St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-08-28


at no time in our history was it easier
for the wage-earner to support his FAM
lily. The farmer, the mechanic, the day
laborer alike realized the benefit of low
taxation, because it lessened the cost of
food, of clothing. of every article that
cOnduced to his comfort. Our manu-
factories did not languish. The fires
did not go out in our furnaces. The
wheels and splndles were not idle in our
great hives of industry.
The Demand for Labor
was not lessened, nor was its value de-
preciated. The average tariff tax at the
beginning of the civil war in 1861 was
but 10 per cent. To purchase munitions
of war, TO arm and equip soldiers and
meet all of the expenses incident to the
great struggle, required large sums Of
money. Tariff taxes were highly in
creased. Our government was in the
throeS of war, struggling for its exist
ence, aad but little heed was given by
the people to the fact that duties under
the new tariff law were not only highly
protective to manufacturers but burden
some to the people. BY subsequent in
crease by successive Republican con-
crosses the average rate of duties
reach ed AZ per cent.
Where are the statutes imposing the
With but few exceptions swept from
the statute books while the nation was
yet groanng under the burden of enOr-
nous debt. One of the reasons given
at that time for the high protection to
manufacturers was the percentage they
were required to pay out of their earn
ings as war taxes. With the war closed.
Republican congress relieved the
manufacturers from this taxation, and
added to their profits and to the burdens
OF the people by increased duties. l
grant the necessity of repeating these
internal war taxes when the eXigencieS
of war no longer demaned their contin-
uance. But why did not the Republi-
can congress repeal the war taxes-tar-
j ii taXeS-which bore so heavily upon
the farmer, upon the mechanic, upon
the laborer, upon the great mass of our
people Why was not the war TAX re-
duced upon the neceSsarieS Of life?
Why wholly remove the tax upon corpo-
ratiOns and allow it to remain upon the
tools OF the mechanic, the implements
of the farmer, upon the food and cloth
ing of the poor ? Why remove from
the manufacturer the tax of less than
nve per cent, and leave him the power to
FAX the Consumer
AZ, 60, so per cent upon hats.
upon shoes, upon blankets, upon cloth
ing? The protected classes, growing
year by year stronger and more power
fni with the protection afforded them,
demanded of the Fifty-first congress
yet higher duties. The response to this
demand was the passage by Republic
an congress of the Mckinley bill. The
avowed object of this bill was to check
importation. Its purpose SO to increase
the rate of duties, as in many instances
to exclude absolutely foreign goods from
our markets, and thus by cutting off COM
petition, enable the home manufacturer
without let or hindrance to fix the price
OF his wares. In word. the Mckinley
law gave its beneficiarieS a practical
monopoly, and enabled them in fact to
levy all additional tax upon the con-
sumer, to the extent that the duty had
been increased.
1t Is worse the than idle to speak of its
benefits to the American farmer. What
lie demands is both foreign and
home market for the products OF his
farm. 1t is mockery to tell him
he is protected against the corn
and wheat products of the old world.
While he is compelled to sell in the
open markets of the world, he should be
allowed the poor privilege of buying
what his necessities require without
p"g ihS hiSH lllUuCS W IHC pTOl6clSU
classes of his own country. TO the
mechanic and laborer no less than to
the farmer protection has proveda delu-
sion and snare. In no instance has
1t opened up to the farmer Traditional
market for a pound of meat or a buShel
of grain" Has it in single instance
given to the mechanic OF labOrer in
creased wages? The present high tariff
Adds Largely 10 the Cost
of articles necessary to the comfort of
the wage Garner. How has he been
benefited? Has it increased his wages?
Has 1t i'll any manner benefited his con-
dition? Recent events connected with
the most highly protected establish
ments Of this country sadly attest the
fact that high protective tariff affords
no protection TO those who earn their
bread by daily toll. 1t was never in
tended to benefit them. Long enough
has the wage-earner been deluded by
the cry that high tariff means high
wages.
Tariffs have no effects upon wages,
except to diminish their purchasing
power. The higher the tariff the less
the purchasing power of the wages.
Wages are governed by the great law of
supply and demand. If the claim of the
protectiOniSt is well founded, why have
iiOb NoSSo ihNA SeoSus 40 nave III
creased? Why constant reduction of
wages in the most highly protected es-
adjustments in the land?
To the tOiler the Mckinley bill has
"kept the word of promise to the ear,
but broken it to the hope"
In his great speech against the high
tariff corn laws in the British parlia-
ment in 1S43, the matchless orator, Dan
lei O'Connell, said: but what is the
meaning of protection? 1t means an ad-
ditional sixpence for each loaf; that is
the Irish of it. If he had not the pro-
lection the loaf would sell for shilling;
but If he has protection it will sell for
one and siXpence. Protection is the
English for sixpence, and what is more,
1t is the English for an extorted six
pence: The real meaning of protection.
therefore, is robbery robbery of the
poor by the rch.'
Results OF Mckinleyism.
Instead of surplus of little less than
500, 600, GOO left by the Cleveland ad-
ministration, the treasury is now con-
frOpfp6 hU hn g.