Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1901-09-04
An Impossible Doctrine.

j.
An Impossible Doctrine.
The National Economist, the national
organ OF high protection, which has re-
Gently been demanding the defeat OF
Speaker Henderson for reelection for
the reason that he has refused to agree
not to reappolnt Congressman Babcock
of Wisconsin on the Ways and Means
Committee. contains the following from
George l.. Refs, superintendent Of the
Illinois Steel Company:
II believe In tariff whether we need
1t or not. Even If 1t does no good. what
harm does 1t do? No profit has been
made on the iron and steel goods that
have been sold abrond. They have been
sold at cost to get rid Of surplus ana
TO win a foothold in the foreign mar
ket. England had the trade all to her
self and she charged higher profits than
we did here. Now she has been obliged
to sell below cost to keep her market.
She cannot stand the pace. When Gus
toners abroad learn-to like our goods,
they will buy them at fair prices, and
we can sell at a profit. We can make
iron and steel products cheaper than
they can. But believe In tariff just
the same. 1t insures us n home mar
ket under all conditions. If the manu-
facturers cannot sell their goods, the
workmen suffer- Trusts give better
wages and cheaper goods. No one Is
disappointed but the politicians, and
they want votes.''
Mr.. Refs says that American steel
makers can manufacture steel goods
cheaper than the foreigners. He also
admits the American-made steel has
been sold abroad cheaper than at
home. Yet lie favors the continuance
OF the prohibltory tariff on steel. Why
does he favor it? Because 1t ENSURES
us n home market in all conditions"
And of what good is this to the steel
manufacturer? He is able to charge
more at home than abroad because the
tariff prevents the corrective Of impor-
tation-the manufacturer Is able to col
lect from American consumers the 90 to
so per cent Of the steel tariff plus the
cost of his goods and fair profit.
One almost loses patience when It
is thus boldly asserted that such an
organization as the United States Steel
corporation, with its billion dollars of
inflated capital, on which dividends are
regularly paid. has a right to penalize
the people of this country because they
live on this side of the water rather
than the other. 1t would seem as IL.
granting as Mr.. Refs says, that the
American steelmaker can manufacture
more cheaply than his foreign competi-
tor, that our people, living closer to the
cheapest source OF production, should
get steel goods cheaper than those who
live 5000 miles away. What would
be thought II an organization of farm
ers. favored by law In some way, should
arise, and it should become the accept
ed thing to charge the people In the
growing state 81 per bushel for corn,
while the same identical corn was sold
in London for 90 cents? Would 1t not
be denounced as an unspeakable out
rage, and would not there be an lmme.
date demand for the repeal Of the leg
Islation which permitted and fostered
such condition?
Clay. Morrill,. Blaine. even Mckinley
never Justified the continuance of q
protective tariff when 1t should appear
that an industry in America was able
| to produce more cheaply than any for.
eien rival. At first it was said pro
lection was merely to promote infant
industries-to give them chance t.
get started; then 1t was said that only
such amount Of duty was justifiable a,
would equalize the difference between
the American and foreign wages
| the American manufacturer not beins