The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1888-09-08
OPEN TO EvERYBuDY.
DOES PROTECTION PROTECT ?

DOES PROTECTION PROTECT?
EDITOR OF THE ADVOCATE: On ac-
count of an Unborn sympathy with the wage
worker and because feel that my pros
perity is dependant upon his prosperity, /
am heartily in favor of any legislation that
increases wages. If Protection increases
wages then l am an out and out Protection
ist, first, last, and all the time. But surely
the most ardent Protectionlst cannot but
approve If stop first to make sure that
Protection does really raise wages. Let us
understand clearly in the first place, by what
process Protection claims to raise wages.
1t levies a duty of about 40 per cent at pres
ent, on imports thus increasing the cost of
foreign made goods. The purpose of this,
Il is said, is to enable home industries TO
compete with the foreign, that is to say, to
enable the home manufacturer to get a
higher price for his product than he other
wise could. The home manufacturer is of
course not slow to take advantage OF this
opportunity. Thus The tariff increases the
cost of both foreign and domestic products.
Some oYer-zealous Protectionists deny this.
but they should not do so, because no mat.
ter how good thing protection is, 1t will
shake peoples faith in it to deny that it ac-
complishes the very thing for which it is
intended. II the tariff don't raise prices
what is it good for? If the home producer
can and does sell as cheap as the foreigner,
he needs no tariff and cares for none except
as means of raising revenue. But to fol-
low the operation of the high tariff step
further-after it has enabled our mannfac-
turers to charge more for his goods and
thus obtain larger profit, they can and do,
we are told, pay their employees higher
wages. Here then we have the connection
between high tariff and high wages. High
tariff makes high prices, high prices bring
large profits, large profits allow high wages.
How simple 1t is, any one ought to be able
to understand that. But there is one little
hitch in the matter that many people find
1t hard to get over. The employer, like the
good business man that he is, does not go
running around trying as hard as he can to
spend all the money he makes. He tries
to get everything as cheap as he can, yes,
even his help, we all do it, we don't pay a
man dollar and half day if we can get
one just as good for dollar. This is hu-
man nature and man cannot be blamed
for it, If he gets his help as cheap as he
can. Many people would say he would be
a blamed fool if he didn't. So then we
can't depend on it as a rule that the manu-
facturers will out of gratitude and beneyo-
lence give any of their increase of profits
to their employees in the form of increased
wages. And not only do we find il against
reason to except it, but in actual fact we
find that they do not. What do these con-
slant importations of contract labor, in de-
fence of the law, indicate? Why are there
so many strikes and lock outs? Why is
there such continual turmoil in the in
oustrial world? Why do laboring men
strike anyhow? If their wages are not high
enough nov, wouldn't an increase of tariff
raise themP The fact that in the face of
all our labor troubles no one thinks of at
least doubling the tariff almost causes one
TO suspect that no one really believes in
Protection anyhow. But we must not al
low ourselves to be carried away by invidi-
GUS suspicious. Let us pursue our investi-
cations There is another slight kink in
the Protectionists little chain of logic which
some people viii stick at, they say that
large profits would naturally attract good
deal of capital and labor into protected
industry and that but for Trusts, and Pools,
and Rings of various kinds, competition
among our own producers would soon bring
the prices down to where they would be
without the tariff. Indeed it seems that
our earlier Protectionlsts believed such
would be the case, and that our "infant in.
custries" would after time outgrow all
need for protection. But these things seem
to be hard to understand and We find the
original protectionists were mistaken that
''infant industry business was all "bosh. "
1t is labor that has to be protected and that
no matter whether in an old or new IN
dustry. Those old fellows thirty years ago
actually stumbled into good thing. They
didn't know they were going to protect
labor. They thought they were going to
protect capital. They wanted to protect
infant industries and draw capital into them
until they could compete with all the world
but here they find they have hit upon some
thing to protect labor. Really, must say,
IL hardly looks reasonable 10 claim Ihatyou
can raise wages by a scheme that was in
vented for an entirely different purpose aud
which seems TO fasten Rings, Pools, Trusts
and all kinds of monopolles and which con-
fessedly depends for Its successful working
upon the hope that powerful set of people
will be good and kind enough to do what
they cannot be compelled to do, and what
il is directly contrary to their financial in
teIest to do. You want TO raise wages by
a scheme invented TO protect capital and
used to this day, Utmost European countries
for that purpose where, ,strangeto say 1T fails
to raise wages as you claim 1t does here.
You want 10 raise wages by scheme thai
fastens Monopolies, Rings, Pools. and
Trusts. for these certeinly would be much
harder to form and keep up and would be
much less efiicaclous If they had the com
petition of the world TO fight instead Of