St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-06-06
HOW 1T PROTECTS THEM.

When the facts were developed some
time since IN regard to the practice of
many manufacturers, especially those
who deal in agricultural implements, in
selling to foreign purchasers at lower
prices than to home consumers, there
were excited and confused attempts at
both denial and explanation. Ingenious
theories were brought into use, such as
that inferior goods were palmed off on
the ignorant foreigner, but the facts
would not fit. A protection club at
Boston has the name of the Home Mar
ket club. AS its name indicates, it de-
votes its efforts to picturing the advan-
tages of the home market and contem-
ming that abroad. 1t has recently been
gathering statements from manufactur-
ing firms to show how the protective
wall benefits both the manufacturer
and consumer. For some reason it has
not seen fit to make public the informa-
ton gained. A plow firm at York. Pa,
however, sent a copy of its evidence
also to Philadelphia paper, and this is
a paragraph of it:
'Our firm sells implements and m achinery
through Mexico, South America and Africa
at from to 10 per cent less than they are sold
for in this country.
The manufacturer who can export his
goods can have no use for protection except
10 enable him to extort more money from
home purchasers than he is able to get
abroad
This firm, is is stated, sells about half
It's product at home at protection prices,
and the other half to the agriculture
its of cheap labor countries. If it is In
sisted that the rebate of 80 per cent on
imported raw material enables the man
ufacturer to sell his wares cheaper to
the foreigner than to the home con-
Sumer, the loneliness of the system that
permits or requires this does not appear
to the burdened home consumer. He
suspects there must be a coz slipped
somewhere when legislative act of
alleged favoritiSm to home interests re-
suits in the supplying of the articles
made under the tariff &gis to people
outside at less rates. The tax on i'm
ported raw material raises the price of
the similar home article, so that, in the
illustration of the pillow, the cost to the
farmer is the same, regardless of the
nativity of the raw material. Pos
sibly it may be of advantage
to the Minnesota or Dakota farm
er for his plowmaker to sell his
pillow over in Canada at rs cents less
than he has to pay. Some McKinleyite
may be able to persuade him that it is
for his good, even it it does enable the
Canadian farmer to grow his wheat for
less and be able to undersell him or reap
larger profit in the Ieign market. He
may, however, remember that high
functionaries have alleged that cheap
goods make cheap men, and are mean
and nasty. If it is desirable to supply
people with the needfuls of life at small
cost, why should not the citizens of
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota or the Da-
kotas have equal chance with the Can
adam or the less enlightened native of
the lower Americas or Africa? If there
is any demoralizing feature to cheap
ness, OF elevating to high prices. Chris
tian ethics should spare the unfortu-
mates abroad. 1t is probably one of the
effects of protection that the American
at home must pay more for the produc-
lions of his country than when he meets
them in foreign market.