The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1888-03-15
PROTECTION TOLABOR.

The protected monOpolist and his
agents and advocates are fearful OF moth
ing so much as that through the Dachi-
nations Of the tarlff refOrmers Some
harm may befall American labor. Ot
course, it is only American labor, and
that the monopolists love and cherish +.
terday, according to statistics Ie-
Gently compiled by the Philadelphia
of England is better paid than the
miner of Pennsylvania. Considering
not only wages, but rent and cost of
food and clothing in the several conn
tries, the condition of the English work
ingman in more than one calling Is bet
ter than that of bis American brother in
the same calling, III which he is protected
in thi, country.
Bnt let us examine the condition of the
American workingman, even cOnceding
Tue exaggerated ONliuidAto vi hi' "" 80
compared with those OF the English
nottingham, upon which protcctIouists
ton OF our oppressive tarlii. Taking
the strictly protective standpoint We
shall SEE that if ever protection
were beneficial to wage Garner low
tariff would furnish all he has now or
can ever have. Now the average share
Of labor IN the cost Of producing the SO
called protected products Of American
industry is abont one-ffth Even II
American labor were paid double what
labor is paid in like Industries ia Eng
land, and the protection of American
labor were the only object in our
protective tariff, our Government
would be called upon TO notice
the difference between one-fifth and the
half OF that amouDt-one tenth-in
guarding the American product against
the foreign prodnct Of like kind. If, for
example, the cost of producing an article
IN this country were one dollar, OF which
labor received twenty cents, whilst the
labor eInploye ed III producing the same
article in England received only ten
cents, our Government would find 1t
necessary, in order to increase the cost
of the foreign Article by the difference IN
the prices Of labor III the two countries,
to add ten cents to the cost
of the foreign article when imported
Other costs being left out of the question
or considered for arguments sake to be
the same, as the question of protection
to American labor is paramount, the
foreign article would cost ninety cents,
and to this 1t would be necessary only to
add ten cents to cover the difference be.
tween English and American labor, or
little more than II per cent ReDeat-
ed tests with different estimates on this
basis of difference in the prices of labor
will result III returning this percentage.
This demonstrates that We're the price
oflabor in the prOtec ted industries Ofthis
country double that Of labor producing
like articles in England, it would be ne
cessary TO lay tariff averaging little
more than eleven per cent. ~ make mp
the difference in the price of labor in the
two countries. Yet the projected mo
nopoists are bowling because the Demo
Gratis propose to reduce the tariff from
an average rate of AZ per cent to an av-
erage rate of between 81 and 80 per cent
Even conceding that the price of Ameri-
can labor i'll the protected industries is
higher than that of European labor EN-
ployed in producing like articles, and
1t is nOt-and even cOnceding
that labor shared the benefits of pTotec-
tiOn-and IL does nOt--under the present
tariff capital in the protected industries
would get on the average more than
three times as much Us labor, whilst nm
der the proposed tariff it would still get
more than twice as much. Who will
believe now the silly and absurd claim
that those who are attacking this mon
ster which the American people are CON-
PEELED to feed are trying to promote the
interests Of England or OF any other
country save that Of America and its
overtsxed people The State.