New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-16


keep them higher than they were abroad when
we started the industry, or higher than they
would be if we had never started it, In large
number Of instances we are producing and selling
protected goods cheaper than they are selling them
abroad al this time In large number Of in
stances, our prices higher than they abroad.
We propose 10 keep them higher whenever they
cannot be cheapened without reducing The wages
| OF the people who do the work In other words,
we propose TO keep the price Of all products OF
the United States at such point a. Will AFFORD
our operatives living wages. Whenever the Ola
World will pay the men who do their WORK rs
much per day as we do ours, then will talk
to them about free trade No Protcctionst pro-
poses that this result shall he brought abont Ivy
reducing our working people to a level with theirs
We will he delighted 10 have their labor go mp.
WE ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO HAVE OURS
GO DOWN. Any system which makes cheap men
and cheap women is wi ed indeed.
WHEN IUrI- ARE PAID BACK.
G. The clause in tie Mckinley bill refunding
duties paid on raw material when the finished
product is shipped abroad is simply to enable our
manufacturers, if possible, to compete in foreign
markets where labor is cheap. The protective
tariff il primarily to secure markets Tor our
own people. Rut if our manufacturers can supply
the low wages in any foreign market we refund
the duty 80 as to enable them Ia do it.
The duty is placed on articles coming into this
country to help our own people in our own mar
kcts 1t is refunded in foreign markets also to
aid own people. In both instances the pnr-
pose is TO aid the people of the United States as
against the rest of the world. Is that wicked?
Does Mr. Groh think that it is wicked?
His whole confusion arises in this business
simply because he fails 10 comprehend the doctrine
of Protection. He pcrsist.'ntly refuses to make
a distinction between the price 10 which articles
are driven by American competition and the
price that would have prevailed had there been
no such competition. Until he can sec this dis
tinction il is useless to continue the argument
with him.
DO TRY AND UNDERSTAND TH1Si
T. The duty on sugar repealed because IL
simply turned out to be a frce-tradc duty II in
creased the price of sugar and that increase came
out Of the consumers. The Protectionists repealed
that duty for precisely that reason and for the
same reason the Free tradcrs voted scdly against
it. bounty placed on sugar to bulid up
that industry, il possible, so as to produce our
own supply largely in the United States. II is
much better for the laboring people OF the coun
try that bounty should be paid on what little
burlencd with a tax on all the sugar consumed
A DUTY LEVIED on THE FREE TRADE PLAN
Is A TAN A duty levied on the protective plan
always results in chcapening manufactured goods
and as rule is paid by people who seek 10 get
into our markets Until this correspondent can
learn 10 make a distinction between frce-trahe
tariff Ia tariff for revenue only and protective
tariff it is useless for 10 even attempt W hcP
him out Of his difficulties His whole ie''er iS
simply bundle Of theorizing lie forrts that
this tariff question is one of markets. wages ana
constant employment. II is not a question OF
theories lie il worrying all the while about the
logic of the books | am made more and more
secure in nv position every day by The logc OF
events. II he will spend six months care,"'N
investigating results, stop boihering his head about
what he thinks must take place. and try and learn
what has taken place, it will cure HIM OF HIS
whole frce-tra deluson. and he will ie ionnd
working 10 build up his own country Az icasV
I should hope that such would be the result
r q iIORR.