The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-05-26

to the community, the D,onncT, and moi |
the Tact OF It's existence, is an III ury. |
Suppose thai goods imported into Chi |
cag", after paying tax of 20 per cent.
al C0iOrcm laid to 'prOtccl' or give an |
advantage in trade To the home manu- |
facturrr. can be sold at $I2O, ,OUO-$20,- |
600 being the tariff. The home manufac |
tureHmakcs the same article ,and owing |
to the tariff 40 laid, he is enabled TO
charge the same amount flor this is the |
confessed and shameful object of a |
protective tariiD Now, if, in order |
to bring IL down to strictly revenue |
basis, One-half of this is stricken off, il |
is evident that the same goods could |
and would be imported and sold for
$4,000 in Chicago, and thus, by
this simple example, it becomes evil
dent that the people who buy the home
article, so long as the protective
tariff of 20 per cent. is kept up in the
supposed case, pay the additional l0i
per cent, or $40 900 for the privilege.
The manufacturer is made, by this tax,
that much richer the people, who pay
IT, jnst shat sum poorer. Now il may
receives the amount, and he and his
deluded followers may cite hts pros
pcrity as evidence of the bemeticent
results of the system; but, that it is so
to the people who pay, can never be
shown, until it can be demonstrated
that the haghe,' The yate Of taxation (dnd
hdt not for governmental pUTpOSeS) the
more prosperous will the people, who
hn fnV
though Il fine thing for the party who
reaps the direct results, is to all others
"masterpiece of injustice"
The protectiOnist considers it an
answer to this argument to cry out, in
the case supposed, can not sell for the
| $4,000. II that be true (Which is not
| cOnCedeD, what argument is in favor
of the tax or system? He says that he
must, in that case, quit business, and,
as his business has been the handspring
of all national blessings, so would all
woe follow its discontinuance. | as
scrt, without fear of n single instance
being cited to the contrary, that in
| every country where manufactures and
the country have flOurishcd under
protective system, its prosperity has
greatly Increased on the system being
|
country in Europe of which the APP
preaching ruin has not frequently been
fOretold by the pretended doctors of
this system. Every town
and country, on the contrary, in pro-
portion as they have opened their
ports 10 all nations, instead of being
ruined by this free trade, as the princi
pies of the commercial system would
| In inb oil
by it, Adam Smith
3rd. The third assumption is that
the system protects labor. 1t is put
thus "to protect our laborers against
the paHper labor of Europe"
The question arises, to protect what
labor or laborcrs? If, to protect a
small minority (the employees of the
manulacturer), the question remains,
by what right are the majority taxed
for such n purpose? But to all such
demagogery and appeals to sentiment
(tor it is nothing else) there are several
plain answers.
FIRST. ifit be conceded-which is
not true-that the system enables the
op .rative in the factory. or mill, to get
better wages, how is he benefited? IT,,
for instance, the cotton spinner or
fuundryman gets % per cent. more
wages under the system than he other
wise would; yet, If on all the protected
articles he uses or consumes i'll his
family he pays 80 per cent. more he
u',se'r UJ The same system, how is he
benefited by such an economical sys-
TEN? If he gets 25 per cent. more
wages, yet pays out on protected arti-
oles 50 per cent. more than he other
wise would be compelled to do, is he a
gamer or loser in the final balance by
the transaction!
.SccoRd. ~ vey simple statement OF
fact shows the claim untrue. The cmi
grafton to tins country is almost ell
tireIy composed of the farmer and
common laborer, neither OF whom
receive any direct benefit from the
tariff, but who mainly support its bur-
dens. II, then, the system directly
protects the laborer engaged therein
against the "pauper labor OF
Europe" and gives them better wages,
why does not the class of labor engaged
in that branch emiGrate to this country,
and thus get the benefits of the system?
FOr tho system protects the manufac-
tnrer against competition with the
foreign goods, but not the laborer from
Tue enhlSFdtiOn Oh lne foreign labor
itself. Again, if the wages of the fac
tory cmploye is greater here than in
Europe, so are other wages, notably
Earm labor. One is ''protected," the
other il not; yet both are higher.
Therefore, the higher wages in neither
case can he due to the system, but to
other CauScg.
Again, il wages of the laborer in
factories, and manufactures, is higher
here than in England, so is 1t undenia-
bly, true that they are now higher in
England, under practically free trade,
with the rest OF the world, than for
mcrly, in the same country, under rig
orOus protective or restrictive laws.
The abolition of the system there has
increased wages. /. would do so here.
Why?
Because of this simple law. All re.
straints on trade are burdens, and it is
always best for Ill o. tic people to sell
in the highest 1taT6et, md 5uy IN the
cheapest; and any rule, or regulation,
which cuts off any such marketa, ,yosults
injuriously.
"Commercc iiourshes most when it
! i the irrost, - rhos. Jefferson,
IL