Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1896-05-16
EN0LAND'S RETURN TO PRoTEc.
TON.

protective policy. Under that poll
cy she passed from the most backward
country in Europe to the leading com
mercial country in the world. Undel
that policy she gave mankind the fac
tory system, parliamentary institu-
tons. religious freedom, abolished
slavery and established the highest
wages in Europe. BY the economic
advantages thus acquired, she devel-
oped a superior productive capacity
which enabled her to undersell OF
even terms all other manufacturers il
the world.
Having securely obtained this ad
vantage, she sought to increase the
prosperity of her manufacturing elias
ses by capturing foreign markets. Te
this end, having no fear of competi
ton in manufactures, and desiring
cheap food in order that her manu-
facturers might have lower-priced
labor. on June 81, 1886, she adopted
free trade. removing all import duties
upon breadstuffs and raw materials
as we'll as manufactures.
This was heralded abroad as the
stroke of economic emancipation, an6
has been the basis of nearly all econo-
mic literature ever since. Free trade
has been proclaimed as the true econo
mic policy for all nations. In this
country the economic doctrinaires
have presistently propagated the no
ton that our only hope for permanent
prosperity is in initiating the English
and adopting free trade. Thus far,
we have refused to be converted, but
now and then have wavered to the
extent of making partial expert
ment, and paying the penalty in swift
disaster.
On the 27th of next June, England
will have had halfa century's expert.
ence under this free trade regime
and it is significant that at the end Of
fifty years experiment, which has
not converted single country, she is
now taking steps to return as grace.
fully. but as effectively as possible, to
protective policy. This is what in
telligent protectionists have predicted
would necessarily be the final out
come. England's competitive super
iority of her machinery; and her abil-
ity to undersell American producers
has been due to her lower wages.
This seems to be an enigma to free
traders. They have never been able
to understand why Eugland's power
to undersell in the American markets
was the result of an entirely different
cause from her power to undersell
continental producers. When our
higher wages are given as the reason
for needing protection in the United
States, they invariably reply by ask
ing "If we need protection against
England because our wages are high
er, why does not England need pro-
lection against the continent, because
wages are higher in England than in
continental countries?"
Intelligent protectionists have no
difficulty in solving this seeming
conundrum by showing that England
may be able to compete with CONT
mental countries, despite her higher
wages, and that the higher wages of
the United States make a protective
tariff against England Indispensable
The facts furnished by Mulhall, the
English statistician, make the expla-
nation of this very simple. He show S
that IS per cent of the productive
power in Great Britain was steam, as
compared with 90 per cent in Ger
many, IS in France. As in Holland,
al in Spain. 81 in Scandinavia, Portu-
gal and Italy, 2o in Austria and 10 in
Russia; or sc for the average of con-
tinental countries. That greater use
of steam and machinery gives Eng
land. despite her higher wages, low
er cost of production is shown by the
further fact that the cost of productive
energy per thousand foot-tons in
Great BritainI was 81 a week, as
against $4.I2 on the continent, the
cost of energy per thousand foot-tons
was only 1913 cents in Great Britain,
as against 400 on the continent.
Says Mulhall: "This enables US
England), as far as labor isconcerned,
to undersell the continental nations
by IL per cent although our work
mems wages are almost double" In
other words, the increased cost of pro-
duction due to higher wages in Eng
land is more than offset by the superb
ority of English machinery by about
IL per cent.
In the case of the United States, the
facts are quite different. So far as the
machinery is concerned, it is SUBJ
stantially the same in both countries.
Consequently, the only item of differ
ence is the cost of labor, which, being
higher in this country, makes net
difference in the cost of production
against the United States. According
to Mulhall's tables, just referred to,
the cost of energy per thouand foot
tons in the United States is TO- cents
in Great Britain, or one-sixth more in
the United States than in England;
and this estimate relates to the entire
productive capacity of the country.
If this were applied to manufactures
alone, the difference would be very
much greater. 1t is manifest, there
fore, that by the same comparisons on
the same basis of facts, we need pro-
lection against England because of our
T. - a