The Washington times., 1910-10-22
THE HIGH COST OF LIVING AND ITS RELATION
TO THE TARIFF
TALK BY MR. MNSEY WITH THE READERS MNSEYS MAGAZINE
m y5 AT Mh
REPRINTED From Mumsey's Magazine for No7em6ey

y
of living? You have the lower cost of living
if you want it, but to get it you must accept the
lower wage. We cannot get something for nothing,
and get it very long We must give up equiYa-
lent for what get-an equivalent in work, IN
thought, in money This in economic law Of
Gods own framing. and cannot get away from it
Give a uniform wage all over the world, and
will be free-trader- But haven't this uniform
wage and cant get IL 1t is not within the scope
of possibilities There no two countries in all
Europe that have uniform wage. and every country
there, except England, has protective tariff
against the others, and against all the world. The
sentiment for protection in England has developed
within the last haf-dozen years that it pretty
nearly possesses the country England is certain
to become a tariff country unless all the othe-
nations of the world suddenly become free-trade
countries
The tariff between these European countries is
relatively small compared with own tariff.
The reason for this is obvious The difference in the
wages of the various countries there is slight,
consequently there is no need of high tariff.
We, too, should have no need of a high tariff
if we were to reduce our wages to approximately
the European scale In the absence Of Uniform
wage all over the world, and because OF the fact
the wages of Europe with wages which we do
by means of the tariff It is either do this, meet
them their wage scale
Europe with water communication. Is very close
to doors. 1t is much nearer TO New York, as
concerns freights, than is Chicago. And freights
have very important bearing on this whole prob
lem now under discussion.
For example. ship magazines by freight to
London at about two-thirds the cost of shipping
them by freight to Chicago. and Chicago is almost
a suburb Of New York as compared with the vast
stretches to the west of that city.
The water communication between here and
Europe makes so low freight charge that in the
transportation sense, It is almost like shipping
freight from New York to Connecticut two>adjoning
States.
AS an example Of what high and low wages would
mean in adjoining States with free trade between
them, let US suppose that Smith is a manufactures
of plows in Connecticut, and that Jones is man
ufacturer Of the same kind Of plows in New York
State Furthermore, suppose that each is buying
his materials at approximately the same price, and
that Smith, in Connecticut pays his employees one
dollar day, while Jones, in New York, pays his
men three dollars day How long would Jones be
likely to last-how long would he hold out in COM
petition with Smith and his lower wage-scale each
having the same markets for thei' products and
Jones of New York in no way protected against
Smiths unreasonable advantage in the matter of
wages?
This is, of course, somewhat exaggerated Illus
tration made Intentionally with the purpose Of CIV
ing a vivid picture Of what high and low wages
mean in competitive industries with no considera-
BILE dierential in the matter Of FIRE ghts The rela-
tive wages in this Illustration may not be strictly
accurate as compared with the European and
American wages, but they are near enough for the
purpose of illustration, and in this illustration it
seems to we pretty clearly the real issue
as concerns the tariff problem.
A low tariff and low wages are of distinct advan-
tage to the rich and TO the men living on their
income, be it large small. And so, too are low
tariff and low wages a distinct advantage to the
n-producers Of this country.
But do we want laws that will be in the interest
of the nonproducers the idlers and the rich Of
this country, do we want laws that will foster
industry and protect that industry-protect the
wageworker from the hostility of foreign countries?
Personally, I am emphatically opposed to another
general upheaval of the tariff. I am not opposed,
however, to lowering a schedule that should be
lowered. Neither am 1 opposed to advancing a
schedule that should be advanced. Every tariff bill
that has ever been passed has been a miserable
makeshift-a wretched compromise-and compro-
mise has been inevitable. There has been no other
way to get a tariff bill through handled as tariff
bills have always been handled. The local interests
of each Congressmans district have been dominant.
overlapping patriotism and craftsmanship.
A race of men might perhaps have been created
who in a few months could have drafted and en-
acted into legislation perfect tariff BILL dealing
with several thousand individual items but no such
race ever was created. Such an accomplishment
is not possible and never has been possible the
human men with whom this world is peopled No
frst-rate business organization with wise admin
istrative head, would consider such an under
taking. few hundred items can be handled an
nualy, and handled wisely with plenty of time for
investigation, and plenty of time for Congress to
know what it is doing. With so few items under
consideration, the compromiss~curse would have FIR