The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1888-08-11


In 1912 the protectionists, taking ad-
Of the panic OF 1887, again ad-
vanced rates, but in 1846 and 1857 the
duties we're again lowered until they
were reduced to 20l per cent A new
ERA Of protection was begun in 1862,
when the Morrill, tariff was adopted
for the purpose OF raising revenue to
meet the expenses OF the war. So long
as the war continued and for several
years after Its close there was no OBJ
lection made to the levying OF high
taxes on imports. In 1861 the average
rate of duty was 10 per cent, In 1862 1t
was 38 per cent, in 1865 it was 81 per
cent, In 1870 It was 40 per cent. 1t
was at this time that the manufacture
ers, seeing that the tariff tax had been
increased to point where 1t was a bur-
den to the country, agreed through
General Banks, then q member OF Con-
gress, to reduction of from 23 to 25
per cent. A slight reduction was
made, but in 1873 the rate was 80 per
cent, and it has steadily increased. In
1882 the protectionists again admitted
that the tax was excessive and con-
sented to reduction of 20 per cent.
Upon this the task OF revision was in
trusted to them. If it had not been for
their promise to lower rates Of duty
there would not have been a commits
sion, for the law authorizing 1t was en-
acted by the aid Of Democratic votes.
The law which was the result of the
labors of the commission did not re-
duce rates at all. 1t went into effect
in 1883. In 1882 the average rate was
1882 per cent, in 1887 it was AZ. 10.
1t was in 1882 that the protection
lists abandoned their theory that pro-
lection was incidental to the raising of
revenue by customs duties. Senator
Frye and Mr.. Mckinley announced
that protection was the main object
and that the raising of revenue should
be incidental. Senator Frye said: II
am a protectionist from principle. If
there was no public debt, no interest to
pay, no pension list, no army and no
navy to support, still should oppose
free trade and its twin sister, tariff for
revenue only, and favor protective
duties"
The question is now, not whether
there shall be tariff for revenue only,
but whether there shall be any reduc-
ton of duties. The Mills bill would
put the average rate back to what it
was before the commission of protec-
tionists increased it under the pretense
of reducing it, or about 40 per cent, a
reduction of Z per cent. The rate is
now very nearly what it was in 1870,
when the manufacturers admitted that
rates should be reduced from % to 25
per cent. 1t is almost 20 per cent.
more than the rate of 1882, when the
commission bill was passed.
Another delusion is that wages will
come down with reduction of rates.
1t has already beon shown that the
proposed reduction is not nearly SO
great as the manufacturers have con-
fessed that their Industries can stand.
Moreover, the wages paid by the man.
ufacturers are not regulated by the
tariff. The capitalist does not pay
higher wages because his goods bring
higher prices. His wages are deter
mined by the law of supply and demand.
Naturally he pays for efficiency, and
labor in this country is much more eff
ficient than it is in Europe. American
machinery also is famous for it's supe-
riority, and we can no more judge OF
the relative cost of labor in the United
States and England by comparing daily
rates and weekly earnings than we
can measure the comparative happi-
ness of individuals by their incomes.
When we are told the amount of the
receipts of an American and an En-
glishman we have only one term of the
equation. Daily wages do not even in.
dictate the relative unit of wages for a
unit of time. The average daily pay
of an American cotton weaver, fo1
example, is about S5 cents, while
an English weaver will receive
only 65 cents; but the American
works 10 hours day and the English
men hours, SO that the American re-
ceives only about cent an hour more
than the Englishman. The real ques.
ton, however, goes to the cost of la.
Dor. The manufacturers say that they
must have protection in order to pay
high rates of wages and to cover the
difference between the cost of labor
here and in Europe. But the cost OF
labor is less here than it is in Europe,
especially in all manufactures that de-
mand a high degree OF skill. Ii
Switzerland the daily wages of a
weaver OF print cloth is 40 cents, il
England 65 cents, in America IS cents,
but the cost of labor in 100 yards o'
cloth is 60.6 cents in Switzerland, 81
cents in England, and 40 cents in the
United States. In Switzerland one
weaver will take care of from two to
three looms; in England one weaver
manages three, and occasionally very
expert man will run four; in this coun
try a weaver will manage from six to
eight looms. The weekly wages of ar
American shoemaker are 129 per cent
higher than those OF an English shoe
maker, but the former makes 35 pair,
of shoes. while the latter is making II
pairs. The economic rule is that tn,
higher the wages the less the cost o
labor. Why this is so may be seer
from the fact that in 1849 each opera
| tive in n certain Massachusetts factor,