The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-06-06
FALSEHOODS AND FACTS.

The poor old Tribune ventures very tim
idly to say few words concerning the tar
if. AS usual. it dares not be specific, but
makes general assertions without the least
shadow of proof to sustain them. 1t says:
We should be with a revenue tariff simply a
nation Of agrculturistS and professional men,
not prepared to give many laborers employ
menI, not prepared to be self-sustaining under
the pressure OF a war. and the wages of Aneri-
can workingmen would only be on par with
those OF the Old World. Furthermore, our
land would be perpetually drained of what
money the mines could supply.
There are only five vulgar falsehoods.
whether intentional or merely resulting
from lackof information need not concern
us, in these two sentences. We shall no.
tice four of them.
Under tariff for revenue manufac-
turing industries increased at the
rate Of per cent annually. Under pro-
lection they have increased but 81 per
cent. annually. The capital invested in
manufactures IN 1850 was s539. PAS, 351,
which increased under ten years of tariff
for revenue to 81, COS. S55, us in 1860.
Under twenty years of protection, from
1860 to 1880, this capital had increased to
81, 79O, 272, COG, or at the yearly rate Of 81
per cent.
The capital invested in farming in 1850
was 1921, 575, 421, which increas ed to
SC, 645, O45, 007 in 1S60. That was a yearly
increase of 101I per cent, under a tariff for
revenue After twenty years of protection
the capital invested in farming had in
creased in 1850 to $40, 1917, O96, 40, or at the
yearly rate CT % per cent.
That is to say, under a tariff for revenue
both farming and manufacturing were
exceedingly prosperous, while and pro-
lection, while the prosperity of manufac-
turing remains about the same as
it was under a revenue tariff, the pros
perity of farming was four times greater
under a revenue tariff than under protec-
ton.
In other words, the sheet that sGys man.
ufactures do not thrive under low tariff
is merely vulgar liar.
2-The assertion that the displacement
of farm labor by mill labor gives additional
employment to labor can be made only by q
man not familiar with the processes of in
dustry. The farm product is practically
all wages, there being nc raw material to
buy, no plant required, few expenses of
any kind. The manufactured products
are, by the census of 1850, but one-tifth
wages, the other four-ffths being made I'D
of the cost of raw materials, cost of plant,
interest on capital, etc. Only about one
fifth as many men are employed
TO make the same value in manu-
features as in agriculture. To turn
capital from agriculture into manu-
facture means, therefore, that but
one-fifth as many men shall be given en-
ployment, machinery doing the work of the
other four fifths. At presen. it takes the
yearly labor of 1000, 600 farmers to produce
the surplus crops that are exported to the
ralue of about 5000, 000, 900. The pay for
this is manufactured goods of equal value.
IL all these manufactures were prohibited
from coming into this country, as protec-
tionists maintain they should be, only one
fifth of these farmers could supply with
produce every factory hand engaged in
making these goods at home. The other
four-fifths must then leave the country
3-The only labor in this country "on a
par with the pauper labor of Europe'' is
that engaged in many Of the protected
industries, at wages varying from 60 cents
to 80 cents day.
4-If this Republican paper had ever |
heard of the reports of the directors of the |
mint, il would forever keep quiet about q |
drain Of gold" 1t has a score Of times !
stated, after the statement had been regu-