Bent County register., 1888-10-06
Free Trade Fallaotes and
DeO9PttOna.

1
is To have placed on the free list all
raw materials used in manufactures
Workingmen are told that the result
OF thus cheapenlng raw materials
Will be to enable manufacturers to
increase wages. While one set of
orators are preaching this to wool
en mill operatives, another set are
telling the sheep raisers that putting
wool on the free trade list will so
widen the markets for wooden goods
that manufacturers will be enabled
to pay higher prices for wool, and
sull make money.
ASIDE from their inconsistency, a
glance at the experience of England
shows the fnllncy of such claims.
With free raw materials for all lines
of ther manufactures, English EN-
ployers pay II per cent. less wages
Than are paid in the United States.
This on the authority of the Chief of
/ The Labor Bureau. himself free
Z trader. To the intelligent working.
man ii thus becomes evident that the
rheap.ning process of English free
trade affects tn. wages put into man.
nfactures rather than the price of
crude materials, and such il really
the ease.
The accommodating tbeorist seeks
to allay all anxiety on part of the
manufacturer by pointing him to that
fountain of wealth. the foreign trade
just where tins trade is 10 he found
Us detail with which the average
free trade advocate does not trouble
himself. He reflects that England
'lpcs that way" henre that is the
proper thing to do. But the more
practical man is likely to hunt for
facts. and when he finds them he secs
that two of the leading textile indus
trics of the United States. cotton and
six. have all along enjoyed advaDtsg ge
of free raw materials. He sees that
the products of neither of these tave
To any g,eat extent gone into foreign
aud raw silk imported without duty,
our manufacturers last year sold
a. 4 -
goods, and only $52 IS Is of silk goods.
The reasons for this are plain. !>t
Foreign markets are already supplied
from Europe with goods manufact
ured bv labor which is paid less
wages than are paid IN the United
States. 2nd. The manufacturers of
the United States have not been able
to supply the wants of our own peo-
pie, as We last year imported of cot
ton goods S2g.I5oo56, and of silk
goods s3l.264.276. Here is market
of over 10000, 900 within reach Of
our OWE manufacturers. hut from
which they have been crowded by
foreign competition, and that amount
of money sent abroad to pay labor-rs
aud capitalists who contribute moth
ing To the support of our govern
ment, aud whose interest in our wei
fare ceases with the receipt of our
money.
But the tallacy of the alleged nee
essi,y of free raw materials to enable
manufacturers by export their pro
ducts is all the more apparent when
we consider that under existing tariff
laws ninety per cent. of the duty col
lec,ed on any material of manufact-
ure will he refunded when the finish
ed product is exported. THIS leaves
but ton per cent. difference between
the present law absolute free trade
in raw materials, 90 far as the export
trade in manufactures il concerned
Why, then, is our export trade 80
limited? Because manufactured pro
ducts find better market at home.
where. under tho influence of wise
fiscal policy, higher wages are paid
for labor than anywhere else in the
world, and where a larger percentage
of the people are purchasers of man
ufactnred products.
/ England has for centuries been on
tho hunt for foreign markets. and
has already occupied all those over
which her diplomacy or force could
nrcva,l. Her subsidized steamers are