The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-09-16
A BUNDLE or ERRORS.
Glarlng Misrepresentation u aIcKinley'l
Speech at Niles, O.

Speech at Niles, O.
If Ohio republicans will circulate
the speech delivered by their candidate
they will perform q service to their op-
ponents. Falsehoods and errors have
no longer weight with citizens capable
of comprehending simple statement.
Into single paragraph the author Of
the Mckinley bill crowds sufficient or.
ror to nullify any truth he might have
stumbled on. Speaking OF . revenue
tariff Mr.. Mckinley says: .sS
1t docs not encourage labor. save In foreign
countries. 1t does not move . single spindle,
save in foreign countries. It increases the de-
mand for foreign goods and diminishos the use
OF domestic goods. 1t is for the foreign shop
and against tho American shop II supplies
work for foreign labor and takes It from, our
own lator. 1t would not light single Ore In -
American furnace or mill but would extinguish
those that now burn, unless our labor would
work at the same wages as the labor OF compel.
ing countries In short, it is well conceived 70
benefit every other nation than our own.
This was the argument used by Mo
kinley and his friends when the de-
mand was made that the boot and shoe
industry in this country should have
the benefit of free trade in hides. The
accomplishment of that result lighted
the fires that had gone out under the
absurd rule of protection in every tan.
merry in New England. Giving ths La
borer raw material at lower cost, tho
price of boots and shoes of the lower
grades thus affected was decreased,
with the effect of Increasing the power
Of consumption and the consequent de-
mand for labor in production. Thus In
a single incident is overthrown the en-.
tire argument of the protectionist But
Mckinley and the organs will now be
invited to look at the result Of free
trade in raw sugars. Admittedly the
consumption OF sugar has increased.
The price has been reduced and more
men engaged in its manufacture. Again
has free trade lighted fires that had
gone out under protection. But viii
Mr. Mckinley tell the people that this
is because employees in sugar refineries
have been willing to "work at the same
wages as in competing countries2"
Nor is it necessary for free trader
to argue solely from the results of free
trade wherever it has been tried. He
may now challenge his opponent to
name logical reason why the same
result must not necessarily follow
every such experiment. No protec.
zionist in the country will hazard the
declaration that labor is to be bene-
fted by IN increase in the cost Of the
tools with which work is performed.
No writer with care for his reputa-
tion would argue that an increase in
the cost of factory that added moth
ing to its possible output could have
any other effect than to diminish the
wages of labor and capital therein em-
ployed. Even the protectionist indorses
the proposition to free the channels Of
New York harbor for the incoming Of
freight bearing ships They hailed the
opening of the transcontinental rail.
roads and the faster ocean ships with
their lessened cost OF transportation -
q means for saving something to labor.
But these were merely distractions TO
traffic removed, and no proposition il
more absurd than that tho erection OF
others can benefit labor. Mckinley
will learn something before this cam
paign is over. Let him have q care
how he trifes with Jerry Simpson in
debate, Chicago Times.