The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-09
THE IMPUDENCE OF 1T.

The ability of American manufacturers to
compete in the markets of the world is again
demonstrated by the fact that the bid of
an American iron company for the construc-
tion Of a great steel bridge over the river
Yssel, in Holland proved to be the low
est and among the competitors were the
bridge builders of Belgium and England.
The same company has also closed contract
with the Imperial railroad. of Japan. which IS
owned and controlled by the Japanese govern
ment, for about 1000 tons OF iron brldge
material to be used in the construction or
small bridges along the line. 1t doesn't make
any difference whether the contracts are
large or small, the Americans appear to be
able to take the cake. minneapolis Trib-
une.
If the above had been taken from
the columns of some free trade jour
nal, we should not be surprised. What
puzzles us is to understand how any
newspaper should admit to it's editorial
columns a paragraph of this kind and
at the same time appear as an ardent
defender of the protective system in
general and the Dingley bill In par
ticular. The statements made above
by the Tribune are literally correct.
THE ability of American manufactur-
ers to compete in the markets of the
world is again demonstrated" and it
has been demonstrated over and over
again for many years past. There is
not an article manufactured on any
considerable scale in the United States
which is not sold in competition with
the "pauper labor" of other countries
and in the markets of those countries
70 offOr6 70
pay the wages of the American work.
men and still meet foreign prices, but
we can add to the cost of production
the transportation charges to England,
to Germany, to Russia or to Australia
and undersell those countries on their
own territory.
1t is cause for congratulation and just
pride that our superior inventive abil-
ity and the higher intelligence and skill
of our labor has brought us to this
signal triumph. In the light which it
sheds upon the industrial situation,
however, what judgment can any one
pass upon duties levied for protective
purposes, except that they are bald rob-
berry? If the American manufacturer
can compete in any market, what right
has he to be protected in the market at
home? Why should the American con-
sumner be taxed in order that the for
eign consumer may buy more cheaply?
BY what right does congress impose
duties whose sole effect, in such cir
cumstances, must be TO enable the
manufacturer to exact big profits from
the American people, while he is selling
for fair prices in the markets of the
outside world?
We believe that one may search in
vain in the history of legislation for
any exhibition of impudence that would
parallel, in the demand for protection,
the assertion that it is necessary to
the maintenance and prosperity of
American industry and American labor.
coupled in the same breath with the
assurance, backed by the facts, that
the American manufacturer can sell at
profit at lower prices than any other
nation in the world in the worlds
open market. 1t is a shameless con-
fession, and we wonder how long it
will take credulous and gullible peo
pie to understand, from the admission
of the protectionists themselves. to
are being robbed.