The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1888-09-28
A wORKINGMAN's SOUND VIEWS ON
THE TARIFF.
To the Editor of the Agis /:

To the Editor of the AgiS:
Mr.. EDITOR: ! hear a great deal said about
the Tariff and the interests of the laboring man.
and as am a laboring man myself am directly
interested in my own welfare and In the welfare
of Others who, like me, are compelled TO earn
their bread by the sweat of their brows.
The manufacturers and leaiing Republicans
tell us that their whole aim, in keeping up high
tariff, is to protect the American laborer that the
higher the tariff the better for the laborer. Ii
tins is really so the laboring man should know
it. l am one of those who have no objections to
any benefit that might come from high tariff,
but have thought over the matter In quiet
way and take an entirely different view of II.
l believe a low tariff benefits the laboring man,
while high tariff is for the sole benefit of the
and reasoned it out in this way:
First, we will suppose the American laborer
works fol. 81 per day and the labor cost of pro-
ducing 500 worth of goods is $24. Then the
manufacturers share for raw material, other
expenses and profits would be $40.
Now suppose the English laborer works for 70
cents day and would have to work "a days to
turn out 800 worth of goods. The English work.
man would receive slS, while the American
work. The English manufacturer. therefore,
could sell his goods 80 cheaper in every hundred
than the American manufacturer, supposing
they could be shipped here as ballast.
Now to maxi both manufacturers equal in the
American market we impose duty ot6h per
cent. on the English goods. They would than
cost when landed here a little over 800.
Suppose, again, that workman in America
and one In England each wanted to buy 800
worth Of goods. The American workman need
only work 100 days to get what he wants. while
the Englishman must work l23I5 days to earn
enough to buy the same goods. Here we see that
low tariff does not lower the buying power of
our workman's wages
Suppose now, instead of a tariff of OK per cent?
we raise II to 20 per cent on the cost of the goods
in England. The English manufactured, then,
to make anything must sell his goods In this
country for $ll750. OF course he can not sell
them at that price when American goods quito
as good, can be sold for 500. What does the
American manufacturer do in He
hastens to raise the price of his goods to a point
fraction below the cost Of bringing the English
raise the wages of his workmen because his
profits are greater? Not much.
Now see how the American workman is bene-
flied by this % per cent. tariff. To buy the same
goods which he could formerly get for 100 days
labor, he must work llTH days while the English
laborer has to work l23A days, as before, to get
the same amount of goods. The American aborer
Is still nearly eight days ahead OF the English
man.
Add 25 per cent. more to the tariff and make 1t
90 per cent. as 1t Is on some goods. What fol-
lows The American manufacturer. still adding
the tariff charge to the cost of his product, his
workman must toll $50 days to get what the Eng
lishman can earn, as before in l23l1 days. Then
with high tariff the American workman, with his
81 day wages, really does not let as much as the
Enelishman who works for 70 cents day. In
buying 800 worth of goods he Is $A.66 or 24a
days work behind the English workman.
Now, who gets this s2i 60 above the fair selling
price of the article? Not the laborer, for his
wages do not go up with the tariff, for wages
have been constantly lowered since the war,
while the tariff has rem ined about the same
The manufacturer gets it, and it's strange our
workmen can't see 1t. II they would only use
their brains little on this subject they would
soon figure 1t out that high tariff is not for
their benefit, while a tariff that will just cover
the difference in the price of labor here and
abroad, would help them.
IL my view is correct, is itany wonder that the
manufacturer howls tor a high protective"
tariff. tits the workngman, not the manufac-
turer, who needs protection from this abuse 1t
seems to me. A LABoRER.
TIE Rocks, Sept. 1lth, 1888.