The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-10-19
DOES THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF
CHEAPEN LIVING?

The protective tariff Is subject which
has produced so much discussion, so
much contrariety of statement. and so
many confusing announcements that the
average voter is as much puzzled over it
as the French Of a hundred years back
were over the veto. M. Theirs tells us:
"They summed up all in the short and
expeditions term veto. They approved or
disapproved the veto. and this signifed
that they wished or did not wish for
tyranny. The populace. without even I'M
derstanding this, took the veto for a tax
which ought to be abolished or an enemy
that ought to be hung, and were eager to
consign him to lamppost Two coun-
trymen were talking Of the veto. 'Dost
thou know said one of them, what the
veto is?' No, not l. We'll thou hast
thy basin full Of soup. The King says to
thee: Spill thy SOUP and thou art
forced to spill it.
When the people hear Mr.. Mckinley say
ing that the foreigner pays the duty collec-
ted at New York from a New York mer-
chant which is Immediately added by
him to the price Of the goods as he sells
them TO the American consumer; when
they hear rich manufacturers who are
making enormous profits annually from
the price at which he sells his goods
because the protective tariff keeps
cheap European goods from competing
with his-when they hear him. we say.
declare that the protective tariff is kept
In force to secure good wages to work
ingmen. the people get as badly confused
as the French were over their veto.
There are some leading facts, however,
that cannot be kept from the people, and
they will do their own thinking in con-
nection with these.
For instance: A manufacturer OF steel
rails will tell you that by reason Of the
protective duty he Is able to manufac-
ture and sell rails at price that justi-
fies him In employing one thousand ope-
ratives and paying them wages that en-
able their families TO live in far greater
comfort than they could possibly live in
IL there were no protective tariff TO JUS
tify him in paying these high wages.
Therefore. says the manufacturer, see
cluded in the families OF these one thou
sand operatives are benefited by the pro-
tective tariff. There is one side of the
case. But perfectly proper answer to
make to this manufacturer is this: II
you are benevolent man--truly an
altruist-you will no doubt share the pro-
fits which the tariff enables you to make
with your workmen. thus giving to them
exceptionally high wages But the manu-
facturer generally is no altruist. In the
main, ne takes from his business all he
can make and gets his labor at the low
est point that labor competition will bring
II TO him. AS general rule. therefore.
1t Is the employer who win reap the whole
harvest Of protection. leaving the en-
ploye to get no more than what will
come TO him by reason OF the demand for
labor.
We will, however, allow the manufac-
turer all that he claims on this head
and suppose thai he generously divides
his profits with his workmen. The case
will then stand thus: BY reason of the
protective duty the railroads have to pay
much more for their rails and for every
thing else that goes to the construction
OF the road than they would have to pay
II there was no protective duty. This
very greatly increases the cost Of con-
structing the railroad. and makes It
necessary for the railroads to charge
the public much more for the transporta-