St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-10-15

vet on the other hand they admit that
his kind of revenue ought to be de-
creased. Can any one see the logic or
the consistency of
THAT COMPOUND PROPOSITION?
If tariff for mere protection is really
good, If it is blessing to the country,
why not rather increase 1t? Can we
have too much of that which unques-
tionably is promoting our interests? III
good for the individual, good for the Ia
boring man, and good for the country,
why not have more of it? Can there be
any danger that that which is really
good is going to be too plenty? The adj
mission that it needs reform, admits
also that it is an evil. At present there
is about Sl15.000,000 surplus in the pub
lie treasury, that ought to have re-
NAMED with the people. This enor-
nous sum increases daily at the rate OF
about S9,O00,000 a month. 1t must be
borne in mind, too, that this enormous
accumulation in the treasury is paid
only ON foreign goods. We are paying
over four times that amount to the
American manufacturer that does not go
into the treasury at all, but into his
S2ttomlesS pocket. We are thus paying
by way OF unnecessary tariff taxes,
S50,000,000 month, or S0j3S1l, 110.O0Q
year, in tariff tax over and above what
IS necessary to meet public expenses.
And yet the leaders of one of the p0-
litical parties have the effrOntery to
claim this to be benefit to the people
who pay it. If the protection is really
for the benefit of the laboring man, if
its tendency is to increase wages. why
is it that every large manufacturer
they who pay wages-are in favor of 1t?
Are they in favor of high wages? Their
benevOlence toward the labOring man
must have commenced recently, for it
is only a few days ago that strikers
and
CLAMOR FOR BETTER WAGES
were prominent all over this nation.
The story of the Pennsylvania coal
operator, employing over 500 labOrers,
who approached Pat, one of his en-
ployes, to sound him on his politics, is
goOu Illustration. He asked Pat who
he would vote for this year. Pat said:
"Cleveland and Thurman, to be sure"
"But Pat" said his employer, eff you
do that you will lower your wages. If
they are elected your wages will not be
over so cents day." de We say SO.
And who will we vote for?" said Pat.
"For Harrison and Morton, of course"
don't baylave it." said Pat. IF We
could get me to work for so cents a day
We would vote for Cleveland Yourself"
THE PRoTECTIoNIST
claims that the prosperity of this coun-
try is due to protection. The fact is
that we have a good country, and that
it has prospered in spite of protection,
not because of it. This claim is but
blank assertion. You might as well say
that smallpox has been the means Of
our prosperity; it would be just as true.
Please examine what protection has
done for the American commercial navy.
Twenty-Five or thirty years ago we had
the proudest navy in the world. The
American navy was the model of the
world. 1t was only slightly surpassed
in size by that of Great Britain. We
then did over so per cent of the carry
ing trade of this country. The stars
and stripes WERE prominent in every
harbor the world over, and the Ameri-
canvas proclaimed our supremacy upon
every sea. The protective tariff has
driven the American vessel from the
ocean, and you may look in the promi-
nent harbOrS of our own country and
among the thousand maStS you will
with difficulty discover the American
flag. To-day we are carrying but fourteen
DtI CtHl vi lilt bIduC on pei Ctub
of twenty-five years ago. How is
that for tariff prosperity Not only has
protection injured every industry in the
country heretofore, but this accumula-
ton in the treasury is a serious addi-
tional injury. This money in the treas
ury is the greatest possible encourage
ment to fraudulent appropriations, and
the leaders of the party, who favor the
accumulation have laid themselves liz
able to suspicion. Gov. Allen, of Ohio,
once said that you might as well keep
A POWDER HOUSE IN HE'LL
As to keep an honest administration
with surplus in the treasury. His
statement is a little extravaganza. but
nevertheless true. There is another
significant fact which to be logical [
should have mentioned before. So
much stress is laid upon the supposed
fact that wages are lower in England
than in America. 1t is really not fact,
when properly considered. The last
census, as L have stated, gave the
average wages for labor in Massa-
chusetts to be S1.02 per day. At the
same time the average wages in Eng
land was 9I2S cents per day,
only about 4 cents less than in
Massachusetts. The purchasing power
of % cents in England is far greater
than that OF Sl.02 In massachusetts,. Per-
haps twice as great. Suppose laborer
then be paid in kind and not in money,
and the labor in England is really
mnch higher, in which country can q
laboring man get the most of the things
of his daily needs for his labor? That
is the true question. What good can it
do the American labor to get or 10 per
cent more for his labor, when he is
obliged to pay so per cent more for the
things he needs? This alone ought to
settle the entire disputed question.
o. MosNESS.