Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-09-29

WHICH arc uloot tuOlOuSHly p.O-
tected by the tariff, right there
there Is with very few exceptions),
the greatest wretchedness and pow
erty among the operatives and the
poorest business for the retail bust
ness men, and the question is ire
slstible-"Why and wherefore does
the protective tariff not protect
these people? ?"
In England, which has boosted of
its free trade policy for years, we
learn from statistics and other evil
dence also, that right in those in
dustries where there has been the
freest trade, right there there is the
same state of affairs, the greatest
poverty and wretchedness among the
working people, as under the antag-
onistic opposite, the prohibitive
tariff legislation Of this country.
Why does their free trade not bene-
fit those people?
Australia was formerly a free
trade country, but many of its lead
ing industries began to decline,
causing great distress among the OPP
eratives IN those industries. Free
trade was blamed for this and a
great clamor was raised by many in
tluential people for protective tar
if. The government finally granted
it, but the decline was not checked.
1t went right on and is going on
still.
Here we have in three principal
forms of modern civilized govern
ments, with opposite tariff legisla-
ton, the same condition of affairs.
1t is argued, however, by tariff
reformers that a medium, modified
tariff is the right thing. This seems
plausible, but the trouble is that
from Germany, France and other
countries where more or less of such
qualified tariff policy prevails, there
come the same reports of declining
industries, and poverty and distress
of large and increasing masses of
the people, and to sum up the whole
subject thus far, where does the
tariff question come in at all ?
AS regards the working classes
and the small business people of the
United States in general, what diff
ference would it make to them
whether the commercial market was
flooded with European pauper-made
merchandise, imported free, or
whether the country is overrun with
the European pauper laborers them
selves, emigrating free?
However, setting all this aside,
and supposlng that Congress did re-
duce the tariff, or even establish
free trade, is it at all reasonable to
believe, reckoning with human nat
ure as it is, that the great carrying
corporations, the trusts and syndi-
Gates, would let the opportunity,
which they have by their power for
doing so, pass by them and they not
collect the greater part or the whole
of that for themselves, which the
government now collects as tariff
duty?
In close connection with this part
of the subject arises the question,
"Why has the price of coffee gone
up recently in spite of it's being on
the free list for several years, and
why is American beef cheaper in
London than in New York ?"
Assuming that Congress should
earnestly and theoretically attempt
to regulate the corporations and
trusts by legislation (Which question
is also looming up in politics quite
live y this year, as indicated by the
Congressional committees to investi-
gate trusts and by Mr.. Blaine's
speech on the subject lately would
Congress not be striking at the very
root and foundation of our whole
present system of production and
distribution, which system reaches
far back into the past, and under
which any one or more individuals
have perfect lawful right to form q
copartnership for the purpose Of
carrying on any business or develop
ing any enterprise, and the articles
of agreement of such a partnership
are law unto themselves, with
which no other law has a right tc
interfere, provided they do not con