New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1892-05-25


eIling process which attends constant
operation and competi tion, be able to
pay these high wages, and at the same
time, furnish goods cheaper than ever be-
| fore and cheaper than they would benoW
if we were producing them in this coun-
| try. If such has been the result / sub
| NIT that such laws have been for the
benefit of the $4,000, 900 people, which
include both the laboring men and our
manufacture / assert again that such
has been the case in every instance with
in my knowledge for the last thirty
years.
The Mckinley bill raised the duty on
linen fabrics, plush goods and tin plate.
Here are three articles which can be tax
en- as test. Give our manufacturers a
little time, say two or three years, from
the time when that law went into effect
and see whether. we do not chaapen the
price of every one of those articles for
the consumers of the United States. IL
we do this submit to Mr.. Campbell
that the result will show that the law is
for the benefit of all the people and not
merely for the few. | know very we'll
the Free Trade theory is that no such
thing can take place. But suppose it
actually does take place. What then
will become Of the theory?
The second question in this letter is
of precisely the same import as the first.
It contains the same assumption that the
tariff laws compel a man to pay more
for goods than he would be compelled
to pay if there were no such laws. This
much may be true. Mr.. Campbell may
be able to go to London and buy a ton
of steel rails for less money than he can
buy the same rails for in the United
States to-day. That fact does not settle
this question at all.
| well remember when no railroad IL
on was made in the United States. | al
SO remember the prediction made when
the duty was levied on railroad iron and
the industry was started in this country.
We were told that the enactment of such
a lawwould increase the price Of railroad
iron and would ruin the building of rail-
roads in this country. Theoretically,
that seemed to be true. Practically no
statement could have been made that
would have been farther from the truth.
From that day down to the present time
the price of railroad iron and steel rails
has been constantly reduced, and we
have built more railroads than all the
rest of the world combined
But, Mr.. Campbell will say, whatright
has the Government to compel me to pay
$50 ton to-day for steel rails, when I
l can buy them in London for $22 and
land them in New York for $25 or $26,
freight paid? Sure enough. The duty
was levied IN the first place toenable our
people to produce railraid iron and pay
our high wages for work. The result, is
that an enormous industry has been built
up in this country. We are now produc-
ing all the steel rails needed in the Uni
ted States. Competition has reduced
them to as low point as they can be
produced and pay our high wages for
men who work in that industry. The
price has been driven down not only in
this country, but all over the world.
England can produce them to-day cheap
er than we can SO long as she pays for
the work which enters into them less
than half what is paid in the United
States. What then? Would you re-
move the duty and permit England's
cheaper rails to ruin that industry in this
country? England could no doubt, in a
short time shut up our furnaces. She
certainly could unless we reduced the
pay of our workmen to level with the
wages paid in England. The moment
England had succeeded in shutting up
our factories, however, our enorm Gus sup
ply would be cut off; and then the Eng
lish makers would put the price of rails
UP even higher than it is now. They
would keep the price there until, our
people should try to make them again
and meanwhile we would be at the mer-
cy Of the foreign manufacturer.
But, says the Free Trader, as long as
England can produce rails cheaper than
we can, let her people produce them and
let our men who work at that business
do something else: Very well, what else
would you have them do? What indus
|