The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-05-05

The following is taken from the Lawrence,
Mass, Sentinel of last week. The paper is
published in the midst Of the cotton manufac-
tories of that state, and shows how the tariff
is regarded in that locality.
Assuming that high tariff does protect those who
are engaged in gainful occupations which are SUD
iected 10 foreign competition. IL becomes a very IN
Inortant and interesting question how many person
are benefited by such legislation II me proper
ton is very large, those VINO pay lns iS ~ NJ
less ground of complaint as the rule should DC me
Who ciamor for protective tariff would have
MS believe that all classes of workers, IN
every department of industry, owe their
prosperity TO this kind OF Legislation Mhen lne
statistics are carefully gatneTed up d st yer
small percentage of those engaged IN the cIeatoh OF
wealth affected by competition foreAaiIhpe; d
very small number OF people are engaged IN the
production OF sugar and theirentlre produet y AZ
insignificant fraction OF the amount consumed.
About 100000 tons are imported, while less than
$4,000 tonsare of domestic manufacture. Inc duties
collected on this single article amount TO solUVOvO0
annually Of Inc miles, Whit not teith OF per
cent of the population is in any way Dehehted Dy
this enormous ax IL the WAY 1t ,hravn out
of employment by foreign competition the humper
Is SO enthusiastically small thatthe general prosperity
would not be diminished. The money saved by the
consumers of sugar by the removal OF the duty
would furnish millions to others who are engaged
in gainfll pursuits and supply other profitable
avenues for the employment OF the few who might
be driven from the business of sugar making.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in order to more
intelgently prepare his last report, applied 10 W.
G. Ford Chief the Bureau of Statistics OF the state
Department; f. b. Elliott, the Government Actuary,
and Prof NeWcomb, Superintendent of the Nautical
Almanac of the Navy Department, for an estimate
of the number of persons in the United states engag
ed in gni1i 10 oTeiSn competition and
those who can in part be subjected 70 sueh eohPet
ton. .,,.. =.
ports 1t is q matter of establishment how nearly
these statisticians agree in their estimates. The
Substantial agreement enforces the conclusion that
they can NOT be far wrong in their calculations.
Mr.. Ford estimates the mum OF persons engaged
in productive gainful occupations in the United
States according TO the census OF 1851, AZ lfo5zuys
Agriculture 1000, 403; manufactures, mining and
mechanics, 1857 i2; professional and personal,
4O74 2SS trade and transportation, $40 80 Setting
aside the last two classes being possibly subject to
foreign competition he comes TO the conclusion tnat
ductfye pursuits not subject TO competition at To-
So 94 subject to competition s2 ISL the percentage
MI. Elliott, by a different process of reasoning,
concludes that the number of persons who are greet
ly subjected in part TO foreign competition Is s9OOO
Prof. Newcomb, by still another calculation,
makes the number 9O5,5S5, or 2-l0 per cent
We repeat that the substantial agreement OF these
distinguished experts, arrived at by entirely differ
ent processes, is marvellous.
1t appears. therefore, that II trade was en hia
may be affected by foreign pompettion u less tAaH
seven per cent ,-.,...,.
We must have revenue for the maintenance OF the
Federal Government from custom duties imposed
upon imported products. The primary object 81
tariff is to obtain revenue and the duties should be
so adjusted as to encourage and foster home indus
tries and thus relieve fur az possible the seven
per cent of our population who are injuriously al
eeted BY free trade, The protection should be in
cidentaI, and not the primary oDleeI OF lne levy.
That the tariff increases the wages OF 4a1oF ~
general is a delusion and snare. That IT robs the
aborer by increasing the cost of the necessarles OF
life is demonstrated in the experience of all who
purchase the product of either foreign or domestc
labor The wages OF labor are determined by the
law of demand and supply, Germany mas the
highest protective tariff OF any country yet labor =
poorer paid in Germany than In any civilized state
on the globe, Wages i'll free trade England are less
than in the United States, because there is much
larger supply of Workingmen, but the low price OF
the neeessaries of life III England caused by free
trade in measure compensates for the less wages.
The larger wages in the United states are onset "
the increased cost of living induced by the tarif
taxes upon the necessaries OF life. II labor III lne
United States was as abundant as i'll England IN
proportion TO the demand for it, and our high tarii
as maintained, the wages of our labor would cor
respond with those of Germany.
But it is claimed that the effect of protective
tariff is TO cheaper articles of domestic manufacture
and bring the price below that of similar articles OF
foreign production. If this claim is correct, then
the law is not protective in its character, and even
as a revenue measure would fail as importations
would cease, because Improbable.
Over four thousand articles imported from otler
countries are subject 10 duty under our present
tariff laws and by far the larger part OF the duties
is upon articles consumed by the laborlng classes
thus throwing the burdens OF the Government upon
those least able to bear them.
The doctrine has been jealousy Taught, ana 10
our surprise too generally believed, that our work
ing classes find remunera:ive employment by
reason of the tariff taxes imposed upon what they
and their families consume If the statistical in
formation in this article. furnished by most eompe
tent experts is reliable, an insignificant number OF
wealth producers derive the slightest beneht from
a tariff The condition of the aboring classes under
our high protective system establishes the reiabill
y of these statistics the soundneSs OF our reasoning
and the perfect accuracy Of our conclusions