The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1894-07-06
A LETTER TO HILL.
his POLICY OF PROTECTION TO la
Dor Is ENDORSED.
A Lower Rate OF Wages Must Reduce tho
Peoples Purchases-Our Large Consump-
ton When We Were Prosperous-Is tho
Mckinley Tariff High Enough?

ton When We Were ProsperoUs-Is the
Mckinley Tariff High Enough?
Hon. David B. Hill, United States SEN
ator, Washington:
DEAR SIR-At meeting of New York
merchants last March you are reported
as saying, 81 am in favor of tariff high
enough to enable American manufac-
turers to compete with foreigners as far
| as the difference in wages is concerned"
Now, as the cost of any commodity con-
sists mostly of labor, tariff to cover the
actual difference in the cost of produc-
tion--and which undoubtedly you in
tended-is all that any American pro-
tectionist ever asked or desired. But all
true and loyal Americans favor tariff
only that deals out justice to every enter
| prise, wherever located within our coun-
| try.
| Aside from the injustice and selfishness
of local protection, it is financially I'M
wise, for no portion of the country can
be injured without its being felt to a
greater or less degree by the entire ma
ton, and the converse of this is equally
| true.
Mr.. Cleveland's agonizing desire, pro-
claimed by himself without considering
it's impossibility under our high rate of
wages, is to reach out for the "great rich,
| broad markets of the world" He advised,
in one of his messages to congress, the
American manufacturers and farmers to
| turn from our marrow" home market to
the broader markets of the world. He
also seemed totally oblivious of the facts,
as derived from statistics, that this
marrow" market of ours is or was, until
he upset it, the most prosperous, the
wealthiest, the broadcast and the largest
| in the world
He seemed to be ignorant of the fact
| that we consume 20 per cent of all the
| sugar produced in the world, 30 per cent
of all the coffee, 80 per cent Of the cop
per, SO per cent of the lead, 80 per cent
of the cotton, 33 per cent of the rubber,
| 40 per cent of the coal and 80 per cent of
| the tin used in the entire world; that
our railways and canals, until his bane-
| full advent, carried over them as much
| or more traffic than any three of the ma
tons of Europe combined. And this is
| the marrow" market our great presi-
dent and the Democratic party advise
| the American people to forsake and
vainly contend for the "broad, rich mar
kets of the world" only portion of
which we could ever hope to gain and
never could gain until we reduced our
wages to the level of or lower than the
rate paid by our foreign competitors.
But would it be wise to reduce the
rate Of wages, and as "a consequence the
purchasing power of the people, causing
thereby a contraction in the volume of
traffic with all its attendant evils? At
whose expense would such q policy be?
Obviously, as i'll Europe, at the expense
of the workingnan mostly. Not mate
rally the capitalist, who, in any event,
will not risk his capital unless he can
realize a profit, which is and must be
regulated by the wages paid and by open
competition.
You say you arc in favor of tariff
for protection thigh enough to enable
American manufacturers to compete
with foreigners IS far as the difference
in wages is concerned" Then as regards
England the tariff should be as high as
n per cent, which Mr. Harris and Mr..
Carlisle in their report to the senate said
was the difference between English
wages and American, ours being n per
cent greater.
1t is true that an average tariff rate of
II per cent would effectually prevent
importation, but it is equally true that
it would not for any length of time in
crease the price OF single commodity,
Notwithstanding the assertion of Mr..
Cleveland to the contrary, and for two
substantial reasons-first, because home
competition would, as il has always
done and will, regulate prices; second
the less we import the greater we will
manufacture. The cost Of manufacture
decreases as the volume of manufacture
is increased, thereby enabling the man
ufacturer to lower the price of his COM
modify. These are the chief factors that
enter into every industrial enterprise,
and clearly account for the invariable
decline in prices under the protective
policy.
1t was the object of the trainers of the
TO SO regulate the tariff as to make it
"high enough to enable the American
manufacturers to compete with foreign
ers as far as the difference in wages is
concerned"
The interesting question is, Did they
make it high enough to cover the differ
ence as far as wages are concerned? The |
true answer to that question is in the fact |
that even under this tariff-denounced |
by the ignorant as robbery and as uncou-
stitutional-the foreigner was enabled |
up to June 80, 1898, as statistics show,
to rush into our market annually COM
petitive commodities to the vast amount |
of about $500, 100000 and yet the present
is denounced as q high tariff and rob- |
berry. Who is robbed? The working
man, if anybody is, of the employment |
that that vast importation would give
him and our country of the wealth arts.
ing therefrom if manufactured in Amer
lea.
The position you have taken regarding
this question as reported, and particu-