The Columbus journal., 1894-06-20
A LETTER TO HILL.
HIS POLICY OF PROTECTION TO IA
BoR is INOoRSED.

A Lower Rate OF Wages Must Reduce thu
Peoples Purchases Large Consump
tion When We Were Prosperous-Is tn
Mckinley Tariff High Enough:
Hon. David B. Hill, United States Sen
ator, Washington:
DEAR SR-At meeting of New Yorl
merchants last March you are reported
as saying, Il am in favor of tariff higl
enough to enable American manufac
turers to compete with foreigners as ia,
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 un-
wise, for no portion of the country can
be injured without its being felt to q
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
its 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
narrow" market Of ours is or was, until
he upset it. the most prosperous, the
wealthiest, the broadest 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, 80 per cent
of all the coffee, 50 per cent of the cop
per, 33 per cent Of the lead, 35 per cent
Of the cotton, 33 per cent of the rubber,
20 per cent of the coal and so per cent of
the tin used i'll 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
tions 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 a 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 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 a policy be:
Obviously, as in Europe, at the expense
of the workingman mostly. Not mate
rally the capitalist, who, in any event,
will not risk his capital unless he can
realize profit, which is and must be
regulated by the wages paid and by open
competition.
You say you are in favor of tariff
for protection ''high enough to enable
American manufacturers to compete
with foreigners as far as the difference
in wages is concerned" Then as regards
England the tariff should be as high as
u 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 - per
cent greater.
1t is true that an average tariff rate of
q 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 it has always
done and will, regulate prices; second,
the less we import the greater we will
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 eccount for the invariable |
decline in prices under the protective |
policy.
1t was the object of the trainers Of the |
present law, as was generally supposed,
to SO regulate the tariff as to make it |
''high enough to enable the American
to compete with foreign
ers as far as the difference in wages is
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 uncon-
stitutional-the foreigner was enabled
up to June so, 1898, as statistics show,
to rush into our market annually COM
petitive commodities to the vast amount
IF about $4OO, 900, 900, and yet the present
Is denounced as high tariff and q rob-
oery. Who is robbed? The working
nan, if anybody is, of the employment
hat that vast importation would give
1im and our country of the wealth aris-
ng therefrom if manufactured in Amer
ca.
The position you have taken regarding
his question as reported, and particu-
arly as regards the income tax, must
meet with the approval of every man
Who is possessed Of sound reasoning
}ower regardless of party affiliations.
The people will owe debt Of gratitude
% the man who can claim that he de-
eated such a measure as the Wilson
ill, which undoubtedly would bring
lpon the country disaster and ruin.
Very truly yours. W. S. MANNING.
Why Not Sold?
Lost Straved Or StOlen-The funda-