The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1892-09-03
What the Tariff Is.
OUR MANUFACTURERS ADVANTAGES.

OUR MANUFACTURING ADVANTAGES.
q. But taking the bulk of our pro.
tected manufactures, could we ex-
pect to have similar success to what
we have had with the single article
of quinine? Would not the cheap
capital and cheap labor of European
competitors enable them 10 crush out
our manufacturers?
A. No. The abundance Of raw ma
terials and their proximity to one
another in the same localities; our
natural gas; our cheap railroad rates
our greater cheapness of good food
and, more than all, perhaps, the
great superiority Of our workmen in
intelligence, manual skill and man
agement of machinery, would more
than counterbalance the European
advantage of cheap capital and la
Dor. Besides, while wages are lower
in Europe than here, labor is more
productive here than in Europe. Ten
hands in Massachusetts wooden
mill will turn out as much cloth in
a year, as fourteen hands in an Eng
lish and fifteen in German mill
so that while the rate of wages is
lower in Europe, the product of labor
in many industries is cheaper in this
country.
WHAT PROTECTION HAS DONE
q Has not protection very largely
developed our manufactures?
A. Yes-certain ones.
@. What ones?
A. The protected ones-those fol-
lowed in the Northeastern section of
the Union.
q. Is not this something to its
credit
A. 1t might be, lift were not brought
about at the cost of other interests.
But the great development Of favor
ed manufacturers in the Northeast
has been dearly purchased, for it has
been attended by the hnmiliating de-
cline of our once tlourishing shipping
on the Atlantic coast, and the ser.
ious depression of our agriculture in
the West.
q. Has not the aggregate of our
farm products largely increased I'M
der the protective policy, and is it
not still increasing
A. Yes-But not on account of
protection; it is due to the settlement
Of new land in the West. Our farm
products would show still larger
Increase, but for the burdens which
protection lays upon farmers.
THE FARMERS HOME MARKET.
G. Is not the protective policy
benefit to farmers in furnishing them
A home market for their crops?
A. What do YOU mean? How does
The protective policy furnish farmers
with market which they would not
have without it?
z. Is not nine tenths of the farm
produce of the country consumed
here?
A. Yes; but what of that?
q. Is it not something to the cred
t OF the protective policy that it fur
lishes our farmers with home mar
1et tor so large proportion of their
:rops?
A. The protective policy does not
furnish this home market to our
farmers.
q But the two co exist together.
Dur farmers have this home market
Ior nine-tenths OF their produce, un-
Ter the protective policy: and the
protectionists claim one as the result
IF the other
A. The claim is not reasonable
Dur farmers would have the home
market under any policy, protection
Dr. free trade. Ii all protective du-1
lies were abolished entirely, it would
not impair the home market for farm
produce particle Farmers would
to sell as much Of their pro-
luce here, as they sell now. The
population of. the country, some "a,
100000, must be fed, protection or
40 protection, and our unprotected
farmers supply it with food, simply
because they can do it cheaper than
the farmers of any other country
could. The difference between our
farmers and our well
protected manufacturers in the home
market business is this; the farmers
the home market for farm
produce by underselling the rest of
Lhe world-the latter secure home
market for their manufactures at
Sl.50 for ST. worth, through tariff
which levies 80 cents on every ST.
worth OF foreign manufacturers
brought here for sale. The protec-
ted manufacturer has the aid of the
government in forcing the people to
pay for his goods one half more than
they are worthwhile the unprotec-
ted farmer has no such aid from the
government, and must sell his pro-
1uce for what it will bring.
O. Does not protection benefit the
farmer by drawing persons away
from agriculture. and encouraging
hem to 60 into manufacturing?
A. No: and even if it did have
this effect, the would be paying ten
prices for it, The protective policy
costs every farmers family in the
country $50 year-and this is a
pretty high price for him to give to
induce some person to embark in
manufacturing instead of farming.
@. Would not cheap goods bring
cheap wages, and thereby degrade
our laboring classes?
A. They would not.
@. The protectionists assert that
they would.
A. Yes; but one of the most con-
,picuous protectionists in the coun-
try. Hon. VIM. Mckinley, of Ohio,
author CT the new tariff bill, conclu-
sively answers the argument, without
to, in his speech in the
House in support Of his bill, on the
7th of May, 1890. He shows that the
prices of American carpets have
more than one half in the
asst eighteen years-body Brussels
rom so yard to SO cents; tapestry
Brussels from $l.46 a yard to 60
cents; and ingram from $1.20 a yard
20 45 cents; and other manufactures
, n M HOO, - .,.x, ,1a-l,, ov1