Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-09-30

protected industries west of the Missis-
sippi river. In California com mon farm
labor receives $1.25 to $3.50 per day,
| while the food necessaries OF life are
much cheaper there than in the protected
districts. The tariff does not control
wages except to subtract from them By
selling to labor higher priced goods than
they could buy with competition. The
price of labor depends on the supply ct
labor offered in the market, the value of
the product to be produced, and the de-
mand for such product. There are other
factors that influence the price of labor,
such aslarger aggregations Of people being
suddenly concentrated at particular local.
tiles and engaging in special lines OF
business requiring immediate results. 1t
is, therefore, submitted that the claim
that protection causes more wages and
constant work is not supported by the
facts, and is used by domestic manu-
facturers to reap larger profits out of the
products produced. But is the tariff .
tax? Heretofore no one cared to pro-
woke the riducle Of his fellows by sug-
gesting that the tariff was anything else
than tax. The claim is now made by
leading Republicans, who have accepted
the faiths Of protection, for the sake of
protection, that the "tariff is license
granted by this government to other ma
tions to trade with u.s." or that
it is a "trade regulation" The fact
may be tested and offer
the following test. The duty on one
class of blankets is 1896 per cent. Sup
pose you want $l00 worth of imported
blankets. You buy the bill in England,
pay the 500 there and ship direct to
San Francisco. You call for the case of
blankets at the Custom House, and must
pay the duty, $79.66. Now who gets
that money? Does it not 60 into the
Treasury? Is it not exacted as tribute
to the Government? And does not the
consumer who buys the blankets pay the
duty? 1t is an insult to ones intelli-
gence to argue proposition 30 plain and
simple. The Mills bill fixes duty of
40 per cent on blankets; so, if that bill
was law to-day and you made the same
purchase, you would save exactly $3O.66
on the transaction.
But, suppose you bought the same
blankets, which cost say $1OO at the
factory. 1 have shown that the Govern
ment allows specific duty to cover cost of
relatively as in England, and the actual
|
cost of labor in the $1OO worth of blankets
would be about $18, included in the 500.
Now, what will you have to pay for the
blankets? You will observe they are not
sold at a fair profit on the cost, but are
sold at an inflated price fixed by the
tariff. If the cost was exactly what the
same cost in England, then the hor.e'
producer could add for profit $79.66 and
still undersell his rival, or he would
have the advantage of difference
| in transportation. The consumer
being at home and pays
$l79.66 in the home market; who gets
the profit of $79.66? The home market
man, of course. Does the Government
get any revenue out of this transaction,
or does the labor that made it get any
part of the 1906? No, labor was paid
$18 for making the blankets at factory
cost, and the tariff neglected him and
failed to get any revenue for the Govern
ment. But the tariff secured for the
domestic producer profit of $79.66. Is
this tax? 1t is an exaction on the part
Of the Government for the benefit of a
class. If the Mills bill was in force as
law, it would save the consumer $50 SO,
and reduce the profits of the manufac-
turer the same amount. You may find
hundreds OF items on the schedules, and
test the claim for yourself, and in every
case you will find the tariff duty tax,
and in the last case mentioned the home
manufacturer reaps the sole benefit.
The last claim which 1 will notice
is that a high tariff creates
home market. This claim
has no better foundations than the
others. In 1887 our domestic manufac-
lures produced $500, 500, ,l91 as pro-
duct and exported per cent and sold SO
per cent of it in this country. This was
good home market for them. 1t has been
carefully estimated that by reason of the
artificial lifting of the price of domestic
manufacture against the competition of
foreign rivals that the domestic factory
receives So in profits while the govern
ment gets 81 Of revenue. The govern
ment last year received from dutiable
imposts about $2l7 900, 900 ,and the man
ufacturers received in enhanced profits
by reason of protection one billion of dol
lars. Thus stood the account on last years
business with the government on the one
hand, and domestic manufacturers on the
other. But how stood the account with
the sixty millions OF consumers? How
much did they pay? 1t is claimed that
| "
dollars to the manufacturers and the gov
ernment. What did they receive in re-
turn for it? The Treasury received
the two hundred and seventeen millions
for public purposes. But the exaction
was too much by the amount of the sur
plus of $3.50 000, 900 now lying idle, and
which was an unwise and oppressive ex-
action from labor. And how much did
they get of the one million paid to the
factories? Not one dollar; because this
sum represents the ret profit on the
business after having paid for the produc-
| ton of the article. Therefore, it is plain
that the consumers were great losers by
both transactions. But it is claimed that
| the factories themselves furnish the best
home market in the world for the unpro-
tected industries of this country. Let us
examine this moment. The total num-
ber of wage-workers in the United States
now is about eighteen million. OF these,
less than one-sixth are engaged in manu-
featuring. Statistics show that all of
these consume of the total products of the
field and farm used in this country 1877
per cent. But the operatives
in strictly protected industries
are less than 1000 900, and they con-
sumo only 5 per cent of the same pro-
duct leaving 95 per cent In othar paonle