Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-09-21

lOr MS laOOF mas lOst ls purchasing pow
err. Some of our manufacturers think
their prosperity is due to the protective
tariff. They lose sight of two important
facts-that this was a new country with
everything to be supplied, and hat it
was in fact a nation of 80 States, many
of which exceed in size any of the civil
lied nations of Europe, and that there
was always perfect freedom of trade be-
tween them.
"'There is but a slight difference now
between the wages paid here and in Eng
land in my line of manufactures, and the
reduction in the tariff on the raw mate
rails we use would not make any appre-
ciable difference in the wages we now
pay. The men have to be specially edu-
Gated to our work, and workmen of for
eign education coming into our factory
have not accomplished as much nor as
good work as those who have learned
the trade in the factory. Those who are
now with us are all graduates of the
factory. Several of them-those partic-
ularly who have taken the pains to edu-
cate themselves on the tariff question
are going to vote the Democratic ticket.
For they have convinced themselves that
any possible reduction in their wages
would be more than offset by the de-
creased cost of wearing apparel and other
necessaries of life. Some few English
workmen who tried their hands for a
time at our work have returned to the
old country convinced that they were as
well off there as they were here, not
withstandlng the slightly higher wages
they received here"
Our third witness is the celebrated
manufacturer, Robert Bleakie, whose
letter is published in the Boston, Herald
as follows:
"Mr. Jonathan A. Lane-Dear Sir: In
the Boston Daily Advertiser of the It'll
inst. you address an open letter to me, in
which you claim that the effect of remov-
ing the tariff upon wool, as proposed in
the Mills bill, is already substantially re-
allied; that experienced and sound wool
dealers and others doubt any further con-
siderable decline in wool; that foreign
wool growers anticipate an advance in
the price of wool as soon as the proposed
change is made; hat our native fine
woods are already so excessively low in
price hat no further decline of any ac-
count is to be expected, and that the
change of the tariff on wooden goods to
40 per cent ad valorem is a concession to
foreign manufacturers of 90 per cent less
duties and will lead to importation of
foreign made wooden goods in excess of
the S45, 000, 900 worth annually imported
under the existing tariff. And you for
mulate your deductions from the above
statements in points as follows:
81. Free wool would not make wool
much cheaper today.
SO. Free wool would make it dearer
by and by.
SO. Free wool would not help the
manufacturer in proportion to his loss of
trade.
~. Free wool would certainly not
help the operative whose wages do not
depend upon fluctuations in its value.
IS. Free wool would not make wool
ems cheaper to the consumer, as ordinary
changes in its value do not reach him.
Sc. Free wool and a reduced tariff
means increased importations of woolens,
not much reduction in the surplus from
that source, harm to the American wool
growers, a disturbance in labor and cap
ital, and, in general, a damage to Ameri-
can interests.
"YOu ask me to answer these points,
or to reconcile them with my previously
expressed opinion that the Mills bill is
the best bill that has ever been passed to
promote the interests of wooden manu-
facturers and those employed in wooden
mills. l will try to answer your pleas
ant and courteous letter in the spirit in
which it seems to have been written.
You very truly observe that short com
m%unications on subjects of this charac-
ter are best appreciated. Yet it is evil
ucut tud IL tdhCS LuuSii lCss llulc anu
space to ask a question than it does to
answer it, if an attempt is to be made to
demonstrate the correctness of the ans
wer. For the sake of breyity, therefore,
l run the risk of being somewhat super
cial in my reply.
"As to the first point you make, if it is
a good one, it is evident that the wool
grower has nothing to dread from the
adoption of the Mills bill. If your sec
ond point is correctly made, it is decid-
eddy encouraging to the wool grower
and j%ustifes him in expecting increased
prosperity under the Mills bill. These
seem to be irresistible conclusions from
your first two points, and demonstrate
that as you say, you do not look at the
subject from a party standpoint or, at
any rate from a Republican party stand
point; for every speech and letter of a
Danrh1;aop nol;t;a;on x,h;oh haze boa.l