The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-07-24
Some onestions Ahont thc Tnrifr.

=
We print elsewhere a communication sent
us by a republican reader touching the
tariff question. The writer is frank enough
TO say that he knows nothing about the
tariff, and he expresses the opinion that
no one else knows anything about it,
either. He asks Mr.. Snow of Fort Wayne,
a recent contributor to THE SENTINEL, to
answer certain questions. The questions
are not difficult ones. and no doubt Mr..
Snow could answer them readily. But we
will not wait for him.
/. "IIow would American manuiac-
turers be enabled TO control the markets
of the world by getting raw materials I'M
taxed, while labor is cheaper in Europe
than here?"
Because OF the superior intelligence, en-
terprise and efficiency of American manu-
facturers. They have more extensive nat
ural resources at their back; cheaper and
better processes OF production and dis
tribution; more advantages Of every kind,
except in the matter OF the cost of raw
materials. Wherever they have been
placed upon an equality in this respect
they have gone to the front. AS TO the
relative cost of labor in Europe and in
this country, the difference is more APP
parent than real. The average working
man in Europe receives less than the
average workingman in America because
he earns less that is, because he produces
less Measured by efficiency and product
i've power, labor in most industries is
cheaper in the United States than in
Europe; that is, it is paid less in pro-
portion TO what it produces. Mr..
BLAINE, in one of his reports while
secretary of state under GARFIELD,
demonstrated this to be true as to the labor
engaged in the cotton manufacture; and
it is true in most other lines. AS gen.
eral rule all over the world, the manuiac-
turers who employ high-priced labor
measured in days wages outstrip their
competitors who employ low-priced labor.
This is notably the case in the United
States. II is because high-priced labor is
more intelligent, more skillful and more
productive than low-priced labor.
>. "EIave the producers OF raw material
no rights that manufacturers are bound
10 respectP
OF course they have; but they have no
more rights than those who are neither
producers OF raw material nor manufac-
turers. These are not allowed to levy
tribute upon their fellow-citizens; no
more should the producers OF raw ma
terials nor the manufacturers be allowed TO
do so. Repeating the taxes on raw ma
terials would stimulate our manu-
featuring interests legtimately. II would
enable them to absorb more crude
materials than at present, which would
soon equalize matters with the domestic
producers of such materials. The latter,
too, would be enabled to buy manufact-
ured articles and other commodities
cheaper than at present. The producers
of raw materials-wool, iron, coal, copper,
lumber, etc.-are entitled to just as much
consideration at the hands of the govern
ment as other classes of the people, but TO
no more.
5. "IIow would a reduction of the tariff
enable manufacturers TO give labor steady
employment at remunerative wages ?"
A reduction of the tariff would improve
the demand for and compensation of labor
in two ways: BY cheapening the cost of
production it would enable our manufact-
urers to successfully compete with their
European rivals in neutral markets
those Of Asia, South America, Africa, Aus
tralia and the West Indies; and, by open
ing mp our markets to the people of those
countries, it would cause them TO take our
productions in exchange for their own.
Now they buy Just as little as possible
from US because we refuse TO buy Of them.
We are glad to have our republican
readers ask questions about the tariff. 1t
shows that they are thinking about this
great subject. When men begin to think
about the tariff and ask questions about
it, their accession to the grand army Of
tariff reiormers is only question of time.
TaImage breaches to $1,000 people every week
through THE SENTINEL. Read his sermon on
another page.