Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1893-03-23
HOW DO WE PROTECT?
ONE OF THE DELUsIoNs OF PRO-
LECTION EXPOSED.

When the Manufacturer Is to BE Protect
ed, Tax Is Clapped on the Competing
Article, and the Protected" Laborer
Pays the Extre Price.
Now, Mr.. Chairman, do not believe
that protective tariff could be main
tanned in this country for "a hours if it
were not for two delusions. The first of
the delusions is that it makes things
cheap, and the second is that it protects
labor. say that it does neither.
How do we protect anybody That is
the primary proposition of this whole
controversy. How do we protect an
American, and against whom do we pro-
tect him? We protect him against his
rival, of course-against his foreign COM
petitor. When you want to protect the
American steel manufacturer, what do
you do? You simply levy tax upon the
competing article, which is foreign steel.
When you want to protect the American
woolen manufacturer, you tax foreign
woolens, and so you go on through the
whole list
Now, you will notice that no man can
be protected unless he has competitor,
unless he has rival-in other words,
unless he has something to sell and is
selling it in competition with like articles
or commodities which are the property
of his rival. If, then, by exercising the
taxing power, this competition can be
either lessened or strangled altogether,
protection is accomplished. 1t can be
brought about no other way. There can
be no possible difference Of opinion as to
how this thing works. 1t is not only
plain, but self evident.
To handicap his rival with tax or ex-
pei him altogether is the orthodox way
of protecting the American. But if we
tax foreign hats to protect the American
hat manufacturer, and if we tax foreign
glass to protect the American glass
manufacturer, if in each case when we
wish to protect we never vary the rule,
but uniformly pursue the same course
slap tax on the competing commodity
can any one explain to me why we do
not apply the same rule in the case of
the American laborer?
Above all other men he is to be pro-
tected. This whole system issaid to have
been invented for his exclusive benefit.
He is to be the sole beneficiary of this
benevolent legislation. Then why vary
the rule in this case which you apply in
every other and which works so we'll?
The American laborer can undoubtedly
be protected, because he has commodity
upon the sale of which he depends for a
living. He also has rival, a competitor,
who is selling like commodity in the
same market. May ask what it is the
American laborer sells? Unfortunately
for him, he sells only his laborl He has
absolutely nothing else, and labor is and
always has been upon the free list.
Now, if you want to actually protect
the American laborer, you must be con-
sistent and tax that commodity which
comes in competition with what he sells
viz, the labor Of his foreign rival, the
competing article. But you all know
that no political party can stand for one
day in this country that would advocate
so preposterous proposition. have
sometimes illustrated this question by
citing my own case and will take the
risk of doing so here.
Thirty-fve years ago, when IA years
old, left Germany, my native country,
and landed upon your shores. When /
arrived, was veritable pauper, not hav-
ing money enough to procure q nights
lodging. Immediately became COM
petitor with you in the labor market. I
became a rival. No difference where I
might have gone, whether upon farm,
in a mine or workshop, sold my labor
in competition with yours.
Now, it has often occurred to me when
studying upon this question how easily
you Americans could have protected
yourselves against me. How? Why, by
simply taxing my labor which came into
competition with yours. You had two
ways of protecting yourselves against
me. You could have levied SO high an
immigration tax as to have excluded me
altogether, or after permitting me to
land you could have imposed upon me an
annual tax of say $40 or $50 or $10O.
Then while I would have been compelled
to earn this money, getting it ready, to
hand over to the tax collector, you
Americans could in the meantime have
earned the same amount and appropri-
ated it to your own use. This would
have been protection for you against
me. But you permitted me to land, and
you have not taxed me, and you ought
to know by this time that if you allow a
Dutchman to come in among you he will
not only make living, but get rich
where a white man would starve. Hon.
Frederick E. Whites Speech in Congress