Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-08-11
THE WORKINGS OF pRorEcr1oN.

Protection so-called-and the higher the better-is undoubtedly beneficial to the interests or the individuals that come with in the scope of it's operations. It effects discrimination in their favor that works to their advantage and to the corresponding disadvantage of those who are without it's pale. A protection that proposed or prom ised equally distributive benefits would be no protection at all since all would share alike in it's results and the object and possibilities of the system would there by be defeated. Protection to be effective must protect some one interest or col lection of interests at the expense of some other, else no one is protected. We can not conceive of a protection that is universal in it's effects. That the Ameri- can system of protection is grossly unfair and discriminative in it's results, faVOring the few at the expense of the many, is made clear by a consideration of it's work ings and the ratio of those who profit therefrom.
 A look at the census of 1880 furnishes figures to support this claim. These figures are the latest available, and they are sufficient since any later returns would make the difference of comparison one only of degree. According to the figures given there, 17,392, ,099 of our population were engaged in all kinds of industries. Of these :, 7,670, ,403 are employed ill agricul- ture, 4, ,O74, ,239 in professional and personal service, 3, 934 876 of whom are domestic employed in trade and transportation, none of whom derive any direct benefit from protective tariff. In manufacturing and mining, which are the industries which protection benefits most, 3,S37, 112 persons are employed. If from this latter number we deduct those who get no benefit from the tariff, such as carpenters, 1nilli- ners, tailors, masons and other tradesmen, we have but 2,622, 0S9 persons who profit by protection. That these 2,622, ,O89 may reap the alleged benefits of a high tariff the other II, ITO, ,O1O are asked to suffer it's hardships; in effect to pay them bounty The farmer and the professional man and the artisan who is not protected are asked to pay the premium OH production that the protectionists falsely claim is necessary to maintain the wages of the protected workman Well, perhaps philanthropy is so abnormally developed in America that these unprotected individuals are willing to bear this burden without com plaint, but we think the time will come when there will be revolt. Daniel Webster said, during the debate that preceded the passage of the tariff act in 1891, that with him it was a fundamental axiom tAH the great interests of the country were united and inseparable; that agriculture, com merce and manufactures must flourish together or languish together, and that all legislation was dangerous which proposed to benefit one of them without looking to the consequences that might fall upon the others.o Agriculture and commerce have hitherto been the pigeon stools for manufactures, and if the monopolies and trusts seek ever to keep them in similar service it cannot be expected that they will always tamely submit.
 Protection is of necessity partial and discriminatiYe, and all statistics bearing upon the subject show it's selfish and grasping character. Those who reap its benefits in this country are a very small portion of the toiling population, and it should be less lssertlve and more con ciliarOry when the question of it's regUla- tion is under consideration. There is no disposition to entirely abrogate protection, at least in this generation, but the policy that would make it still more burdensome to the unprotected, while it brings no larger advantages to the protected, will not appeal successfully to popular ap- proval.