The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-01-01

III him 81 20U, instead Of s. 600 Ii the
rallnr's gain Is not an addition OF 500
l., the wealth. OF the country, then |
fail To see what t Is; aud If auy of his
fellow men need hi, aid. he is better
able to aid them now than be was ne
fire 1t is sad that he ought to have
spent his =; COO at home in the first
plac~ thus enabi ing bis C. .ut.trynen to
make the profit he threw to for cigners
| reply that he dill even better than
chat; for be exchanged his nionev into
something more desired and more
needed by bis countrymen, and spent
(exchanged) that among them. Ii the
ailor had spent his money ut home, he
would have circulated only 81 600; by
sending abroad first, he circulated 81 ,2OO
But, it is urged, he simply distributed
81, 200 in cloth, not in coin, hence the
objection. Yet. his purchasers would
have been astonished had he handed
back their money when they came to
buy of him, saying it would be better
for them to keep their money than to
buy cloth with 1t. For had they wanted
to buy money instead OF cloth, he would
have sold them the money in the first
place. But they wanted cloth, and he
procured it for th9m.
maker that the tailor could have BOUGHT
from. It is evi lent, | take it, that his
profit is smaller in buying the cloth at
been at the trouble and delay of sending
abroad. If the law compels him to buy
at home, here his loss Oegins; his profit
is lessened. Since the tariff, on cloth is
about so per cent, we Can place his
of no Z
we concede that the merchant he
buys from makes as much as he
does, the merchant will also
clear 500. The total profit be-
tween them is 5000, the same that the
taIlor's profit was in the first case and
the whole country is neither richer nor
poorer. But mark this difference: As
Stunning as above that the tariff is 81 per
cent, and allowing SIS for suit of
clothes, it appears that 440 of the
tailors patrons each wear a suit of
clothes made of cloth so per cent. in
ferior 10 that which they wore in the
first case. - And this loss by far. exceeds
all the gains that could possibly accrue
from the transaction.
1t is this constant. insidious and com
paratlvely unnoticed loss of consumers
that is impoverishing the very life-blOod
of our vast and rich resources. I ne
consumers of any given article are al
ways vastly more numerous ia n Its
producers; " hence il follows. That even
though the O,s III : acn IudISI1ual C0d-
sumner be very small / proportion To
the gain Of the producer. yet he total
loss OF the'consumers, in all cases .hus
lar Investigated by ECONOMISTS, has
peeu fonud to exceed by far the to al
gam OF the producers OF any article
whose production is SUPPORTED by the
protective tariff.
liz will be seen, therefore, that tn re
is no spsc al advan age IL keeping the
money in our own country. d there
we're, then Congress should pass Jaw
forbiddin the exploration OF gDI6
Vrr. The United States prsduces
S2OO, 900 O@9 each year. III the precious
metals. and supplies other ma IONS wi
them. receiving In return various artl
Giles that she reeds. II America DID Dot
send others her money, tn'y woub': = -
send America their goods; ana W
should soon discover the diffsEe nee
between having enough money along
with great abundance of other arti
Giles. and having TOO much money and
scarcity of commodities. Gold and
silver would then depreclate in vaiue TO
lust the eEtent that their abundance
had increased beyond their nominal and
necessary amount. A condition some
what similar to this has occurred several
times in the history of Utah.
III. WAGES. AS AFFECTED BY THE 2ia1EF.
It has been claimed by protectionists
that our high-priced labor cannotcom-
pete with the low-priced labor ca Eu-.
rope. live admit this, we must also
admit that the high-priced labor OF the
Northern States cannot competa wItti
the low-prioed labor of the soutl ern
States, and4that the high priced western
labor cannot compete with either.
Therefore, if Pennsylvania needs q
tariff to protect her labor against Eng
land, she also needs protection against
Georgia; and Utah ought to be pro-
tected against both Pennsylvania and
Georgia. tSee MIR. Blaine on the, Ts-
tf." in the North american Rsasis~, by
Pt"iessar SUMNER
But, Is d matter Of fact, the I. II
does not keep up the price OF labor III
the protected industries as the following
figures, taken from the Bureau OF indus
trial Statistics show, Miners inLehlX1
Northampton, auU DeIhS ti cru i
vaniaNwork for 20 cents day, and en-
gineers for 80 and 80 cents. In other
countries the rate rises to- IS, 80, 80
cents and 81 for miners, and cores
pondingly for engineers; but these
wages do not secure steady work Car
nigIe Brothers pay $l.l0 to 81 30; but
their miner work less tran nalf. u e
time. The Cornwall mine, owing TO the
exceptional liberality of the owner, pays
SI.4O day. The cost of mining iron IN
this mine is 16 cents q ton. II was
worked Years before any duty WAS laid
ON iron ore; and it could be worked
against~all foreign composition, even II
foreign miners WORKED for nothing ana
paid their own board. Henry George.)
! These wages are actually less in many
cases than those of the English miners
at home, to say nothing OF the greater
cost of living III America.
Daniel Webster, in 1924, clearly stated
the case as follows: The chairman OF
the committee "says it would cost the
nation nothing as nation, to make our
ore into iron. Now, think it
| viii cost us precisely what We
-------------
/