The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-02-23

the of foreign countries floated
in American bottoms. Wages are higher
in England thnn i'll any country on the con-
tinent. Yet she com pstcs successfully with
them all. Indeed, our high wages indicate
our capacity to manufacture as oheaply as
any country on the globe, because they In
dictate II higher degree OF intelligence. and
il 10 intelligent labor and not cheap labor
that makes production cheap. hut the
slightest reelection must convinca anyone
that the tariff does mot increase n has
nothing to do with sustaining wages. The
effect of the tariff ~ to increase tho price OF
the home product--that il its purpose. III
the price ia not increased certainly tho la
borer can. get no more wages. IN con-
sumner is now obliged to pay more than he
would in u free market. Ordinarily the
commodity passes through the hands of
several middlemsn, whose protit--so much
per enthusiastically increases with the price.
Ii he pays All increased price he demands
his old profit with something additional on
the additional investment so that III every
case the protective tariff takes from the
consumer more than it gives TO this
manufacturer. Now the price of the article
originally with the increase accustomed by
the tariff is in the hands of the manufao-
tuter. What does he do with it? The
price of an article may be resolved into
three elements. a portion goes to pay for
the raw material; a portion to pay interest
on tho capital invested, including wear and
tear of the plant, and the remainder to pay
for wages. You will find by a study of the
census tables that the whole amount paid
for wages in the United Mates in any one
year in all kinds of manufactures il about
one-fourth the value OF all manufactured
products.
Sunset Cox effeotually disposed of the
fallaoy that protection means high wages.
tion that way. Thus, the argument is that
England has free trade and low wages.
The United States has protection and high
wages. Protection means high wages.
Let us go IN. England has q queen and
low wages. The Unitcd States has no
queen and high wages. Queens make high
wages. Ireland has no snakes and low
wages. The United States has snakes and
high wages. Snakes make high wages.
The tariff question has a local feature
that is interesting. 1t illustrates SO we'll
what Frank Hurd called 'the reciprocal
brigandags of the tariff" The local organ
of the friends of tho administration is in
high gles because the house is about to en-
deavor to put wool on the free list. 1t pro-
fesses to see in tho existing duties on wool
q vast benefit to the state. The argument
is that we onght to be in favor of a proteo-
tive tariff. because we get some of the swag.
This argument is not new, but 1t is OF the
class that is usually expressed with bated
breath-insinuated, rather than spoken
like 3 proposition that Il can neither
make nor listen to and retain his s%elf-re-
spect. And yet it is evident the journal
would rather forego this great benefit than
that the democrats should fail to make
what it believes to be a mistake. A duty
which will aevolve upon this club early il
the campaign will be to make an exhaus-
tive and impartial inquiry to as%certaining
just what benefit, if any, any one in this
state derives from the tariff on wool.
But Pm getting away from the days OF
Washington. However, I'm Q coming
back. There is q disposition in some quart
ers to prevail upon the people of thiss state
is the undying friend Of Montana and its
interests, and that it behooves its people to
regard with an eye of vigilant suspicion ths
party of Jefferson to whose craftsmanship
they are indebted for the boon of American
citizenship. These same people would
doubtless assert, and with much truth, that
they are the legitimate successors OF the
old federalist party. One of the very last
%utterances of tho adherents of that party
was the sreeoh of Josiah Quincy before the
house of representative, in the year 1911,
upon the question of the admission into
first state carved out of the territory then
recently acquired, against the persistent
opposition OF his party. 1t was a brilliant eff
fort full of imagery and passionate eclama-
ton. He opposed the bill contending that
tho right of congress to admit new states
luGO tH6 CNlOA SdNe GAciu pOWcE only 10
Greats new states within the then United
States and not in territory that might sub
sequently Be acquired. He asserted that the
compact Of tho constitution had been
broken and WAS called to order for saying
that the New England states would CON
slider it their duty, if the bill passed. to
separate from the INDEPENDENTLY if
they could, forcibly if they must. DO
you suppose. SIR said he. "the people of
the northern and Atlantic states will or
ought to look on with patience and see rep
resentatives and senators from the Red
river and Missouri pouring themselves upon
this and the other floor, managing the CON
Germs of q seaboard 1900 miles at least
from their residence, and having a pre-
ponderanoe in councils. into which consti-
tutionally they could never have been ad-
nitted." Fortunately for us and for this
nation the gentleman's idea of the consti-
tuition prevailed in no department. of the
government. But with such antecedents a
we'll grounded suspicion may easily be en-
tertained that these present profuse pro-
fessions of friendship may possibly ''spring
from a lively sense of favors to oome.n
Shott addresses were also made bv Judge
Clements and s.. K. Davis expressing the
wisdom of entering early upon the cam
paign and a vigorous prosecution of it until
the close.