Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-08-17
PROTECTION AS IT WORKS.

4nc MLOulcto"A knhSS uS Io AtAoh for our assertion that protection works un- equally and that the burdens must be borne by many in order that few may reap its benefits The Journal cites the pros perity and growth of Waterbury to prove that carpenters, masons and trsdesmen are among those who profit from protection. Because Waterbury is, it says, manu- featuring center mechanics of all trades find here an abundance of work. Un- doubtedly they do, but how that fact is due to protection the Journal fails to state. It calmly assumes, as all the high protec- tion organs do, that manufacturing de- pends for its success in this country on protection, and that it succeeds ill pIo- portion as the soothing syrup of protec- ton is administered to it. This is simply a begging of the question, and steers en- tirely clear of the vital issue. If the Journal can prove that high protection in creases production it will have made the best argument possible for its existence and continuance. It is no argument to say that the prosperity of any one concern brings prosperity to all branches of trade" and then to boldly assume that manufactur- ing concerns prosper because they are highly protected.
 The fact is that while wages are higher here than in free trade England, the cost of labor is ill many lines very much higher there than here. English ho- o,1y American manufacturers in the labor cost of production. Where they have the ad- vantage is in the cost of raw material. We pay heavy tax on this, while for them it is free. The American workingman gets better wages simply because he earns them by larger measure of production. He can turn out more goods than the English operative, and this chiefly by means of better machinery, higher intelligence and generally longer comprehend this MT Blaine does, for he said in report which he transmitted to congress in 1881
 From these returns (referring to certain English official reports) it is seen that every American spindle consumes 66 pounds of raw cotton, while each British spindle con sumes only 32 pounds, or less than one-h half the American consumption per spindle. It thus appears that each American operative works up much raw material as two British operatives, turns out nearly $1 % worth of manufactures to the British op- erative's $1 worth, and even in piece goods, where the inferior quality and weight of l fha American CyOOHS marked the American operative turns out 2.75 yards to 2.50 yards by the British operative"
 MT Blaine and the Journal may not agree in the premises, but then MT Blaine will be regarded as somewhat better author ity than the Journal. Putting raw materials on the free list, which is the policy of the democratic party, will be to the benefit of the manufacturer and workingman alike the former deriving his benefit from his larger market and larger sales of goods, and the workingman prohting from the steadiel employment and higher wages which the larger demand for goods would bring. The present higher tax on raw materials is a burdensome item in the cost of produc- ton, and operates to the disadvantage of l both the manufacturer and workingman.
 The farmers of Watertown, Woodbury and Bethlehem, contrary to the Journals idea, do not profit by protection. They are forced by the high tariff to pay "r increased price for the agricultural imple ments they use, the clothes they wear and the food they eat, and perhaps they may not agree with the Journal that this is benefit to them. But if as the Journal argues, and as every one will admit, the prosperity of manufacturing brings oppor- tunities of profit to the farmer, this profit will be the greater in proportion as the manufacturing prosperity is greater and his own expense of living is cheaper. Cheaper raw materials will increase this prosperity will lessen his own cost of living and SC give the farmer the opportunities which the Journal falsely declares are now his as consequential result of high protec tion.