The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1890-11-28

A very common argument broughtfo for
ward By the protectionists in support OF
their system. IL that when goods are
bought from the home producer. or
when wages arc paid TO the home
iaborcr. you keep the money at home.
and therefore tho Nation suffers no losa
The money has not left the country,
they say. and we are just as well oil rs
we we're before
They do not SEQ that their so-called
argument" proves far too much. They
do not see that there Is any force In IT.
their robbery is not an evil, for robber
does not take his booty out OF the coun-
try. be stays AT home and enjoys his
sfealngs This is tho Legitimate con-
clusicn to which the argument leads.
gans OF the United States has just had
the brutal frankncss 70 carry tho ''argu-
ment' TO prcc sely this extreme.
This newspaper is the New York
Press, founded 10 spread the protection
hercsy, and presided over by that arch
protcctionist Robert Il. Porter, until he
was appointed 70 make muss OF the
census. In recent issue of this organ
there are twocditorials which bear upon
the protective tariff. One editorial
argues that although the labor cost of
making an article in the United states
be double what II Is in Eng and. still it
pays the country at large better TO
make the article here; for in that case
the money paid is not lost to the coun-
try ''for il Is just as much a part OF the
weaItf OF the country in ono mans
hands as in another's"
The second article is remarkable as
showing how the editor does not hesi-
tate TO apply this argument even to
downright robbery. lie writes an ed
itorial on ''Hoarded Currency in the
Country. beginning with this sentences:
Robbers who entered an Ohio farmers
house in the dead Of night made him
give up his gold watch and $500 in gold
at the point OF pistol" The editor
CONNIE hts upon this fact at some length,
raises the question whether our farm
ers who have been thinking them
selves 50 poor. may not have $780,
100000 hidden away in old
stockings tin cups. china teapots
and other odd reccptacles" and
then comes to the conclus on that "a
few robber raids like that in Ohio will
send their money back into bank vaults,
where il can be utilized as medium OF
exchange. and the editor adds: That
would be public gain. and new proof
that 1t is an Ill wind that blows nobody
good"
Most astounding! Robbery is pub
lie gain!' 1t Is easy now TO see how
the protectionist mind takes so natu-
rally to the idea that the tariff is not to
be condemned on the mere ground that
it gives one mans money to another
man. A wealthy merchant who Is .
protectionist has recently made this
tariff helps one man at another's ex-
pense; can watch the tariff dollar as it
leaves the consumers pocket and can
trace il all along down the line till 1t
reaches the pocket Of the manufactures.
But see no moral wrong in that !"
What is to be said Of such men a. this
merchant and the editor Of the Press?
III they think that robbery Is not wrong,
can you convince them that it Is wrong?
III they say rose is not sweet can you
prove to them that it is sweet?
But there is one thing that can be
done. Let the tariff once rob them,
let il do so in such way that they
can calculate the robbery in hard cash.
and they will very quickly change their
views about tariff morals A case Of
this kind occurred recently in New
York. An ocuIist OF that city returned
from Europe bringing with him 5000
microscope. which he very much needed
in his work, and which Is not made at
all by American manufacturers The
tariff fee which the United States Gov
eminent took out Of his pocket as a
penalty for bringing in this aseful in
strument was Sl75 The oculist had
been a protectionist all his life, had
doubtless thought that transferring
money from ono mans pocket to the
pockets OF another man was not wrong;
but when 1t transferred money from his
pocket to the tune Of Sl.J the scales
fell from his eyes and he saw great
light. lie no longer believes in pro-
tectson and has voted for Democratic
Congressman for the first time in his
LIE. ludL - Tile oHty way outn
peoples eyes can be opened.
But going back to the Ohio farmer
who was robbed, what Is the matter
with the editors reasoning facilities,
when he calls that robbery public
gain?" His error lies in overlooking
the nature OF money as the representa-
tive OF the labor performed by its hold
or. Suppose that farmer was . WOO
raiser and had received this $500 as ths
prce OF 1000 pounds Of wool All thu
labor that went into the production d
this wool Is absolutely lost when hi
$500 was taken by the robbers II vii
not do to argue that tho country hal
the wool all the same, and therefore
the farmers labor was not lost for thu
wool no longer represents the farmer
labor but the labor Of the manuiact urer
who bought It Before tho purchas'
the manufacturer held this $500 as tn
return for labor which he and his mel
had put into the manufactures OF go
yards OF cloth; but after the purchas
be holds 1000 pounds Of wool as the re
ward OF that labor. The wool must no,
: no longer be considered in reference :
the farmer who produced IT. for he ha