The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1888-09-01

The man with an income of two dollars
day Is better off than the same man would
be with an income Of but one dollar day
NV protec ionis, friend agrees with me In
the abstract, but when this simple PROPOSE
ton Is hid In the maze OF protection, when
involved In the intricate labyrinth Of pro-
tectionst indirection, he denies II.
| aver that the returns for services In
protected industries that need protection
are primarily less than In unprotected In
dustries; that ultimately they are reduced
In every industry. If In protected indus
tries the returns for services are no less
than In unprotected ones, what, pray, II
the need for protection? But In the very
breath In which you say the returns are no
less, you admit that they are less by asking
for protection. Why do you want protec
ton If not 70 make up the difference be
tween returns for services In remuneratiVe
and unremunerative employments! IL Is
not the difference between American and
European labor. The unprotected farmer
gives his labor as much as the protected
manufacturer. II is the difference In the
produc,iveness of the different home indus.
tries, and the refusal 20 engage In less 10
preference TO more paying form of en-
ployment. Why does the iron smelter ask
for protection Why? Because at the
present price Of iron lsborer can produce
more corn, more wheat, or more Of some
other commodity than he can iron. Hence
he will not embark In the iron trade but
will raise corn and exchange II for iron.
At his present industry he can produce
with the same amount Of labor expended
two dollars worth of corn day. He car.
produce but one dollars worth
of metal In day. His income
as farmer Is just twice what II
would be as a producer of iron His CAPT
tai Increases just twice as fast; the mem =
bers of his family have their wants better
supplied he has more time to himself and
Is better off in every respect than he would
be as producer of iron. II he wants to
buy anything Into the composition of
which iron enters he can exchange his
corn for It. BY working half day on his
farm and exchanging the result of that
half days labor for iron, he can get ex.
acty as much as II he had himself worked
whole day AT the iron business. That
half a day saved TO him Is as much as a
whole day In the iron trade would be. In
short by working half day at farming, he
can produce an amount equal 10 that pro-
duced by an entire day of labor In the iron
mines. Now, In this happy state of af,
fairs, a man comes along who wants TO
engage In the iron trade. He wants to
secure workmen. "HOw much will you
give me-" the farmer asks. zone dollar a
day" the manufacturer replies, But |
can make two dollars at my present en-
Pigment and hereupon the philanthropic
manufacturer, because he wants to zee the
wages of laborers increased, resorts TO the
congress of the United States, which i'm
mediately places duty of 100 per cent. on
ron In order that the manufacturer may
induce laborers 10 leave a, nj present,
profitable business, for an, at present, un-
profitable one. The manufacturer then
returns to our farmer friend and offers him
the two dollars which he demands In
other words he, through the instrumen.
tally Of the congress Of the United States,
induces the farmer TO leave an industry
that Is paying him two dollars day, for
one that will pay him but one dollar a day,
plus another dollar which congress EN-
powers the manufacturer 10 collect from
everyone who finds II necessary 10 buy his
products. We now have our farmer II
producer Of iron, a protected laborer, and
let us look 10 the workings of the change.
The question is, who, II anyone, is bene.
dted by this change. Show me single
person outside of the manufactures him.
self-and he is not producer-who has
received the smallest scintilla Of benefit
who has derived the slightest advantage,
who Is single cent, but one penny, better
fl, and | will admit that there may be
come virtue In protection. Further: Show
me person In anyway connected with II
who has not been damaged 10y 1t; who has
not suffered direct, personal pecuniary
injury through II, and | will admit that !
may be mistaken. Let us examine into
the condition of the iron worker under his
changed mode of earning u livelihood. He
still has his two dollars day, hut when he
goes to buy a stove he has TO pay twenty
five dollars for what he could formerly
have gotten for eighteen dollars, and he
mas but the same income from which 70 pay
for it. Here then is direct injury 10
start with, with no corresponding benefit.
Why does he have TO pay more for the
stove than formerly? Because of the in
nrease In the price of the raw material that
goes TO make up the stove. He receives a
box of freight The charges are increased
because of the increase in the cost of
equipment of the road. consequent ON the