The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1892-07-16

The Yankton Press and Dakotan pub
fishes a recent editorial from the GRAPH
Ic on the wire nail tariff and the Castalla
papers reply and adds;
Further comment for the purpose Of
sustaining the position Of the Record
and Republican Is unnecessary. But the
Press q DakOtan desires to ask the
GRAPHIC question. "If the tariff duty
on wire nails enables the home manu-
facturer to pay higher price to his
w0rkmen than he would be able to pay
were the duty removed, then Is !ta duty
which the GRAPHIC would have removedI"
1t must be borne in mind that the Re-
publican doctrine OF protection to home
industries is designed to maintain the
wages OF Workingmen. and not to increase
the profits of manufacturers.
The Press and Dakotan's question is
irrelevant. We merely insisted that the
tariff is tax; this without going into
the question Of Its justice or injustice;
and when the Castalia paper affirmed
that If the tariff on wire nails was re-
moved the English manufacturers would
cut the price and close out our wire
nail makers it admitted that wire nails
were now selling for more than they
would in the absence Of a tariff and con-
seQuently the consumers were taxed to
protect the domestic production. This
was all we wanted. However, to please
the Press and Dakotan we will answer
its question by referring it to to an
article on this page headed "How CLEvE-
LAND Stands. That's where the GRAPH
Ic stands. Could we have the regulating
Of the tariff we would first ascertain the
amount of revenue neeted for an econom-
ical administration of the government
and then would raise it by placing q
tariff on imports coming into competi-
tion with articles manufactured and
products grown in this country, but
placing the lowest duties on the neces-
saries of life and the highest on luxur-
ies-all this regardless of manufacturers
or their employees. The number Of
Democrats who want to rip the whole
tariff system of this country to pieces is
too infinitely small to be considered, but
the number of Democrats-and others
who want the present system Of robbery
of the masses for the benefit Of the few
done away with is-well, they are big
majority. As CLEVELAND said in his
famous tariff message, tariff taxation
must be extensively continued as the
source of the governments income." The
expenses of this government are now so
enormous that tariff based on revenue
purposes must in the very nature OF
things be protective. Such tariff as
herein outlined will afford ample pro-
lection to domestic manufacturers and
enable them to pay the American stan
dard Of wages twice over-if they choose
to do so. But it has been demonstrated
over and over again that high tariff
does not make high wages, In 1883 the
protection to the sugar refneries was re-
duced to St.50 per hundred pounds
this $l.50 was to "maintain the wages of
the workinmen and not to increase the
profits Of tho manufacturer" according
to the Press and Dakotan. Well, three
years before that. III 1880, the forty-nine
refineries reported that the total wages
for refining sugar was IA cents per 100
pounds. They got their labor for moth
ing and made Si.36 from their employees.
In the same Year, 1883, the little gang OF
pig-iron barons i'll Pennsylvania were
donated by this government $6.72 for
every ton OF pig iron they made-and
the total wages they paid per ton in 1880
was s2.46. They got their labor for
nothing. Did they steal the balance of
S4.26 per ton from their employeesf
The Mckinley tariff on ton Of bar iron
is SIS to $40. The labor cost in ton of
bar iron In this country is s4.57. The
labor cost in ton Of bar iron in Eng
land is $2.96. The difference in labor
cost between the two countries is $l.61.
Do the Carnegies steal the difference be-
tween $1.61 and $40 from their en-
ployees. These are samples of all the
highly protective productions SO fur as
relates to wages.