The Portland daily press., 1888-09-08
The rarlff and the worklneman.

To the Editor Of the Press,
In the Argus of Sept. 9th, Hon. George f.
Talbot attempts to prove the injustice of the
existing tariff, or any tariff for that matter,
on the ground that the consumer pays the
duty.
In regard to the opening insinuations,
which are expressed in such way as to
avoid anything in the nature of a direct as
sertion, it seems hardly necessary to speak.
The insinuation that the advocates of the
protective system are acting in accordance
with promisesIto privileged manufacturers,
capitalists and monopolists" to procure such
action In Congress as shall 'enable them to
continue their extortionate and excessive
gam, gam 10 a. return for unlimited contribu-
descent, on the part of Mr.. Talbot, to kind
OF argument which is inconsistent with his
reputation for ability and gentlemanly fair
ness. Such insinuations would better be as
by undoubted proof. Mr.. Talbot must have
forgotten that in that sweeping denunciation
he attributed to gentlemen, whose integrity
ne cannot question, motives which would
render them unprincipled imposters, and to-
tally unnt Tor the position which they must
hold in his own personal esteem.
Ihe remalner of his article Is mainly de-
voted to an attempt to demonstrate that our
WOrKingmen are injured by the tariff by lust
so much as we impose duty.
In this article, Mr.. Talbot, doing what his
party does not do, comes out squarely for
free trade. In stating the relations of the
tariff to the workingmen he follows precisely
In the footsteps of all the free trade Demo-
Gratis in England and America. And what
he says is very well as far as 1t goes, but it
does not go far enough In other words he
does not use all the premises at hand in
reaching his conclusion. Let us follow him:
Ordinarily imported goods come to the United
States only on orders sent by merchants of the
United States, and such orders are never sent un-
less the state OF our markets are such that the
merchant ne can pay the foreign price for the goods,
expenses in this country, and have a margin Of
profit besides. AS this business is constantly
calrie1 ,h on son succeeding father in it, by men
VINO exhibit all the evidences of prosperity il is
presumed that in general the importing merchant
gets back all the duties he paid with a profit in
the sale to the retailer, il he be the next man he
deals with The retailer adds his profit to the
price IN which duties are included and this sum
rolled up INTO mass is finally paid by the con-
Let this statement be admitted. If this is
all there is to the question we must acknowl-
edge at once that free trade is what we need
But let us see. The very existence of tariff
indicates either that there is an actual COM
petition between foreign manufacturers and
manufacturers in our own country, or that,
but for the tariff, there would be such CON-
petltl0n-p0Sslbly to result in the extinction
of certain industries.
We find that the manufacturers of certain
commodities, boots and shoes, for instance
ask different prices for their goods. Why is
1t? lis what the economists call the cost of
production greater,-meaning by cost of pro-
auctlon the amount of capital invested and
labor expended, not including cost of labor
or wages? No, it requires no more capital
invested, and no .more labor expended to
manufacture boots and shoes here than in
England. Where, then, is the difference?
Does the capitalist get all the difference be-
tween the cost OF roduction-using the term
again In It's economic sense-and the selling
price? No, there is obviously the cost Of
labor, or the wages, to be taken out. How
does that compare with England? There we
md great difference. While the cost of
production In America is no greater than in
England, the cost of labor is much greater
or, in other words, the wages of the workman
In America are much higher in our protected
industries than in the same industries in
England,
In the year 1888 the average weekly wages
IN MASSACHUSETTS were II per cent higher
than in England, that is, where the English
man got S100 the shoemaker in Massachu-
setts got $1.77 In his fifteenth annual re-
port OF the Massachusetts Bureau of Statis-
tics, 1884. Carroll ID. Wright tells US that
= Groceries were 16per cent higher here than in
;, Dry goods were 13 per cent higher here than in
England.
Boots and shoes were e2 per cent niger here
Clothing was 45 per cent higher her than in
England.
llMeat, eggs, butter and potatoes average
% per cent l0lcer here than in England So
taking the four items which named first we
flnd that where the Englishman pays $500
Tor his necessities we pay $5.36, omitting en-
tirely the items of meats, etc.. In which we
manifestly have the advantage. But we
have one step further to go. How long did
it take the Englishman, working say at S1.OO
day, to earn the $4? Four days,sof course.
How much can the Massachusetts man earn
IN the same length of time? Four times
SLY, or $7.OS. So that in the same length of
time that the Englishman worked to get his
necessities, the Massachusetts man bought
his, the same amount of goods, and had a
balance left of $1.62. Is it not clear that the
Massachusetts man has the advantage?
How would Mr.. Talbot treat this question?
lie would simply say, ''you can buy boots at
81 per cent cheaper abroad than you can at
nome. nome. Take off your duties, and give us
Tree trade Stop cheating the workingmen
a. az tne rate OF 62 per cent on every pair he
Suiiss guys ysy hefy t We'll suppose we take off the
the 4S,Sl men and 17,065 women and chill
dren, total of 65,943 persons who in 1880
We're employed in the Massachusetts shoe
IacIorlesf Clearly either the price of their
product must meet thelprice of the foreign ar
ticie or the industry must 20 down. Tbev
must take S1.O0 instead of SLIT or give up
work and let the $25, log, ,7OS of capital which
was invested in the industry in 1880 90 into
other channels.
Mr. Talbat would then console the 66.ooo
operatives by aaying, my good friend l con-
gratulate you. You are now able to buv
for 81 90 what cost you before Sl62. Then
we could imagine the difficulty they would
have in appreciating the blessing when the
same hand that brought it took away their
means of enjoying it-their wages.
LII. H,