Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-10-24
IN A NUTSHELL.

10 tae Edi,o- Of N. Regtsts-'
SIR: The logic of protective tariff
proceeds on this wise:
l. Wages being higher in this country
than in Europe, our people cannot pro
duce az cheaply as Europe There
fore we must put tax Tor tariff OF
foreign goods imported into this coun
try, in order that the selling price MAJ
not be lolUer than that of similar article:
produced here at higher labor cost.
2. If the tariff is taken of, wages
must be reduced to the European stand
ard; because the prices OF product!
must be reduced, and in orde- that l0t
may sell at these JOlO prices, wages mus
be coTeSpondingIy reduced
8. The foreigner pays The tGr for the
privilege OF getting into our market,
and the price is not Increased to the
American consumer.
4. Competition among home producers
brings down the price 10 the consumer,
so that he pays no more for the home
m ode article than for the foreign-made
article, and the laborer or producer
still gets high lVageS.
Now, let us put these propositions
alongside and notice the result.
From Proposition l, we get: prizes
must be increased by tariff"
Proposition 3. "Ihe price is not in
creased, because the foreigner pays the
tar.
Proposition 2. If the price Of products
Is reduced, the lUageS of labor must be
! reduced, because prices depend Oh ,OGOeS.
Proposition 4. Prices are reduced and
lUdgeS are still maintained at q high rate.
| No man can assent to the truth of all
| these propositions without stuhifyiDg
himself. But he must believe them all
in order to believe in the doctrine OF
protection.
Protectionists are constantly accus-
ing free-traders as theorists, YDrOfCS-
SorS," and dOctrindires. Was anything
ever more perfectly theoretical than this
doctrine of protection, or more per-
fectly contradictory Of common sense?
Let us see.
(a) II articles cannot s he ,FFSpd9G'd Ia
foreign countries on account OIL 'no
higher wages paid here, then tne p'C'
of the foreign made Article must oe ar
officially increased by tax IN orueI
that when il comes into our marke1 ~
NAV be sold az higher price. but
This involves the fact that the consumer
mus the tar in the increased price, ii
also Involves the fact that the nome
made article OF the same kind Is sold AT
nractically tho same price, because
otherwise 10 cUnId not be prduced gu
biob ,rooeS. 1t also involves the TACT
that If nrice is reduced, the wages OF
the Isborer must be reduced. But,
h When free traders assert that pro-
tective tariff Increases the price 10 Tue
consumer. the protectioniSt immedl-
ately proceeds to swallow himsell oy
saving that competition among nome
producers brings the price dol0n so tnS'
the consumer pays no more than ne
would for the foreign article. But this
s---l-as q fat contradiction OF the fnn-
! damental proposition that we Can hoV
produce as cheaply as foreigners lOuh-
/ out reductng'l to the forelg n level
J II that be true. OF what benefit is the
tariff 20 the wage-earnerf
(c). Now let US get at the practical
demonstration for the protectionists
are very practical people, you know.
We formerly had protective tariff on
sugar When the protectionists made
sugar free of tax. in 1890, why should
they have given the Louisiana and 9TH
ar sugar growers ia this country, the
benefit of the bounty Of tlCO cents
Mound, il the tariff did not increase the
yrice Of domestic sugar to the consumer
II the tariff is not paid by the consumer
and does not increase the price OF the
domestic article, why should;there have
been a bounty of two cents a pound
maid 10 domestic producers, when the
tax (or tariff was abolishedP
Another demonstrations: We have had
an enormous tariff on wool and on wool
en- goods for twenty-five years. 1t wa
said 10 be for the benefit OF American
wool producers, who, they say, canno
raise wool i'm competition with the cheaI
Land aud labor of other countries. /
must, therefore, have been intended u
increase the price OF foreign wool IN thi
market in order that the American
wool grower might obtain larger price
for his wool. And the tariff on wooleI
goods bad an additional amour
added TO compensate the American
manufacturer for the increased price n
lpo3tld pan for the wool used In WooleI
goods. But what was the necessity 10
such q compensatory tariff, II the pric'
Of the domestic article OF wool was no
increased by the tariff? And ii tn
tariff aid produce such better prlc
for the American wool-grower, ho'
does il happen that since the tariff wa
taken of, amounting TO 10 cents pouni
ON the lower grades and more on to
finer ones, the price has not dropped II
cents a pound, but on the contrar
nolds It's own and Is advancing
? Further. if IL is true that the price O
I domestic woolens csOnot be reduce
ipuholu reducing lOGges, how did
hapoen that In 1883 a prominent pro
teS,iopist editor of Wheeling parade
around the country making speeches
lin suit Of WOODEN clothes. which b
' said cost only $40. and was as cheA
as apy similar suit could be purchase