The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1892-10-13

q monopoly of free labor in this coun-
try? Ard is it not the nature of mo-
nOpoly to put up pricesp Yes, we an
swer; it will increase the rate of wages.
Hence the American workingman is
made happy by the protective tariff.
''If yes, does ii not cost the manufac-
| turer more TO secure his labor?
Indeed it would.
"Is there any element of cost enter
ing into manufactured goods, except ma
| terial and labor?
Yes; some others among which are
notably buildings and machinery nei-
ther of which Is material or labor.
'1f the material cost more under a
| protective tariff, and if the labor costs
more under protective tariff, how can the
manufacturer be benefited unless he sell
the goods at higher price,"
"How can the Americ IN manufact-
urer be oeneatted!" It is not the dt-
sign Of the tariff to benefit" the man
ufacturer: it has a higher aim than
that. Its pul pose is to plant, maintain
and build up the inch of industry in
which he is engs Our tariff law is
not, as Democri ., generally assert, a
species of class legislation. playing in
the hands of a few wealthy in
dividuals calling themselves "man-
ufacturers;" but wise police regula-
tion for the protection of great public
interest.
But what does the Times mean by
the use of the wOId "higher" in this
question? Higher" than what? If
he has reference to former American
prices prior to the Inauguration of the
tariff system, then we confess our in
ability to give him an answer owing to
the i'll defined nat ure of the object with
which the comparison is drawn; but if
British prices be the thing which he
has in mind, that is, British prices es-
tablished in American markets by the
operation of free trade, then our an
swer is easy; and is this: He would
certainly have to sell his manufactures
higher in order to carry on his bus
mess.
Z "If the manufacturer sells the goods
at higher price, who pays the higher
price"
The party who buys them, Of course.
8 "New, one "more general question:
Can anyone explain a system that pro-
poses, by taxation, to make goods dearer
for the manufacturer and cheaper for the
conSumer-tO make raw material higher
priced to the farmer who sells, and lower
priced to the manufacturer who buys and
all these conditions be operative at the
same time?'
Our answer to this question must Of
course be, no. If it had been based
logically, (as it pretended 10 be) upon
the seven p preceding questions, (Which,
by the way, are quite sensible it might
perhaps have been susceptible of an
answer. 1t is unanswerable simply
because it is absurd. Before Newton
told the people that the earth revolved
around the sun, it was generally be.
lieved among the ignorant that the re-
verse was true, that the sun went
around the earth. When this new
doctrine had raised rumpus in the
community, one Of the oldtimeIs came
to the great philosopher and said;
l "Sir, do you mean to say that the
sun is stationary .~.
"Yes," was the reply.
2 "And that it does not revolVe
around the earth as center?"
yes" e
3 ado you mean to say that the
earth Is not stationary, and that 1t re-
wolves around the sun as center?,'%
"Yes."
4 "Now, Sir, one general question"
continued the oldtimer, "snd l have
done with you: Can anyone explain
how the sun can be in motion and sta
tionary at the same time; how the
earth can be in motion and stationary
at the same time; how the earth can
revolve around the sun, and the sun
around the earth at the same time p
And Newton said, "No, Sir" So the
interview ended without profit to eli.
ther party.
Now the difficulty with this oldtimer
was the simple fact that he was we'd
ded indissolubly to his old foolish no
tions about the movements Of the
heavenly bodies. He would not accept
Newton's new theory of the solar sys-
tenn, because it could not be reconciled
with what he had previously learned
upon the subject In the old Pythago.
rean school. He wanted Newton to
harmonic his new system with. the
absurd notions Of astronomy that had
been handed down from the fathers;
which Of course could not be done.
So this eighth question ls. in effect,
simply asking Us to show the possible
ity Of harmonious action between the
doctrines Of protection and the silly
dogmas Of free trade, conceding them
ali to be brought into simultaneous
activity; it cannot be done.
We will. however conceds all the
ground that the Times editor desires
to make by his first seven interrogatO-
ries. What then9 Why, manifestly
we have just this state Of things:
1 The American manufacturer, as
against ail the outside world, has a
monopoly OF the manufacturing indus
try In America.
Q The importation OF farm products
being prohibited, the American farm
or has q monopoly of .the farming in-
dustry In America.
3 The importation Of the results OF
the oppressed. ILL paid labor of the Old
World being prohibited, the American
laborer has a monopoly of the labor in
terest in this country.
And Is this not all just Is it should
beY Let the Times editor answer.
Now 1t Is the nature OF monopoly to
raise prices, hence under the tariff, the
farmer may expect, even in the ab.
sense OF experiment, .better prices for
his produce; likewise the workingman.
for his labor; and the manufacturer
for bis manufactures.
But the Times editor cannot see any
advantage in this state Of things. We
will endeayor to aid bis perceptions s.
FTst. take principle as 3 foundation
TO build upon. There sfe manIfeatly
two ways 10 which the nscossaxiss Of
lie naay be brought within ths reach
os the consumer. ] By reducing he