Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-01-10
FRIDAY. JANUARY 10, 1890.


street Los Angeles. Telephone No. 1856
FRIDAY. JANUARY 10, 1890.
An Interesting Controversy ON Pro-
tection and Free Traae-Giad-
stone vs.. Blaine.
No. L.
The world has been on the qua viue for
some time for the approaching contro-
versy in the North American Review on
Free Trade versus Protection, TIE Right
Hon. W. E. Gladstone having been
assigned to the first head, and the Hon.
James G.. Blaine to the second. There is
q popular misapprehension as to the
nature of this discussion. II has been
supposed to be duel between Gladstone
and Blaine, with a regular cartel, pick
ing up of the gauntlet, and the conse-
quent arbitrament of the lists. As q
matter Of fact, it proves to be review,
by Mr.. Gladstone, of book written
before the last Presidential election, by
Mr.. N. Mckay, of New York, entitled
sFree Trade Toilers" and Starvation
Wages for Men and Women" Mr..
Gladstone expressly states in his
article, published in the North
american Review, that he had with
held his contribution to tariff ,litera-
ture until after the result OF the Presi-
Dental election had been declared,
deeming that it would be gross imper-
tinence for him to appear to throw his
influence into that important struggle,
which ought to be determined by Ameri-
cans without even the suggestion of for
eign dictation. His article seems to
have been submitted to Mr.. Blaine,
either in manuscript or in the proof, and
that gentleman's connection with the
matter appears to have been q pure
business sfterthought of the enterprising
editors and managers of the Review, al
though. of course, Mr.. Blaine's carefully |
prepared views are worthy of attention
from q man of his ability and position.
It is hopeless to review this notable con-
troversy within the compass of q single
newspaper article. We shall therefore
devote one article to Mr.. Gladstone, an
other to Mr.. Blaine and a third to the
position Of the Democratic party on the
question.
This discussion, made joint by the
editors of the North american Review,
occupies fully fifty:four pages of that
publication, the spacs being almost
equally divided between the two dis
tinguished controversialists. MIR. Glad
stone first applies himself to recognizing
in the argument underlying Mr.. McKay's |
book, as he expresses it, IAN old friend |
with new face" This illustrious
British statesman is so old that he was
himself not Insignificant participant in
the old Corn Law agitation in Great
Britain, in which protection re-
ceived its death-blow. In this portion
of his quite luminous review, he adverts
to the wage question, on which Mr.. Nc
Kay dwells with great persistency; and,
as the illustrious Englishman asserts, on
perverted figures. He says: ''Let me
snow mark the exact point to which we
shave advanced. Like phonograph of
"Mr. Edison, the American Protectionist
''simply repeats on his side of the Allan
site what has been first and often,
Sand long ago, said on ours. Under
protection our wages were, on the
"whole, higher than those on the con-
s'tinent. Under protection, American
"wages are higher than those of Great
"Britain. We argued then, post hoe,
s'ergo proptsr hoe. He now argues, just
''listen to his phonograph, post hoe, ergo
"propter hoe. That the
American rate of wages is higher than
tours concede." But while Mr.. Glad
stone comedies this fact of higher wages,
he claims that it is a mere accidental
'concomitancy," and that in q country
like the United States there may be high
wages and great prosperity in spite of
protection.
Mr.. Gladstone next devotes himself to
. chapter on the wages of the British
workman, in which he shows that Mr..
Mckay, whose book he is reviewing, has
grossly understated the average wages of
the British artisan. As the writer has
been many times Chancellor of the
British Exchequer. and is confessedly
the most laborious as we'll as perhaps
the most brilliant man who ever filed that
distinguished office, we are compelled
to accept his correction of Mr.. McKay's
statements. In addition, he enters into
exhaustive figures which show that,
under free trade, the wages of English
workmen have increased from fifty to
one hundred per cent, while the prices
of the necessaries of life in England have
not only not increased but have
diminished.
The cardinal position OF Mr.. Gladstone
may be briefly indicated in the following
passage: ''The argument of the Free
Trader is that the legislator ought
''never to interfere, or ought only to in
"terfere 80 far as imperative fiscal neces.
"sity may require it, with the natural
s'law of distribution.
"All interference with it by a gov
"ernment in order to encourage some
"dearer method of production at
"home in preference to q cheaper
ssmothod of production abroad.