Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-02-12
IT'S POUND OF FLESH.
THE MkNLEY TARIFF A MEASURE
FoR THE MoNoPoLisT.

public shows that the Mckinley tariff
on iron and steel is not protective but
a monopoly tariff:
The Anne rican Economist is the organ
of the American Protective Tariff league,
More perhaps than any other journal, it
of the prote cted industries, and any con-
cessions it makes are always made with
ample reservations to those industries.
1t is publis hing just now what it calls
Short Tariff Sermons" evidently de-
signed for The use Of the country news
papers as IN elementary statement OF
the case for protection.
! 1t defines protection as that system
of tariff legislation which levies duties
on imports, such as are adequate to es-
tablish and maintain industries, insuring
high wages % laborers. This definition
clearly implies that a protected indus
try is burC en- upon the other and self
supporting industries of the country,
which are taxed to establish and main
tain it. A it is allowed to determine
and dictate the amount of taxes it will
require for is establishment and main
tenance, it is very desirable that we
should ascertain from unquestionable
authority how far a protected industry
is justified il pushing its exactions.
We are glad therefore that The Econ
omist lays down the principle that 1.-The
amount of protection is determined by
the difference between the cost of pro
duction at home and abroad" and that
it makes it plain by the following illus
tration: If because of high wages here
it costs $50 to produce a ton of steel
rails, and because of low wages it costs
only SEQ in England, the steel rails need
duty of 80 ton to keep our mills
open and to protect our own workmen
from low wages"
This is all explicit enough. and it is
gratifying to find that the trainers Of
the Mckinley bill accepted this same
principle unreservedly and professed to
have made 1t the rule by which they ad-
Justed the duties of that bill.
I'VE have recommended no duty"
said they an reporting the bill, "aboye
the point of difference between the nor
NAL cost of production here, including
labor, and the cost of like production in
the countries which seek our markets"
Here then, in sermon and in official
report we have statement of the full
demand of protection. 1t calls for its
own pound of flesh. Whatever it takes
more than this pound is mere torture of
its victims. Ia other words, duty that
covers the difference of the cost of pro-
duction at home and abroad is protec-
ton Whatever duty is less than this,
they say, Is not protection. And what
ever is more than this, we may justly
claim, is sheer bounty and tribute to
monopoly.
Now let US see how they keep faith
with the people, when they arrange
duties for the protection of their favor
ties. Heretofore both lawmakers and
people have been dependent chiefly on
such statements as interested parties
chose to make before congressional COM
mlttees or elsewhere as to the cost of
production and the comparative scale of
wages here and in other countries.
Fortunately for US now the depart
| ment of labor S carefully and methodi-
cally investigating these questions In
| some Of our most important industries,
particularly in the iron and steel and
textile industries. Its sixth annual re-
port is devoted TO an examination Of the
cost of producing iron and steel in this
country and abroad.
Let US first take pig iron. Taking the
average of twenty-six blast furnaces in
the northern dis riot of the United States,
the cost of all elements of production of
run-Of the-mine pig was 1884 per ton;
in twenty-four furnaces in the southern
district it was $l0.7j per ton. In typ
ical furnace on the continent of Europe
it was S1l.03 per ton. The cost of pro-
| ducing pig iron i the south is thus some
what less than upon the continent, and
probably about the same as in England.
In the north it is about So per ton
greater, yet the Mckinley bill fixes the
duty at $6.72 pei ton, which, if we add
s. for ocean freight, insures a protec-
ton to the American producer of So
per ton on his product; whereas, if he
| produces in the south he needs no pro-
lection whatever and if he produces in
the north he needs at most but So per
ton, according to the rule laid down by
both The Economist and Major McKin-
ley and his colleagues
Let us also take The Economists own
illustration-steel rails. The report
finds that the actual cost of making
standard steel rails in several of the
largest establishments in the United
States lis, and has been for some time,
within few cents of S22 per ton at the
works." and that in Great Britain it is a
"sum not varying much from SIS per
ton" Accordingly, making all allow
ances, it says the difference between
the lowest cost OF British steel rails of
sixty pounds to the yard and the lowest
cost of the same grade of rails i'll the
United States is in the vicinity of s. per
ton"
Now, the Mckinley bill, protesting to
recommend no duty above the difference
IN cost of production here and in the
countries that seek our market, puts a
duty of 1894 per ton on steel rails, in