Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1888-07-19
Views of A. f. Carpenter on the Bene-
fits of Protection to the Wage
worker.
Forced Ont of the Democratic Party
by Mr.. Cleveland's Free trade
Nonsense.
Foreigners Should Not Be Given the
Privilege of our Markets for
Nominal Figure.
What an IrOn-WOrker Says.


Steel Company's plant, which en- toys
about 1000 men all told, The Inter g. aan
representative met A. E. Carpenter, for
years an engineer, ard formerly CON
nectedl with the Bridgeport rolling
mills. He was Vice President of the
Amalgamated Association of Iron and
Steel Workers under john Jarrett, and one
of the most intelligent representatives
of the working class in the State. He Is
no longer connected with the industry,
but was greeting his many friends among
the rolling mill employees who consider
him an apostle of protection and who
follow his belief to a man. He will come
here before the campaign ends and de-
liver a speech to the men at their invita-
ton. He was formerly Democrat, and
firing of its free trade tendencies, became
a Greenbacker, and in this campaign he
claims to be forced into the Republican
ranks by Clevelands letter and the st.
Louis platform.
"You ask my views" said he, "on the
tariff question" well, first and last
am tariff man. I am a tariff man be-
cause l desire the American workingman
to obtain the highest possible reward for
his skill and labor that the conditions of
the market at home and abroad can be
1OLSCd w SOA4bAAOubO" an u bdIlh man
because | believe in making every man
not citizen of this government, not
amenable to its la US or sabjec TO It's com
maDds in time of danger, pay for every
privilege he enjoys at the hands of our
people. | am tariff man because [ am
in favor of the proposition that if profit
can be made in the manufacture of any
commodity sold to the American people.
and which we have an abundance of raw
material to make, that profit shall go to
our American manufacturer. Every dol
lar added to his wealth only serves DIS an
aid to the Workingman in lettering his
condition in life. But how it is going to
aid us IN permitting to go abroad what
we can keep at home is something I can
not comprehend. It may be that the
average intellect of Cleveland Demo
crat is superior to mine, but doubt it.
We are told that reduction of tariff
duties is demanded by conditions CON
fronting Us, and when we ask the con
ditions TO be named we have the surplus
in our treasury pointed out, and are
told that tariff reduction must be made
to stop the increase. Well, there are Just
two ways by which that can be done with
tariff as the means of doing it. One Is
absolute free trade and the other making
the tariff so high that no foreigner will
attempt to enter our markets. If they
don't sell anything there revenue will
cease to flow into the treasury, and if we
let them free then revenue ceases. It is
the s1ll1est sort of nonsence to suppose
that reducing the duties from the present
to lover figure is going to reduce the
revenue. The very reverse to this will be
the effect"
=
"Why it is as simple as that twice one is
two. Take steel rails, bar iron or pins
and needles for example. At present the
tariff aud the market leave a margin for
home manufacturers, and English manu-
factCrers make but com paratively few
sales in this country. Now, suppose we
divide the tariff on these articles by two,
the result will be that foreign manufac-
turers will sell five times what they oW
do and the government must collect the
increased revenue resulting therefrom
and the surplus will pile up faster than
ever, so that the only way the revenue can
be affected in the way Democrats say they
want it done, is either by free trade or by
increasing import duties to prohibitory
point. Happily, think, for the country,
we have two very clear interpretations of
Democratic purposes. One Is defined in
President Clevelands message, shat we
shall raise revenue for carrying on the
government by depending upon the col
lection from internal revenue. That Is
that the American shall pay for the priv
lege of enjoying his own market, while the
foreigner has the market free. The other
is set forth in the Mills bill, when pro
poses a less radical and more cunning way
TO cripple American industry and harden
A MAJ }, -
ting foreign manufacturers and foreign
labor to supply our mechanical needs. As
[ regard it the Mills bill is in direct an
tagonism TO the expressed view of Presi
dent Cleveland. One would have no tariff
and collect our revenue at home, and the
other would have just enough tariff to
collect all our revenue from foreigners.
Now am willing for every article which
we have not the raw material to manufac-
ture from 10 adopt the Mills idea, that is,
give foreigners the privilege of opr mar
kets for nominal figure, or if necessary
to enable our own people to make advaa-
tageous exchanges give them free sriv
ilege. But never privilege that will de-
prive one American of single day of
toll, or a chance to toll, or that can result
in decreasing the measure of his reward.
do not protection duties enhance the
cost of most things we consumer"
In some instances, will admit for a
time they do. But there is more OF this
extra cost in immigration than reality,
for the extra cost on any article carries
with ii advantages which leaves us the
gamers by pay ing it, The result with US
has been that protection has decreased
instead of enhancing the price of the
article protected"
Can you give an illustration of that
proposition?"
Eyes. Perhaps the most striking illus
tration of this fact know of is in cruel
BILE steel. When England supplied US
she had monopoly of it and they taxed
US 20 cents per pound. A duty was laid
upon it and We commenced to manufac-
ture it. When our second or third plant
was put in operation the price went down
TO 10 cents per pound and when the fifth
or sixth plant was put in, crucible steel
dropped cents, and presume to-day it
can be bought for less than that. During
all the time this reduction has been going
on, a high tariff has been lowed against
1t. The same is true of Bessemer steel
and of cotton goods. But this is usually
met by the argument that we are now out
of our infancy, and that if home comp
tltlon is good, more of it is better. That
idea Is as selfish as it fallacious. Let me
ask how much per mile it would decrease
my travelling expenses, or how much per
hundred 1t would decrease the rate of
freight to the farmer to have steel rails
sold here at $40 per ton? Not mill