The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-02-28
THE COST OF PROTECTION.


that country and exported from it, and
that we ought to do the same thing 1t
thinks that the policy of buying of
other nations who can manufacture
things cheaper than we can would be
capital policy if we were all million
aires and had fixed incomes" but mas
much as we are not We ought to tax
ourselves to give ourselves incomes. The
thing appears to be automatic To the
Journal for it asks: eff we buy our
supplies from nations that can manu-
facture them cheaper, on account Of
cheap labor, than we can. where will
And after Illuminating on this proposition
it winds up with this statement Of the
case:
The theory Of The Sentinel and those
who train with ii entirely ignores the
consideration that before poor man
can buy he must be able to earn some
thing to buy with. He has nothing to
sell or exchange for what he wants but
his labor; and it is idle to propose to
him d policy that promises him cheap
goods at the expense of a sacrifice of
the only market in which he can sell
his labor. If we buy Of other nations
and thereby destroy our own industries
where will our own labOrers find en-
ployment? Who will answer this ques-
tom
This is a false assumption that other
nations can produce cheaper than we
can. As matter of fact it is known to
everybody that there is no nation which
cannot produce enough to support IT'S
can furnish support to them. 1t makes
no difference how ignorant the people
are, or how poorly supplied with the
tools and processes which science and
that is not self-supporIing. free trade
or tariff. black or white. civilized or I'M
civilized? There is none. All nations
supply themselves in some way. and
where they are not pushed into arti-
fetal lines by mistaken legislation they
always produce that which they can
produce to greatest advantage. In this
particular case Germany cannot pro-
duce sugar as cheaply as other nations
can. The fact that her rulers have
given this bounty is conclusive evidence
of that Her farmers, who are now rails
ing sugar beets. have been taken out of
employment at which they formerly sup
ported themselves, and put into employ
ment at which they are supported by
Ea ic h.,
versal case with protection. 1t takes
men out of remunerative employment
and puts them in unremunerative en-
plOyment, in which they are supported
This is the fundamental principle Of pro-
tectionism- 1t is conceded by all pro-
tectionists. The justification offered for
it is that after a while these industries
will become self-supporting. and the tax
on the remainder of the community will
be withdrawn But, if we may believe
the political protectionists Of this coun-
try. this time never comes. We have
been protecting various Industries for a
century, and we are still informed that
if we do not continue to tax ourselves
these industries will be ruined The
Sentinel does not believe this. It does
not believe there is a single industry Of
any kind in this country that cannot
compete with foreigners in this country
or elsewhere. 1t does not believe that
cheap labor is as cheap as dear
labor" or that it can compete with it
anywhere. But the Journal and other
political protection papers insist that
this is all wrong. and let us suppose for
the moment that they are right. Suppose
that we are in condition where none
Of these industries we have been sup
porting for an hundred years are able
that the moment the people quit taxing
themselves to support them the indus
tries go to pieces. and the workmen are
thrown out of employment What then?
Necessarily this. We have subjected
ourselves to perpetual taxation to sup
port people. who would have supported
themselves if our legislation had not
put them on an artificial plane. If this
be true. certainly any country is foolish
to start more industries of the same
kind.
That is exactly what Germany is doing
with its sugar bounty. When the time
for the expiration of the bounty comes
the interested classes viii say, you in
duced us to go into this business. You
induced us tc buy farm machinery and
build sugar factories. We have built up
a great industry. If you withdraw the
bounty the business will go to pieces and
the men will be thrown out of employ
ment. That is just what the sugar
planters and refiners of this country are
saying today. Hence you must continue
the tax on people engaged i'm remunera-
tive employment to keep others en-
gagged in unremunerative employment Is
there any wisdom in starting such an
industry? Would any sensible man act
that way in his own affairs? And yet
this country is today taxing the people
who are earning their living in order to