New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-24
EUROPEAN PROTECTION.
A CORRESPONDENT THINKS 40 LESSONS ARE
To BE DRAWN FROM IT

TO BE DRAWN FROM 1T
To- the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: The two letters on PROTECTION in Europe
which have appeared in your issues of the two Sun
days previous to date are certainly Of great inter-
est - students Of the question. II the report
Gently published e the United States Consul Cen
erll at Frankfor; be a'so read in connection with
. them additional food for thought will be supplied
ami some useful information gained.
II IS. however. unfortunate for the value OF
the correspondence as an argument in favor OF Pro-
lection In America that the parallel drawn between
the countries is not fundamentally sound. Prima-
ry. Projection in America is for the benefit of the
workngman. II Is defended always. first.
ablnS the laborer, skilled or otherwise to demand
a higher rate OF wages than he could obtain else
whore Without this argument; the fabric would
soon be thing Of the past. she've,l being ut
tcrly unworthy u attention Second 1t enables
In turn the manufacturer and producer TO demand
a cOrrespondngiy higher price for his goods
product by restricting the competition he has to
meet TO those who obliged to pay the same
rate Of wages himself Third. for revenue
Now let look the European side OF the ques-
tlon. That Protection there enables the working
man TO obtain for his labor than elsewhere Is
VIGOROUSLY not the case. The worker Of 'protec-
tlOnist' Germany and France works longer hours
and receives less than his fellow In England. That
f. enables the manufacturer or producer 10 get
for hts goods product cannot be maintained. as
lnslanced by the prices of goods produced in thos.
countries and sold in all the markets Of the world |
The only point In which II brings Itself in line with |
the American idea is that 1t creates revenue. The |
positions arr entirely opposite and the arguments |
reversed. The tariff mposer OF Europe considers |
revenue first: the Protectonist OF America consd- |
n last No European country would allow IT, |
SIT b. 'prJteced' - the extent that the ques-
ton OF how 10 get rid Of surplus revenue would |
arise The American. on the other hand. is de- |
lighted to see such a condition of affairs. and de-
vises Increased methods OF expenditure rather than
reduced taxation. which is the usual European pro-
cee,ling 1t would seem. therefore. that with con-
dtions 50 Numerically opposed TO each other any I
ground Of sympathy between tire Protec-
tlonists OF the continents does not exist except
that OF revenue raising
Your correspondent TO have idea OF
this and consequently the necessity Of finding
creating one: he discovers the nucleus in
reciprocal treaty between Rumania AMI Germany
regarding the admission OF grain. and the action OF
the French Government In the matter of the wine
growers. develops the idea that the dominant prin
clple Of the European Protectionst is Protection
FOR Reciprocity" and he sees In this cry a bond OF
sympathy both encouraging ana satisfactory. The
endeayor. however To apply the policy 10 the
United States brings at once many difficulties 10
the surface and not the least OF them will be to get
verbal expression Of which involves two contending
principles. Reciprocity must be one of two things. |
either mere political farce and catchword or the
eminent is in position only 10 negotiate reciprocal
treaties through reduced duties 1t Is very clear
that any increase of tariff would meet with popu
lar dlsipproval. 50 the Government cannot well
threaten-t can only coax; The limit of tariff was
reached by Mckinley. and unless extraordinary
condition of affairs should arise. foreign nations
may be certain no further steps protectionward
the result OF policy OF Reciprocity? 1t Is safe 20
with which We are In condition TO enter the mar
kct whether price or necessity OF having Is the
any means include the whole OF our products; there
fore 1t Is reasonable to suppose that articles which
ports are either not wanted or the price asked pre-
cludes purchase 1t may be admNed. think. that
made, and we want, let us say country TO let our
pork In free. what are we to do In return? II we
England II their iron Pennsylvania is heard from;
SO the Government Is in a dilemma But; however;
with Germany. and let's German iron
Included What is the ' result We viii nave to- have
a separate tariff law for Germany and to carry
for France and every other country which desires
This would entail sucn enormous
vite such gigantic frauds that no custom-house
,hinery would be equal to the task imposed on IT
should enter upon any such policy OF Protection
Tor Reciprocity Is the retuctio ad absIrium OF TIE
to avert the inevitable result OF the Mckinley bin &
scheme across the trail but without success. The I
solution of the tariff problem does not lie in Reel,
he Proectionists out Of office for doing what they
elected them to do and unless the general appear,
reat the Tariff Reformers the same way. and an |
,ther disturbance Will be the result The way OUT 4
" the difficulty would to be this: Let what $
must inevitably be done be done at once. and then :
PASS constitutional amendment that no tarin leg,
Station shall be enacted for ten years: Ihls VIII
nabe the people to make up their minds denh,, s
what they do want, at present they seem very
ar at sea
why this astonishing state Of affairs should OBJ
ain In practical America IL not hard TO explain r
Ne have enormous Industrial establishments I
ounded on the principle that values should be held
inflated by esisation. Up to within the Iast Ten
|
lp'e seemed to be in a hopeless minority To-Day
owever. the alternatives and the negatives are very
venly balanced. The scale may up UP anu uoWn
very two years and utterly paralyze business No Y
OPTICIANS Tariff Hesitation and agitation have Il
cached the danger point because OF The terrible .