St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-11

with the sound premise that all wealth
is created by labor, and the greatest
wealth is created when the greatest sum
of Products is produced in given time;
ami that is.done when the laborer works
In harmony with the forces of nature
and the auxillaries which the inventive
genius of man has supplied. He Illus
trates his point by saying: "If laborer
who is digging coal at 81 per ton, and
who turns out one ton per day, should
invent machine by which in the same
time he turns out five tons of coal, his
daily wages would rise whether the
tariff were high or low, or no tariff at
all; and if throughout the whole
industrial system such an increase
should occur by labor-saving methods,
then wages would rise throughout
the whole, regardless of the tariff.
But the question is, would they
not rise higher without than with
the tariff? If the workman, when he
turns out his coal, is prohibited from
selling any part of it to anybody, his
SNA PAo0 WIZ NC hOltAICOos AlbCl sup
plying his own wants, the remainder
will be without value to him. But If
the law should permit him to sell to
persons living within the same county,
his market, though limited, would give
some value to his surplus. Then, if the
law should be changed, and he should
be permitted to sell to all persons with
IN the same state, his coal would ill.,
crease in value. If, then. he were per-
United to sell to all persons in the
United States, it would take additional
value just as the number OF consumers
Increased. which would increase the
demand, and, consequently, the price. If
he were permitted to sell to- any one any
where in the world, his product would
find its highest value. Thus we see
that just in proportion as the number Of
those who consume his coal increases
does its value increase. Wealth, there
fore, and wages are increased by the re-
movai of all impediments between pro-
ducers and consumers: and the con-
verse of the propositionis equally true
that wealth and wages are decreased by
every impeachment inteIpo between
the producer and consumer"
Thus Mr.. MILLS argues that as ac-
cumulated wealth Is the fund which en-
ploys and pays labor, that fund will be
increased, and. consequently, the labor
er's wages will be higher, if all the mar
kets OF the world are opened up to the
product of labor. From time imme-
mortal it has been accepted that the
surest test of country's prosperity is
the increase of its foreign trade, and
there can be no surer test of the re-
tardation of that prosperity than the
decrease of that trade. Hence all of
Mr.. BLAINE's fine-spun theories about
the protection policy being the founda-
ton of American prosperity fall to the
ground. The truth is that this country
has been prosperous in spite of pro-
lection, and would be doubly so if the
excessive tariff were removed. In re.
spouse to MI. BLAINE'S point that
great many articles manufactured in the
United States fud ready and large
sale in Canada in competition with
British rivals, Mr.. MILLS shows that
these are all articles in which the labor
is large element of the cost. There is
very little tax paid on the raw material,
and If this little tax were taken Off, we
would probably drive the British manu-
facturers entirely out of Canada. The
point that Mr.. BLAINE raises is in di-
rect support of Mr.. Mills proposition
that high tariff is not necessary to
protect American Industries. All the
protection they need is to give them an
open market. If we could increase our
exports to Canada and hold her markets
against our foreign rivals. could we not
hold our home markets, when the for
eigner would have to pay the cost of
reaching us before he could compete?
In reply to Mr.. BLAINE'S other prop
osition-that protection not only in
creases the wealth Of the protected
manufacturer, but the farmer also
Mr.. MILLS again does some fine arith-
metical work. He shows from census
statistics that even the New England
states increased their wealth more rap
idly under revenue tariffs than under
protective tariffs. And as for the
agricultural states, they increased "a
per cent under free trade and only 5
per cent per annum under protective
tariffs. A comparison is made between
Massachusetts, and Illinois. In 1850.
Massachusetts had $4,000, 600 invested
in manufactures, and Illinois had
S6.000.0G0. During the decade of low
tariff down to 1860, Illinois had caught
up with and passed Massachusetts in
wealth. Illinois farmers, unshackled
by restrictions, had increased her
wealth 457 per cent, and Massachusetts,
manufacturers had increased hers %
per cent. During the next decade they
started a new race under the fostering
care of protective tariff, and in 1870
Illinois had dropped down to 143 per
cent increase. while Massachu sets had
run up from ~ to 161 per cent. Thus
it is demonstrated by series of such
illustrations that the farmers are not,
nor will they ever be, benefited by pro-
tective tariffs.