St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-07-14
IT WORKS Roth WAYS.

IL is one OF the basal objections to the
protective tariff that it weakens the
selfreliance of the persons engaged in
the industries especially favored by it.
1t teaches them that their success is not
to depend Oh their own efforts, their ill.,
duStry, their prudence, their sagacity,
but OH the fav0rS given them by con-
gresS- There are no exceptions to this
law; it works in every field of human
effort. The fondeSt mother knows that
she cannot always carry her babe in
arms and that sometime it must learn
to use its legs for Iocomotion even at
the expense of tumbleS more or less Sc
we're. Every man knows the facilitating
effect of letting his son continue to lean
on him for guidance and that true kind
ness to the boy is to teach him to be
self-reliant at as early an age as posi-
bic. Even the brutes. relieved OF the
disability of sentiment, compel their
young to shift for themselves as soon
as possible.
We are glad to see that our contem-
porary, the Pioneer Press, can see that
this law is imperative in at least one
field and on one class. because it prom
lSes that wider vision which in time
will enable it to see its universal appli-
cation. Just now it finds in the lesson
of the Australian domination of govern
ment for the benefit of the working
men, the wage earnerS, the evils of and
tue distress which has followed the
fruition of the plan, the evils of teach
ing men to be dependent on government
for place or work or wage and OF using
it to promote their employment. We
find clear statement of the truth In its
remark that encouraged by bad prec-
edent to believe that he would be looked
out for in any event, and that occupa-
ton would be made for him when it
could not be found, he lacks in that
most essential quality, self.dependence
and the capacity for self-help."
But what is there in the nature of
things that makes that harmful to work
ingmen which our contemporary has
hitherto, at least, regarded as beneficial
to the employers of these men? If i. is
baleful for the wage-earner to learn to
look to the government to take care of
him, why is it not equally so to the man
ufacturer? If it robs one of the quality
of self-heIp, what is there that renders
the employer exempt from the same in
f1uence? If we look 10 the records of
congress we will find nothing to show
that it has any such effect, while we
Will find much to confirm us in the be-
lief that the effect is the same in both
cases. We will find in the proceedings
before the ways and means committee,
whenever a tariff bill is considered,
representatives of established industries
vehemently asserting that their bust
ness will be destroyed and their work
lngmen be turned adrift if the protec-
ton Is withdrawn, or even diminished.
We saw the quinine men declaring it III
~, and have seen them strengthen I'M
der free competition. We heard the
Irvine men declare that the reduction
made in 80 would ruin them, and we
have seen them blossom out wider than
ever under 1t. We may confidently ex-
pect to see the corridors of congress
thronged this fall with anxious makers
OF woolenS and glass and iron and steel,
pleading with streaming eyes that the
supporting arm of the government be
not taken from them. Does this not
show that these men have been weak
ened. rendered less self-dependent by
the aid they have received? And does
it not show that the law operates the
same on the Australian working man
and the American employer?