Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-10-05
PROTECTION We. FREE TRADE.
NEW YORK MANUFACTURER TELLS
WHY HE is FOR II FORMER.
New YORK. Sept. "a, 1888.


WHY HE is o THE FORMER.
New YORK, Sept. "A, 1888.
Editor Register Never before has
such popular interest been aroused or so
much written on one side or the other of
the tariff question as at the present time,
and it is with considerable hesitation
that | present these few observations. |
have been much interested in a series of
letters that have of late appeared in the
columns of your paper in opposition to
the policy of protection. But it seems to
me that your correspondent, in setting
forth the growth of the free-trade move
ment in England and presenting an ex-
haustive accodnt of the lives of Richard
Golden and John Bright, has begged the
question and has introduced a great mass
of matter which Is of no possible benefi
in the discussion of the problem before
us now. The question at hand is, wheth-
er protection of our home industries is
beneficial to the citizens of these United
States or whether it is not.
And right here let me say that this
sentimental cry of college professors and
other theorists that all artificial barriers
should be swept away in order that all
men may be brothers and members of
one universal family, while it sounds very
well, is the sheerest kind of nonsense.
Our chief concern is to look out for our
selves first if by any means in our pow
er we can advance III own interests and
prosperity it is not only fair, but it is our
duty to do so.
1t is a self-evident fact that with raw
materials free, the man or nation who
pays less for his labor than his neighbor
is the one who can produce goods at the
least cost. How, then, can we compete
with England either at home or in foreign
markets unless we pay our labor the same
price that she pays hers? The free-trad-
ers will claim that our labor is much
more intelligent and consequently more
productive and our machinery better than
our foreign competitors. Do they not
know that the English manufacturers
have agents here watching for the latest
improvements in machinery? Within six
months after the introduction of any i'm
prOvement here they have the same thing
on the other side. l have it on the au-
thority of several large manufacturers
that in their particular lines of business
the English machines are the same as
theirs in every particular. On the other
hand, any improvement in machinery in
England is not long in finding its way
to our shores.
AS to the productiveness of Americans 4;
while | have the greatest admiration for
the inventive genius, ingenuity and skill
of American ~workingmen, it is a we'll
known fact that American operatives
constitute a small percentage of those
employed in our mills and factories
their places are filled by English, Irish,
Germans, French and French Canadians.
Now if we take these same men Upon the
same machines that they used in their
own countries, are they so metamorpho-
sed by the change of climate that they
produce enough more work to make up
the difference in wages? | say no and
have seen it by experience, the imported
operative here will do very little more
work on the same machines than he did
in his own country.
Are our workingmen willing to accept
the same wages as those in England? Is
the fact that clothing and sugar are cheap
any benefit if they have not the money
with which to buy them? Are not our
wage-earners better clothed and better
fed than those of England? Are not
their children better educated, and do
they not have a better opportunity to save
up money for sickness or old age? The
deposits in the savings banks, made up
almost entirely of the savings of the
workingmen, show this. Look at the
number of paupers in Great Britain.
With a population of about 1000, 900
there were, in 1887, ST., 2S9 persons in
England and Wales and 442, 1863 in Ireland
supported as paupers. OF course in the
latter case other causes helped to bring
about this result. Do we make any such
showing as this?
The claim is often made by the free
trader, that the purchasing power of the
dollar is much greater in England than
here under a protective tariff; that a man
can buy more for his money. Let US
look at the prices which a w%orkingman
pays for his food in Liverpool and see if
this assertion is sustained
english beef " ID lSc American Money.
American beet " n lac "
=, hmm 40 ~ 1ln