New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-28

9th ava Nearest L. Road stations sihayc Park Place
'''''e' at Barclay.st 3d-a'e. at Brooklyn Bridge.
poses freerade tariff and further that from such
ar none OF the advantages Of the protective system
can possibly follow. Is not that statement also trnc
VIII now turn my attention TO the statements In
Mr. Grohs letter and will begin with the second ques
ton leaving the first for the closing of this article
The first part of the second question as follows
" Whle claiming by protective tariff TO have
cheapened the price Of steel rails glassware crockery
carpets ETC.. why do PrOectonists ask, Mckinley like
IN the same BREATH for Increase of tariff on these
same articles, TO compensate them for greater decline
of price in frec.trade England"
Ny answer is that the duty in the Mckinley bill on
steel rails and lao other articles is decreased
and not increased, and that where increased 1t is
done for the purpose compromising Proecuonsts
or one else for the decline Of prices in the Old
World; but in every instance it is increased for the
purpose Of enabling manufacturers to carry
their business without loss and continue to paw the
larger wages prevalent in this country. There not
an instance, 60 far am aware. Of an increase of
duty in the Mckinley bill where such increase not
made simply to foster and build up the manufacture OF
that article In this countryfor the simple purpose Of
protecting that industry.
Pray Of what would tariff for the purpose OF
protection be if it were not high enough to protect
We have no power to determine at what starvation
point the foreign manufacturer shall compel his work
men 70 ton, but we nave the power 10 prevent MN
from driving the wages of own workmen down to
anywhere near the same point SO, wherever 1t was
found that the tariff formerly levied article had
not been sufficient to protect workers In that par
tcuar industry then It was increased simply ana solely
enable our producers to keep control of our markets,
to insure good wages. and to enable our factories to be
run continuously 50 as to cheaper the cost Of produc
ton.
DECLINE OF PRICES ABROAD.
ais mott the club asks. the very asking of an In
creased rate of protective duty on an article con
esson that its price has declined more rapidly outside
than inside our protected borders :" 1t 1t may
not be such an admission but whether it IS or not,
what has that 20 do with this question What Pro
tectonist claimed that The building up OF our
home industries did not also cheaper the product
abroadY ! assuredly made such claim.
OF course the establishing Of large industry In the
United states and the production large scale OF
any article Of merchandise viii increase the supply, and
the tendency will be TO drive down the price of that
article all over the world. No doubt steel rails have
been produced in England cheaper and cheaper, the
same as they have I'm The United states We soon TOOK
advantage Of all their Improvements. They soon TOOK
advantage Of all our inventions. Ana hereafter Just
50 long as they pay only onehaf much for labor as
we pay no doubt they will constantly reduce thcir
price Of production, the same AS we do ours Hu'
what has that to do with the question! The real thlng
that must be decided is this what would have been
the price Of steel rails. not alone In the United states
bnt all over the world. II had never established
the industry in this country and had never made the
large quantities produce here at home!
assert that the history Of the productions OF onf
country demonstrates beyond all power of contradiction
that In there had been no supply here there "oHo
never have been any such decline in prices anS"ee'
If this is not the case will the Boston question Nlo
tell me why tin-plate has not been cheapehed WIN"
the last twenty years here in the United states the
..phf r,r IA
cheapenedl The part OF tinplac which Is pro'ecten
bv our tariff is the 90 per cent Of that article when j.
iron or steel II free trade in any article would ead
TO the establishment Of an industry, WHY nave we no'
been making our tin plate for the last twenty
wears? And IT, on the other hand protection does not
lead TO the establishment Of an industry, WHY Is II
that the passage of the Mckinley bill has ALREADY
e,art.s so many companies into existence which are
now preparing TO Manufacture those goods III 'h''
country -, T.,
Dare the Boston Question Club accept the result III
this one industry as test Of its freetrade theories ~
against the protective system IL the doctrines OF us
free trade members are true. un-pate from TINS on
will be continually dearer to the consumers III INC
United states. II the protective doctrine Is uue' uc"
when these industries are once fuly eS"pi9heu my
Will increase the supply improve the methods Oh manu-
tacpre dispense with the large commissions paid "
the middle men, and in the end VIII cheaper "hPiA"
90 tho ultimate consumers OF this country an 'cuu'
now and willing 10 accept the result In TINS case aS
test of the tr7lthfuness Of my position ilHHo WI"
soon show which theory Is the correct one Dare TIC
Free Trade Question Club Of Boston accept so simple
solution of this question
ask again, who claimed that the result OF
hu,ldluc M an industry, and cheapcnng the arcie
in thIs country has not resulted IN its also being
cheapeuci abroad That, Of course, IS always
the result The moment YOU take away the
markets Of this country you create a gut IN
tlc Old World, and YOU may drive down 'lo
md
anen he the case that the cheapening of the article
ho or there would never have occurred had the IN
~ meyer been built up here. So. II we should per
NIT our industries be crippled and finally ruined the
supply would be less, and the price "Ond ashh
All over the world. The simple law OF supply anu
demand other things being equal. wonld produce .h'
result England may always undefsell us IN p1cc Iu7'
a. long rs She gets labor for onehalf the price We
nav for Ours, Hence it becomes "A simple question OF
the wages of the workngnen. What says the b"'oh
cuetion Cubg Are wages better in this country thah
tley are I'm freetrade England3 DO yon Nile'e III
l,jnc so AS TO keep good wages In tl, country, OF
not!
DIRECT ACTION AND BACK ACTION
yonr third ouestion starts out: Has not the direct
o, intent and effect Of tariff protection from Icing
derold generally been TO Increase the price OF thoe
nrotoctlve articles p No. far from H. or course INC
intent IS to prevent foreigners from uhoef7eips w ~
o,r ovn markets. and that has seldom ever ieau'eu "
AN increase either primarily or sccohdaiy' III '"o pm
of protected goods. But even should an increase '""e
Mace in the price for short season, while our manu-
facturers are getting the business In hand that VIII very
.oon he made I'D ly the decrease in price which UNI
.rm,v follows Hence the only question OF importance
= ,ether our system results In permanent educ'loh
Of prices 49,, ., ,,.o
Az 10 the second part of this third question: nave
M, the slightest idea what 1t means am not poe'eu
IN tbo great doctrines OF actions and reactions, kho"
nothing of the laws that govern double ana tweu rccA
action or back action, and 90 mol AT present popUo "
80, .hot suhioct ! did not know. until your letter
,,od IL that reaction Is the child OF action All thl7
..0rr rrntonnd hnt Il Is entirely too deep for me