Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-26

AND Wnlcn makes the pail in which he |
carries from that home to his work the |
dinner that he eats, and on the salt that
seasons that dinner. Let me here say
one thing in passing: 1t is true that
while the pending Democratic measure,
called the Mills bill, places
the great bulk of raw materials on the
free list, it also in some instances
reduces the tax on the manufactured
article but in no instance does it reduce
the tax below the cost of the labor that
is required to manufacture that article.
Thus, for example in woollen goods, the
raw material of which is placed on the
free list, the labor cost of manufacturing
the goods is 16 per cent. of their total
cost, while the tariff as proposed by the
Mills bill on the manufactured article is
40 per cent. In cotton goods the labor
cost is 21 per cent, the proposed tariff on
the manufactured article 40 per cent. In
nails and spikes, the labor cost is % per
cent, the proposed tariff is "a per cent.
And so l might go through the entire
list. Let me also in passing, call your
attention to the charming inconsistency
of our protectionist friends. They tell the
working man in one breath that he
needs high taxes to give him high wages.
In another breath they tell the citizen
that he wants higher taxes to cheaper
by home competition the clothing and
other commodities he consumes. And
yet again they tell the manufacturer that
he should have higher taxes to give him
higher products. And this last state
ment contains about the only kernel of
truth in the entire range of their asser-
tions. But there is one class of our
laboring men to whom the Republican
is compelled to address different
line Of argument, and he is
the pack horse OF high tariff
the farmer. Where does he get any
benefit from protective tariff? Under
its malign influence, he is compelled to
he puts in his house or barn, for every
rail and post he puts in his fences; for
every spade or hoe with which he tick
les the soil; for every plow share that
he puts in his land for every harrow
drawn over it; for the harness on the
horses that draw the plow and the har-
row for the pans in his dairy; for the
tins in which his fruit is packed for ex-
portation; for the crockery from which
he eats; the glass in his windows; the
clothing worn by himself and family.
He tolls longer hours than any other
laborer, and to what end? What bless
ing has the protective tariff brought him
Is he getting high pay? Is he increas-
ing in wealth? Is it not true that in
most instances, the farmer, instead of
having a snug bank account, has snug
mortgage on his farm. But don't you
see, my honest granger, the protectionist
says to him "Do we not furnish you
with permanent and profitable home
market, in which to sell all that you are
producing, will you throw away such
handy and reliable cash customers, who
are furnishing you with a ready market
for the uncertainty of foreign market.
Don't you see the more men manufac-
turers can employ, the more mouths
there are for you to feed, and the money
they are making the more they
can pay you for your produce ?"
This is but the veriest soph-
istry. The term, "home Market" is as
deceptive as the term protection" and
is used by the protectionist to mislead
the farmer in the same manner as pro-
lection to home labor is used to mislead
the laboring man. Is sought
With the idea that the encouragement
and extension of manufacturing indus
tries are what the farmer is in need OF in
order to dispose of all his products al
home that the additional workingmen
required by the manufacturers would in
crease the demand for agricultural prod
uce to such an extent as to render the ex-
port of any of it unnecessary. Where
are these additional workingmen to come
from? Is it intended that they shall be
imported under the free trade and labor
plan, or are they to be drawn from other
occupations which are getting along
without protection? If it means more
foreign labor it can mean no benefit to
the American workingman, for that will
mean decreased wages and decreased
capacity on the part of the workingman
to purchase agricultural or other prod
ucts. If it means to transfer laborers
from the farm or other unprotected in.
dustries to the manufactury, it cannot
produce an increase of consumers. In
order to fortify their home market theory
protectionists point to what they call the
small proportion of agricultural products
which we export. But, nevertheless, it is
a fact that every year onr exports
of agricultural products are increasing
and by the official statements of imports
and exports published by the Treasury
Department for the sixteen years ending
with 1887 we find that nearly forty-three
thousand million dollars worth of bread
stuffs and provisions, the products Of
our farms, were exported to Europe, and
yet, before one dollars worth of this vast
quantity was exported, the home market
was fully supplied, even although that
home market had been nurtured by from
twelve to twenty-seven years of protec-
ton. What nonsense is it, then, in view
of these facts, to talk about the creation
of the home market that will absorb all
his products.
THE MILLS BILL.
And now word or two about the Mills
bill and it's operations. What is it that
it proposes to add to the free list? Why,
flax, hemp, jute, jute bags, salt, tin plate
and lumber, and few other articles on
which there is at present an import tax
of $22, ,189.000 What attack does this
make on California industries? Is it an
attack on any California industry, and
especially on the farmer, to take the tax
off the bags which he must buy to ship
his wheat in, and which, after buying,
he must give away and not sell? Is it an
attack on the California fruit raiser to
take the tax off the tin in which his
fruits are packed for expectation and OF
which not single pound is produced in
this country. Is an attack on any Cali
fOrnia industry to take the tax off lum-