New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-10
SELECTIONS FROM THE NAIL
CLOTHING AND FREE TRADE.
JEWS OF ONE WHO HAS HAD EXPERIENCE ~
BOTH ENGLAND AND AMERICA.

DOlH ENcbhND AMI hMf<idtt'
10 the Editor of The Tribune
Sir II will be conceded by all that by far the
most important industry which would be affected by
tho adoption OF free trade in this country Is the cloth
Ing industry. Having had y great many years eN-
peI1ence in this branch Of commerce. both In England
and America offer your readers this experience ioi
what it Is worth. No intelligent person will dispute
the following statements:
Flrst-That American wOrkmen receive higher
wages than the European workmes.
seccnG-That, capacity being equal lower wages
will produce cheaper article than higher wages.
Thrdr-That free trade nccessitates. or involves a
comparative uniformity Of prices.
Fourth-That uniformity Of prices DecesStates, or
involves, uniformity Of wages
Fifth-That account Of difference IN wages the
English manufacturer can put on the New York market
goods at L. cents yard which the American manu-
facurey could not put for less than Is cents yard
sixth-That free trade would compel the American
manufacturer either TO lower his prices TO the English
level leave the market.
Therefore il inevitably follows that with our adoption
Of free trade American workmen must either accept
the lower Of England consent TO see Amcri-
can mills shut down and English workmen doing the
work.
As we know that high wages and low prices do not
60 together. he Is either ignorant very knavish
who says we can have Englisb prices with American
wages. Free material will not do IT, because Eng
land having the same. should sun have the
question Of lower wages to overcome
Now let consider for moment the broad qnes-
ton Of the relative merits OF Protection, internal
competition, and Free Trade or International
petition 1t Is not fact that rree trade, inerna
aonal competition. would allow the lowest cheapest
produce 10 govern, TO fix the rate Of prices and con-
sequenty the rate Of in all other countries gov
erned by free trade principles And is it meritorious
policy TO allow those who work for the lowest wages
and live the lowest to govern, regulate and fix prices
and wages? These questions well worthy the con
sideration OF the working classes OF this country 1t
Is not protection which causes high wages The truth
is that high wages have been offered in the past to
skilled and unsli1ed hborers nducement TO
come here to develop and open up the resources OF
the country. These HIGH wages caused high prices
Thus We have first high wages. consequently high
prices and necessarily protection. The policy offered
to us by free traders Is first free trade then increased
imports OF goods, then commercial depression. idle
machinery. low wngcs and loaHnC. Which shall we
choose al the next Presidential election
Free frnde Is advocated by some Democrats the
ground that manufacturers making too high profits
by protection: that they are getting rich at the ex
pehse OF the consumer Well, sir. they making
money faster than great many manufacturers in
England made money when trade was good there
Under the individuasc system II is inevitable that
capitalists In all kinds Of business should make money
at The expense 81 the consumer In England II js
the rule for two three individuals 10 take all tho
profits OF firm. In America stock companies are
the RUE. Consequently. profits far more widely
distributed here than in England. The free trade
remedy for this evil is than the disease II the
effects Of free trade could be confined simply TO
IessennS profits il would perhaps he no great evil
But those OF us who have had thirty forty years
experience in labor questions know that when cost
OF production has to be lesscned the workers are in
variably the first victims Does not every worker
above childhood know this? You cannot possibly stab
the manufacturer without fret Tho hoIv
workman. Far better let wages profits and prices
be regulated by internal competition than by interna
tional competition. which is nothing less than interna
tonal commercial warfare with low wages as the only
weapons used
Again. II is urged that it Is unfair to the farmers
or growers Of food to compel them by protection TO
give more for their clothing than they would have TO
give II they were at liberty to buy in the cheapest
market Well. let us examine. The farm workers
here are much above the farm workers In England
the factory workers here above the factory
workers in England. In England the farmer has. as
much to pay in rent per every year rs the
farmer here in great many instances has to pay per
acre for the absolute possession Of his lind. The
Nation gives the farmer his land terms SO
that he can live man and American should
live. The Nation should in the same way give the
producer Of clothing the opportunity Of living decent
life. The American factory worker does not live too
we'll II Is the European worker who lives too badly
The producer Of food here has hight TO bring
down the producer of clothing TO the English level
than the producer Of clothing has TO bring down the
producer Of food to the English level. The American
farmer could not send food TO England IL he did
not get the advantage Of cheap land from the Nation
neither the American factory worker get a decent
living II he does not get the advantage of protection
from the Nation.
The manufacturing population buys literally and
pays literally for its food supply, and there Is not
doubt but that. II necessity arose cost Of living cond
he nv at least A TIL
mean great loss TO the farmers, ten times greater
loss than would be gained by any saving I'm clothing
a tax Nothing Of the sort Ii is simply barrier
raised to prevent the capitalists OF country from
Il tax Is logically to that 1t Is the duty OF the
American producer OF clothing to produce as cheapy
economic condition Of this country enpkaticaly for
bids this. The factory worker here pays more than
England pays four or five times as much for his
amusements and entertainments lie needs a greater
varieties of labor double what similar alorers get In
England. Thus the policeman, letter carrier city
get In England. His rents are high, partly because
the mason, bricklayer, carpenter ETC. get at least
twice as much as similar workers in England.
In fact the entire economic system OF this country
Is built on higher level altogether than In European
than u silly. thOughtlcSs theory, which oUy be
held, or advocated, by ignorant and misguided people
world let rs axe three. The Coolies Qndian and
Chinese,. the Europeans and The American; The
Coolies can and do live on about cents day IN food.
The European laborers live on about 10 cents day
in food and the American labOrers live on abont Il
cents day In food. Now II would not be nigh for
the European workncn who live but badly on 10
cents day. to have 10 compete with the Coolies who
live on cents day Custom, climatic and
physical conditions would make such competition In
tOlerable TO the Europeans. No doubt free trade
would fail. IN England. under those conditions,
because free trade is n doctrine which none but the
lowest cheapest producer afford to adopt. The
same argument applies to comp"uon between America
and the Europeans as between Europeans and the
Coolies We could not live olerabe lives the same
basis as the Europeans This means that we cannot
afford to compete with them In the production OF
clothing.
II Is now and acknowledged by labor leaders
and others that unrestricted European emigration Is
fast becoming evil in this country, but what shall
say OF this proposal OF the Democratic party TO
Increase this evil by larger imports OF goods labor
In form' Can afford 10 take both the surplus
Iatorers and The surplus labor IN the form OF goods
Certainly not We have now prosperity without
dnnhf II does matter whether BY or In spite Of