New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-27
thew have failed to fathom the Mugwump con-
science and creed.
,ur w1GEEARyERs ISSUE.

Il II
Tho stool, argument of the Democratic can
vass in Rhode Island turned upon wages under
tbe Mckinley act. Ex-Governor Campbell went
about the State declaring that not one WORKING
man in the country was earning hishef M"se'
on account Of the passage OF that act. rom
every Democratic platform during the caH'''s
the same assertion was made. 1t VIII be repeated
I'm every State during the next TOUR moh'hs'
II will be the Democratic plan OF campaign 10
create n popnlar impression that Protection has
made the rich manufacturer richer ana the poor
wOrkingman poorer.
The argument fell fat in Rhode Island, where
worlSmen in foundries and factories knew that
their wages were 100 per cent higher than the
earnings of similar classes of labor abroad mel
they were asked to believe that Protection had
not affected the rate of wages in New-Eneiand'
they listened incredulously. The election III that
State was carried by wagc-earners, who were
convinced that their own welfare and prosperity
denended upon the maintenance of the Repub-
lean tariff system The result of the Presi-
Dental election will be determined in large part
Inv the action of the wage earners OF the country
rhey have the same choice between parties "hicf
the Rhode Island workers in factory machine
shop and quarry inteIlgently made
What has the Democratic party to oiler 10
waee-carners a tariff for revenue only-a
tariff which will not protect any industry IN inc
country. Neither Ex-Governor Campbell nor
anv other Democratic orator during this canvass
will venture 70 assert that the rate OF wages can
he raised or even maintained by such tariff. II
tbe industries are to be kept alive under such "a
tariff wages must inevitably be reduced 80
plain il this conclusion that the Chicago Conven-
tion in adopting its tariff plank has deliberately
struck out the resolutions reported by the MAORI
tv Of the committee referring to the difference
between the cost of labor here and labor abroad
~ measuring the benefit which it receives from
Protection That is logical. A party which
procams its preference for tariff for revenue
only cannot affect to have any regard for the IN
terests of wage-earners. IL must leave them 10
their fate-to that levelling process by which
their earnings will be scaled down to the plane
of cheap labor abroad.
What have wage-earners to expect from u
party which has eliminated from its platform
every expression of interest and concern in their
welfare? Nothing, surely. A tariff from
revenue only will abandon them to merclle's
competition from wagc-earners abroad. Under
paid labor in Europe is the under dog for
which the Democracy is fighting. That party
is indifferent to the advantage of 100 per cent
which American workers now have over labor
abroad 1t repudiates the idea that such an adj
vantage is worthy Of consideration when the
question Of protection of home industries Is
raised. A low tariff for revenue only is what
it is bent upon having, even if social revolu-
ton is brought about in America by wholesale
reductions of wages.