Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-07-09
PROTECTION FOR WHOM2

The United States have been the home
of protection its growth has been more
rank here than elsewhere, and for one to
raise bis voice against protection and the
tariff, was almost like one raising his
voice against his country. The reasons
why such has been the case are numer-
GUS and are traceable to all sorts of i'm
pulses. The majority of the working
classes have believed that prohibitive
tariff was a protection to them, and
was instituted for their benefit and has
been beneficial to them and their inter
ests. 1T was but natural that employers
should desire the spread of such ideas as
they throw out the impression that the
benefits of protection were principal to
the employe and only incidental to the
employer. 1t would be unjust and un-
fair to say or infer that all the large man.
ufacturers held the theory of protection
merely on the ground of the ethics of in.
terest. But on whatsoever grounds they
have upheld the doctrines of protection
they alone have reaped the benefits of it,
although protection and prohibitive tariffs
have not been sufficient to ward
off the evils of over-production, a hot
house production that cannot stand
stormy weather. The very foundation
Of the theory of protection is that par
fia111or iTadnc4Vxy fhrixra without
State support, and because of an inherent
weakness it must be strengthened at the
expense of the strong and those who ask
only fair field and no favor. The pro-
tected industry is pauper industry. If
there is great demand for the products
of some industry those who would reap
a profit by supplying it are not will
ing TO take the risks of competition,
but immediately try to get such a
tariff placed upon the commodity wanted
that they are safe in embarking in its
manufacture, while the consumer is COM
PEELED to buy at one shop, SO to speak, or
go without The purchaser is made a
bondsman to the seller; he who should be
caterer is made dictator. Does the work
ing man receive a fair proportion of the
benefits of enhanced price of the article
owing to the imposition of a heavy tariff?
The purchaser is practically limited to one
market; but how is it with the en-
ployer? Does he find any tariff
on labor, or does he enter the
market where competition rules? As
a rule, he finds the supply of laborers
ample and competition active, and it is
generally believed that his great philan-
thropy for the american workman"
prompts him to take the advantage of
,this sharp activity. He does as he should
do, and acts properly in getting his labor
where it is the cheapest; but the wrong
that he does is in using the name and in
terests of the workingman and the SYM
pathy that this always arouses to get a
tariff established, that benefits him and
his interests alone. He can always rely
on the amount of the tariff as so much
guaranteed profit, and relys on the
competition in the labor market to
be able to undersell his domestic
competitor. Protection in its essence is
sort of state socialism, and if the doc
trine were carried to its logical conclu-
sion would result in the State assuming
control of all things, and making the citi
zen means to accomplish an end. If
protection is good thing of itself, the
more there is the better, and it should
not be confined to raw and manufactured
materials, but to foreign operatives who
came to this country to share the benfts
of enhanced wages. Protection or free
trade will be the question of the future
q. in the United States, and it will be better
to take free trade pure and unadulterated
without any sugar coatings such as tar
iff for revenue only" which would un-
doubtedly be made to serve the purposes
of protection. Protection protects the
manufacturer and ignores the consumer.
u.