Morning journal and courier., 1888-07-10
SMOOTH HUT DECEPTIVE.
Free Trade Articles That Don't stand the Test of Competent Enquiry.
 ON THE CARS .Tulv T 1R82


 the Test of Competent Enquiry.
 OE THE CARS, July 2, 1888.
 Although have written you many letters on various subjects, this is my first on "Po- litical Economy" and 1t may fall so far short of making the point desired that it may be my last.
 In the Morning News of June 29 there was an article signed by Graham McAdam, and IS placed in said paper under the title of Champaign Conundrums" and said to con- tain 'ssome bothersome questions asked by toilers."
 I cut this article out to read and think over, for am, with many others, debating the question: Which will benefit the toilers most, free trade or protectiona
 Let us look at this article e moment, for it reads so smoothly that it is convincing.
 Will it stand investigation and looking in- to? For it is just such articles as this one that often change the opinions of voters, and are used with great effect.
 It says: s'In the silk industry the total product in 1880 according to the census was $S4, ,410, ,463. The protective duty being 60 per cent, let us say, the protection afforded is 50 per cent, that is, under free trade the country might
 
 say, $23, ,0O0, 900. But in order to make wages high we 50 fixed things that they paid $34, 900, ,O00. Here is $11 ,000, 900 clear bonus paid by the consumers in order that silk op- orators may receive geod wages. But the census shows that the entire wages in silk for 1880 were S, ,107, ,S35. Conundrum-Who got the $11, 1000, ,000a Conundrum second If the consumers had been allowed to buy their silks free, that is for $23, ,000 900, could not they have paid the silk operators all their wages, 60, ,00O, 900, sending them off perhaps on a years picnic and still have had g, ,000, 900 to the good for the relief of the pauper manufacturers"
 Now. how can we answer thisa In fact, can
 Let us see. The total product was $34,- 40, ,4e3; wages $9, ,107, 1885; $25, ,302, ,62S silk, minus wages, on which duty must be paid. Is that correcta Let us see again. Of that amount ($25, ,302 ,628) what proportion is really silk, tor that is argument.
 The article says, "duty, at say 50 per 62e just one-half that sum, or $12, 651 ,314, and wants to know why wages of $9, 107, ,835 cannot be paid on $12, ,314 as well as on $25, ,3O2, ,628 That is the issue, if the arti- cle is reduced to facts. Now, let us look at the matter from business standpoint, squarely in the face, for if the article is cor rect, let us accept it; if not, it is only talk.
 In the first place there Is supposed to be mora money, distributed to the community at large, from business of $25, ,302. .62S than from business of $12, 751, ,314, to say nothing whatever about duty, protection, or anything else of that sort; and if silk stuffs were brought in free in 1880, according to the arr ticle named, then.the amount of the silk production of 1888 {ninus wagesl would be only $12, ,751 ,314 against $25, 302, ,628; and ss toilers in this article doubtless usually dress mostly in silks, by that means they could, i as consumers. buy their silks at about half l price. But would they9 Mind, the wages paid l were So, ,107, ,635, and the wages are supposed Q be the same, whether the gross product of l ilk is the first or last named sum. Any