The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1888-10-05
The 9eluotrat.


Every argument made to sustain the
policy of protection for projections sake by
prolec,ioRists is based in some sort Of fal.
lacy or false assumption. We are tcld
that protection regulates wages, making
them high. This statement Is untrue a,
may be shown In dozen ways. As for
an example, wages IN the same line of In.
dnstry In the same town arc sometimes
lower and sometimes higher under the
same protective tariff law. Il happens quite
frequently that manufacturers In all parts
of the country post notices In their mills
that on and after agiven timewages will be
reduced 10 per cent when there has been
no change in the tariff laws, thus showing
that manufacturers may regulate wages,
but no one can point to an instance where
wages were eyer Increased on account of
an increase of tariff rates. IL protection
regulates wages, then, wages would be the
same in all localities where It Is in force,
that Is, the coal miner would receive as
much for digging coal In Pennsylvania as
In Washington territory, but the fact Is
that while the miners in Pennsylvania
receives SO cents to Si.ss per day, the miner
In Washington territory receives $a.so to
$3.50 per day. Another significant fact
Is that wages in unprotected lines of indus.
tries in this country are uniformly higher
than In protected industries and generally
the higher the protection the less the wages
as shown in the woolen and iron industries
Of the east, II IS an indisputable fast that
manufacturers whoare protected pay Just
such wages as they have to pay, and that is
determined by the matter of supply and de-
mand. Ifthere are few laborcrs and much
work, wages will be high, and on the con-
trary, If shere are many laborers and little
work, wages viii be low. This Is the i'm
perial law of supply and demand and no
protective law, can nuIllfy itseffect 1t is
favorite argument with protectionists to
sustain their theory, that wages are much
lower in England than In the United States
and this Is credited to the fact that England
has free trade and this country protecASon
But this argument Is Hnsound for there Is a
greater difference in the wages of the Goa ]
miner of Pennsylvania and that Of Wash.
ington territory than there Is between the
miners of Pennsylvanir and that .of Eng
land, IfProtection make higher wages,
why are they higher in free trade Eng.
land than in Germany, Fsance, Russia,
Italy, and Spain aIAet oewhich have high
protective tariff lAwsf Surely Il protection
ovsrrules the Law of supply aud demand
In the United State and makes wages high,
why doesit not have a similar effect in the
European. countries above named. 1t Is
al fRllacy. lit has no mere to do in secur-
Ing good wages than the laws of gravita.
tiDn- We are told that under protection
the protected article becomes cheaper and
we are gravely iAformed that woolen and
many other kinds of goods are cheaper in
the United States than in England. and
this argumentis Is made to make cons nnners
contended with protection. Now f p.o-
lection makes the wages that they manu-
facturer has to pay higher and the price of
the product of his mill lower, how in the
name Of common sense is he benefited
and how could he be ruin Sd by the repeal
Of such law' And why do their manu-
facturers put forth such herculean efforts
10 defeat tariff reductiOns The truth is
manufacturers are just like any one else.
They favor the law that is beneficial to them
and that is the reason they oppose tariff re-
duction-