New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-09
CONFRONTED WIrH 4 CONDITION.

CONFRONTED WITH 4 CONDITION..
Mr. Mills and his Democratic supporters do
not deny that some woolcn manufactures
would be closed by the proposed reduction
of duties on woolen goods, but they claim
that others would be benefited by getting
cheaper supplies Of wool as much as they
would be hurt by the large reduction OF duties
upon goods. 1t is obviously fair first to con
slider what is admitted. If some establish
ments, perhaps not a relatively large number
should be closed in consequence OF the change
of tariff, where would the hands find employ
mcnt? small surplus of unemployed labor,
as all know, has marvellous power TO crowd
down the wages Of far greater number 81
workers who continue employed, particularly
in manufacturing works. just as Il deficiency
Of only sixth Of the supply, according to
Toole, the English economist, caused an adj
vance Of 100 per cent in the price of wheat,
so a few unemployed workers, struggling to
keep from starvation by Offering to work at
reduced wages. have power to force down The
wages Of many millions TO the lowest point
at which the worker can live.
Whatever else Mr.. MiilSs hill may do then,
it threatens TO depreSS wages generally by
turning cut Of their present employment a
considerable number Of persons. Now labor
ing people know that a downward movement
in wages. when once begun. never stops short
with Il decline Of % per cent; indeed, with
that it usually begins. and It goes on until at
some Ia,e The unemployed find work. But
the wages Of manufacturing workers alone in
this country arc more than $1,000. GOO, coo
yearly and If only half ci them were affected
nj all. and those only TO the extent OF 10 per
cent. the II tual loss 10 wage carncrS would be
S75.O0O.00O 4 year. which is $50, 100000
more than The foreign cost Of all the Woolien
goods imported. What good viii it do to
take off part Of the present duty on wool'cn
goods If nj the same time the wagc-earners
are exposed To Il loss in wages exceeding 10
per cent Of the entire cost Of these goods
Bul Mr. Mills reasons hat most Of the
Voollon establishments would be helped be-
cause they could get cheaper raw materials
under his bill. That means cheaper wool;
foreign instead Of American wool. The man
ufacturc now pays no, Jar from SS0.0O0,0O0
yearly to American farmers. Under Mr..
NiilS's bin il would pay, according to his own
claim, a smaller sum for all wool consumed,
and besides would Get a large part Of It's wool
from abroad That would mean a decrease
eff many millions in the amount received by
American farmers. Nobody takes their farms
off their hands. Nr. Mills proposes simply to
cut OF part Of their receipts. If his logic is
not entirely deceptive and false. when he and
the President reason thaJ the duty enhances
The cost Of domestic wool TO the full extent Of
that duty. the hin would take off an average
Of more than ; cents per pound on about
O0.O00.00O pounds. which would he
Sl5.G00.00O. besides all the loss through
purchase Of foreign instead of American wool.
Does not Mr. Mills see that the farmer also
would have to purchase less OF other products,
and TO pay less wages or else to employ less
Labor?
The Presidents theories are not worth
fathnr TO lahcrorS who are cOnfronted'
with this condition. They want to know
how they are going TO get back money lost by
a reduction in wages in factories and on farms,
and money lost through the purchase Of for
cign instead of American wool and wooenS.
Nlr. Mills is quite eXcuSablc for not telling
them; he does not know As for the PreSi-
don't; it is safe TO assume that he has never
given the matter a thought