Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-11-20
IN WHOSE PockEI2

! posed-Pr~tection and Robbery Both
keep Money In the Country"-Labor and
/ National Wealth.
A very common argument brought for
ward by the protectionists in support of
their system, is that when goods are
bought from the home producer. or
when wages are paid to the home
laborer, you keep the money at home,
and therefore the Nation suffers no loss
The money has not left the country,
/ they say, and we are just as well of as
we were before
They do not see that their so-called
argument" proves far too much. They
do not see that there is any force in it.
.heir robbery is not an evil, for robber
does not take his booty out of the coun-
/ try, he stays at home and enjoys his
stealings- This is the legitimate con-
clusion to which the argument" leads.
Indeed one of the leading protection or
| gans OF the United States has just had
the brutal frankness to carry the '.argu-
ment' to precisely this extreme.
This newspaper is the New York
Press, founded to spread the protection
heresy, and presided over by that arch
protectionist Robert P. Porter, until he
was appointed to make a muss of the
census. In recent issue of this organ
there are two editorials 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 it is in England, 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 it is just as much part of the
wealth OF the country in one mans
| hands as in another's"
The second article is remarkable as
showing how the editor does not hest
tate to apply this argument even to
| downright robbery. He writes an ed
itorial on "Hoarded Currency in the
Country, " beginning with this sentence:
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 a pistol" The editor
comments upon this fact at some length,
raises the question whether our farm
ers, who have been thinking them
selves SO poor, may not have $780,
100000 hidden away in old
stockings. tin cups. china teapots
and other odd receptacles." and
then comes to the conclusion that "a
few robber raids like that in Ohio will
send their money back into bank vaults,
where it can be utilized as medium of
exchange" and the editor adds: THAT
would be a public gain. and new proof
that it is an i'll wind that blows nobody
good"
Most astounding! Robbery is a 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 a
/ protectionist has recently made this
statement: 81 can easily see how the
| tariff helps one man at another's ex-
| pense; can watch the tariff dollar as it
! leaves the consumers pocket, and can
trace it all along down the line till 1t
! reaches the pocket of the manufacturer.
But / see no moral wrong in that"
/ What is to be said of such men as this
merchant and the editor of the Press?
If they think that robbery is not wrong,
| can you convince them thatit is wrong?
II they say a 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 it do so in such way that they
can calculate the robbery in hard cash,
and they will very quickly change their
4
this kind occurred recently in New
York. An oculist of that city returned
from Europe bringing with him $500
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 useful in
strument was S175. The oculist had
| been a protectionist all his life, had
| doubtless thought that transferring
money from one mans pocket to the
| pockets of another man was not wrong;
but when it transferred money from his
| pocket to the tune of SITS the scales
fell from his eyes and he saw a great
| light He no longer believes in pro-
lection and has voted for a Democratic
Congressman for the first time in his
life. That is the only way such
| 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 a public
gain?" His error lies in overlooking
the nature of money as the representa-
tive Of the labor performed by its hold
er. Suppose that farmer was a wool
raiser and had received thiS $500 as the
! price of L. 600 pounds of wool All the
labor that went into the production of
| this wool is absolutely lost when his
$500 was taken by the robbers 1t will
| not do to argue that the country has
the wool all the same, and therefore
the farmers labor was not lost for the
wool no longer represents the farmers
labor but the labor of the manufacturer
who bought it Before the purchase
the manufacturer held this $500 as the
return for labor which he and his men
| had put into the manufacturer of 600
| yards of cloth; but after the purchase
he holds l, 600 pounds of wool as the re-
ward of that labor. The wool must now
no longer be considered in reference to
the farmer who produced it for he has
the value of it in money; but it must be
| considered solely in reference to the
labor Of the manufacturer and his men,
for it now represents to them the prod
uct of their labor.
But how does the matter stand as be-
| tween the farmer and the robbers? The
| farmer received l. 600 pounds of wool