The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-02-17
LESSON IN PROTECTION.

A LESSON IN PROTECTION.
| In commenting on the vast profits made
/ by the Carnegie Company the Philadelphia
Times says: 1T is not pretended that they
| have robbed anyone in acquiring their
milions''
No, Messrs. Carnegie, F'rfck and the 9TH
er partners have not robbed any one in ac-
cumulating their millions, but, it will not
be denied that the Republican party, by
its protec tariff policy. has enabled
them TO put their hands in the pockets Of
the people far deeper than they ought to
be permitted to put them.
The Carnegie Steel Company has cap
ital of $25,OOO,0O0. Mr.. Frick, who has
brought suit against Mr.. Carnegie for a
division of the assets of the company,
says its profits last year, when prices were
phenomenally low, were $21, 900 900, and he
says that it is the expectation that the
profits this year, owing to the better
prices which are prevailing, will amount
to $42, 100000.
Here we have an authoritative state
ment that on a capital of $4,000 900, which
is probably twice what the Carnegie plant
cost, a profit of so per cent was made
last year. and that ii is expected that the
profit this year will reach 100 per cent
Can any honest Republican insist that an
industry which yields such an enormous
profit should have the benefit of a protec-
tive tariff?
There Is protective tariff on the articles
manufactured by the Carnegie Company
ranging from Is to 50 per cent. That tariff
enables the Carnegie Company, and other
similar companies, to charge practically
two prices for their products. A fair
profit on the investment of the Carnegie
Company would be 10 per cent. That would
be big profit, owing 10 the fact that the
capitalization is very much greater than
the actual cost of the plant Instead of
such a reasonable profit as that the COM
pany made so per cent last year, and is
in fair way TO make 160 per cent. this
year. 2
Strictly speaking the Philadelphia Times
is right in it's statement that Messrs. Car
negie and Prick have not robbed anybody,
but in the esmitation of most minded
people such enormous profits as they have
been pocketing look very much like rob-
berry.
Whenever an effort has been made to re-
duce the tariff on steel products the man
| ufacturers of these products have hasten
ed to Washington and told Congress that
they would have to shut down their plants
or greatly reduce wages if the tariff on
| their products were reduced. When Con-
gress undertook to get the prices for armor
plate reduced the manufacturers of steel
goods pretended that they were taking
contracts for that class of goods at prices
which left them little or no profit.
If the Republican party does not take
steps at once to cut down the tariff on
steel products there will be ground for
suspicion that 1t is looking to the great
steel companies and other industrial conn
panies for campaign funds. There is no
| good reason why the duty on steel prod
ucts should not be wholly removed. The
| cry that a high protective tariff is neces-
| sary to insure living wages to American
| workmen viii no longer prove effective
| 1t is known beyond a shadow of a doubt
| that the protective tariff Is not for thu
| benefit Of workmen, but for the owners OF
| industries-owners who are not satisfied
| with legitimate profit. but who want q
| profit ranging from 80 to 100 per cent.