The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1894-01-11
Wages and A Protective Tariff.

Wages and Protective Tariff.
+" H. Editor ofThe tiepubican.
My sole and simple apology for
burning midnight oil over these ar
ticles is because IL great many peo-
pie will persist in misunderstanding
the Tariff question.
Some of our local editors, other
wise entirely rational, are all upside
down when they attempt to monkey
with a Protective Tariff. They
don't seem to understand the hang
of it and always would explain it
wrong, and my purpose is to set
them right. l know about it, for
I've been there.
l have worked by the day under
the Walker tariff and l know what
sort of wages we got in the palmy
DAYS "befo' de wah." | know what
wages have been slGce the war un.
der what is termed a Protective
Tariff, for ! have been there alss
and when the New York World,
supplemented by the Mountain
Democrat, undertakes to tell me
that Protection does not protect and
that on an average wages are higher
without it, am not going to be-
ieve it because l know better
Under the Tariff of 1916 the
wages on public works, that|is, on
the county roads and bridges, was
81 cents per day, and the general
wages on farm when you worked
about IA hours in the summer time
was so cents per day and board and
in the winter, if a hand got work at
at all, it was 373 cents aud board.
Now these are facts which may be
verified by asking any man So to 60
years old who has ever been wage
worker.
But just as soon as the Morrill,
Tariff WAS enacted in 1861 there
was II change and there has been at
no time since the war a scale of
wages ANYTHING near as low as it
was before, and there has been a
gradual increase ever since until
Jhe climax was reached in 1892 IN
der the Mckinley Tariff.
While under the Walker Tariff,
as | have said, wages were only
about half the present rate, every
manufa otured article was double OF
more than double the prices Of to-
day.
Dry goods of ali kinds were
double; cahc0s and brown mushns
sold at 12@ to 1G cents per yard;
nails sold at s to 10 cents per h.
Things m proportion. I Know, fol
| was there.
The editor of the World don't
know for he was not in it then, be.
ing an alien, resident of a foreign
country. The editor Of the Demo-
cr0t don't know for he was yery
Young and don't remember.
Now If a Protective Tariff has
not had a tendency to increase
wages how can the fact be explained
that as soon as we adopted such a
Tariff wages were increased and
have been double what they are in
Free Trade England, and double
what they were before we had such
Il tariff?
But, says the World, and but, re-
echoes the Democrat, "Iabor is not
protected; there is no duty on labor
the cheap labor of Europe comes
here untaxed and completes with
American labor"
Yes, but when they come here
they don't work any more for the
same wages they got in the old
country-they Immediately begin to
work for American wages-and be-
sides, if 1T were not for the Pro-
tectlve Tariff they could compete
with American labor without com
ing here at all. They could do it
Just as etfectually in Germany,
Italy, France or England, only for
the duty which their products must
pay on entering our ports.
Again, say the misinformed, Pro-
lection has nothing to do with it.
Wages are higher here because this
Is new country and there are not
so many people wanting jobs. If
that is true then under the Walker
Tariff when the country was newer
and when there were only half so
many people, wages should have
been still higher.
Last year under the operations of
5he Mckinley tariff business was so
good, and everybody was making so
much money that we not only
bought and consumed all the prod
lcts that could be manufactured in
his country. but we bought largely
If foreign imports, which produced
'evenue to carry on the expenses of
he government. But this wear.
with a nurse that does not care for
he child, and under the threat of
Democratic Tariff Uba+oyo,, co,,4 e