
policy is logical as theory and benefeent as
q fact. If what I claim to be axioms (the
three propositions stately be false, then pro-
lection national policy Is best. Here is
chance for Mechanic to uphold his theory.
The propositions are simple child may
,lAw- Al-,, ~
refute them. It won't do to turn nor
twist, nor offer explanations, nor hypotheses
The three formulas must be proved false or
this fabric of protection falls When ME
chanic" shows their falsity guarantee him
host of converts.
I told Mechanic that to be consistent
with the plea of protecting home labor, for.
eign competing labor ought to be taxed out,
and not the things home labor may want to
buy. None of my critics have ever attempt
ed an argument on this point. Why are they
so silent? Bold assertions amount to moth
ing. If say one-half is equal to one whole
must either prove it or show it to be sn AK
iom. It rests with my critics to show that
American labor is protected against foreign
labor by free trade in labor. When they do
that they have proved nny case, which ia the
defense of free trade. The volume of labor
in this country utterly unprotected shows
greater increase than any protected article
Our cotton crop to be sure has quadrupled
itself; the increase of grain is fabulous, dit
to the increase of hog products. Indeed it
is pretty nearly a truth without exception
that the unprotected industries are more
steadily prosperous and more \remunerative,
than the protected ones. As a matter of
fact, the most dissatisfied branches of labor
in this country, and Justly dissatisfied they
are are to be found in those interests most
highly favored" by the tariff. I except the
shipbuilding interest, for that is dead to all
intents and purposes, and John Roach of
Chester poses as its ghost.
Mechanic makes the remarkable asser-
ton that we pay no more for goods under a
high tariff than low one. If we do not,
what good is the tariff? If tariff don't pro-
tect goods, what does it protect? There is
nothing but goods mentioned in it. It GER
tainly don't protect labor, for there are no
duties on the individual laborer. 'Mechan
ie'' may MUNICH this at his leisure and then
point out the tariff duty and my fallacy.
Mechanic" tells us that at one time we
paid England twenty-f five cents per yard for
calico, made of cotton that we sold here at
six cents per pound; and that we then re
tailed 1t to our laborers at 374 cents per
yard. should say under the circumstances
mentioned that American laborers were being
treated with pretty much the same considera-
tion they now are. What they have to buy
is made dear as taxation can make It,
what they have to sell, their labor, is open to
the worlds competition and made as cheap
as possible.
aMecbanic" seeks an illustration in cotton,
and perhaps can give him one that came
under my personal observation. just about
twenty years ago the cotton-raising industry
was enjoying all "the protection" that mill
lion, more or less, of armed men could give
it. Cotton sold in the New York market for
81 SIS per pound the cotton stuffing of
church pews was baled and turned into cash.
raising industry was then prosperous? That
some people made huge profits will grant.
But was the cotton raising industry then and
there benefited by the tariff it enjoyed Let
Mechanic ask some of the men that
marched with Sherman from Atlanta to the
sea about that time, and get their testimony
as to the results of perfect protection to the
cotton growing industry. Their testimony
may be painful, but it will be striking. Per-
haps Mechanic was with Sherman. If he
was he need ask nobody.
mechanic" gives me golden opportunity
when he bids me believe that a high tariff,
and hight tariff only, set our rolling mills
in operation. and that we now buy better
rails for $40 per ton than we used to do at
S120. ! never knew the tariff to buy any
rails and don't believe it ever sold any. If
ttMechapic wants to illustrate his rail story
let him show whether in the past ffteea
years the decline in rails was gre ater in
j America or 0feAb brlLAn- ne clhlH1S pTObSc-
tion made rails cheap. The fact is free trade
| made them cheaper, and is to-day making
them cheaper than protection does. Indeed,
within seven years very respectfully large
quantities of free trade rails have been i'm
ported duties paid on them, and they have
been spiked to the ties for less money than
our protected rail-makers could or would
furnish them. IF Mechanic urge that
protection has made rails cheap, I respect
fully submit that free trade has made them
cheaper. Production has been extended be-
yond question, but not on account of pro-
lection Supply has increased because there
was demand. And perhaps the basis of the
demand was mainly the growth of the un-
protected farming interests in the West.
This rail illustration is very forcible and L
am glad Mechanic" used it.
The unprotected industry of poultry rails
ing has thrived enormously. The unpro-