Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1890-05-20
sum of about s65.Ooa.oOo.

ton upon foreign imports, framed fol
the benefit OF the few at the expense
of the taxpayers of the country, il is
proposed not only TO maintain but Il
enlarge our manufacturing plants,
and to place them safely beyond all
composition.
The general policy of the bill is de
fined by the committee to be "to fos-
ter and promote American produc-
ton and diversification of American
industry" and this, it is proposed,
shall bo accomplished without regard
to the prices the people will be com
PEELED to pay under this system for
all they consume.
The fair construction Of the pro-
visions OF this bill, construed in the
light OF the report lat accompanies
it, is that the object of Federal taxa
ton is protection Ito the manufac-
turer), and revenue mere incident.
However ably and skillfully the advo-
Gates OF such doctrine may defend
it, they will never be able to bring
permanently to its support majority
Of the people Of this country, and the
more the system of protection is dis
cussed, the better it is Understood,
the less favor il will find withlthe peo-
pie; for it can hardly be supposed
that its advocates will be able 10 show
that the condition of the taxpayer is
improved by increasing his burdens,
and this is precisely what the friends
of protection are required to establish
before the scheme can succeed. The
false clamor of "home market and
protection to American labor" can
no longer be used to deceive the
American farmer or TO terrify the
American laborer.
The farmer, despairing Of the home
market for his corn, uses 1t for fuel,
because it is cheaper than coal.
The American wage-earner has dis
covered that his labor is ON the free
list, and as he has witnessed the
downward tendency of his wages and
discovered that the system of protec-
ton enhances the cost of every article
he eats and every article he wears, the
argument that high tariff is bene-
fit TO him or that il protects him from
the "pauper labor Of Europe has be-
come
-, as tedious as twice told tale
Nexing the dull ear OF n drowsy man.
No amount of special pleading will
convince the workingmen that pro-
lection benefits them, for experience
has shown that their employers,
who riot on Government bounties,
divide no part of their increased
profits resulting from protection with
those who mine the iron and the coal,
run the furnaces, or turn out the manu-
factured goods.
Protection accumulates no fund
from which the wages of laborers is in
creased, and as long as system which
taxes the machinery they operate, the
raw material they work, is enforced
they will continue to be the victims
rather than the beneiiciaries of that
system.
While comparison of the rate OF
wages in this country under the pres
ent system of protection with the
rate OF wages in similar industries in
England under system OF free trade
neither proves the merits of the one
system nor the demerits of the other,
yet a reference to the history of the
progress which the laboring classes
have made under these opposite
systems is not without its useful les
son in aiding to correct solution of
the question whether a high tariff
makes high wages and a low tariff low
wages. If it can be successfully
shown that wages have advanced un-
der a system of free trade in England,
it follows that the rate of wages would
be affected in a like manner under a
similar system here, and the argument
that protection is blessing to the
laboring man would not only be dis
proved, but the assertion Of those who
contend that protection confers no
benefits upon TIE laboring class J
would be an established fact. 1t for
tunately happens that the effect
which the system OF free trade in
England has had upon the rate of
wages has not been left in doubt or
uncertainty. The history Of the sub
ject, based upon elaborate and care
fully prepared statistics, proves
that the condition OF the working
classes in England under a system Of
free trade has been greatly improved.