The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1895-07-19

ThE DIFFERENCE.
What IL sauce for the Goose " Not ssucs
for the s.ander. According 10 Protection
Al Theoris.s

| What IL sauce for the Goose IL Not ssuos
for the t.ander. According 10 Protection
tst Theories.
The legitimate outcome Of irving tn
protect all industries land thereby
protecting none) is shown in an edito-
rial in the American Economist Of
May 10 Home and Farm. of Louis
Vile. Ky. asks the very sensible and
pertinent question: "Why should We
protect sugar raiscrs against pauper
la Dor and not protect .he cotton plant
err against the pauper labor Of Egypt,
and the wheat grower against the
pauper labor OF Russia aud India?" To
which the American Economist makes
the following reply: There is no
reason why we should protect the
sugar raiser> from paupcr la Dor and
not protect the cotton planter. As "A
matter of fact. the wheat grower is
protected and always has been under
policy of protection. The cotton
planters of the south have never asked
for projections; they have always
claimed that they did not need IL; but
we believe that the time is not very
far distant when they will find that
the increasing imports of foreign cot
tons are tending TO cheaper the value
of American grown cottons. We want
no pauper products-no pauper prices
no pauper labor. Kentucky will be
more prosperous with protection for
all its industries. but nothing can be
gained BY narrow minded local selfish
ness. Home and Farm should know
this"
The Economist believes in going il
whole hog or none 1t knows that
duties on such articles as VIII AT, corn
and cotton do not, and cannot. protect
farmers. No duty on an article that
is exported largely and imported not
at all, or but slightly. can be protec-
tive. unless the producers Of such an
article can form a trust and maintain
prices at home above those for export
This. most manufacturer. can do, and
many of them have done. but ii is next |
to impossible for farmers to combine
in this way. Consequently. they get I
only bogus protection from their
duties.
But supposing il were possible to
protect all industries alike by protec-
ton; and supposing. moreover. tina,
the benefits of thi, protection were
evenly amongst all en-
gagged in those MISUNDERSTANDING
even the factory hands. who never re-
,eive any protection benefits, aul
never hear OF them except at election
t:mes-what would be the final effect
,f protection? 1t would be that -gch
industry would be protected at the ex-
,ense of all other industries and what
my one would gain by protection
would be lost by the time ii had paid
Is share of protection to all other in
lustries. 1t would be exactly like a
anne of poker in which each partici-
amt had lost exactly as much as he
ad won-not counting time as of any
aluc. II is impossible Sor every one
round a gaming table 10 win more
han he loses. 1t is equally impossible
or every industry 10 gain more than il
oses by protection-unless we accept
5 true the idiotic statement that the
oreigner pays our tariff taxes. There
, nothing in protection when il Is APP
lied all hands round" There is
luch in il. for those on the inside, ,
'hen applied to certain industries
ct US not deceive ourselves about il.
BYRON w. UpLr. !