The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-10-12
ed 50 al fairness Judge Sa,betn
seems "a have forsatten about shsm
>a%Ss
THE Na'!.sss.G rF
PROFITS.

In an able protest against the
guaranty OF a reasonable prof;
placed in the las, republican nation
al platform. the Sioux City Tribune
declares that Ibis must be taken out
OF the party mons In this. ref
erence is made TO the platform state
meny that the protective tariff should
measure the difference between cost
and at home and abroad. together
with a reasonable profit.
The Tribune says:
Who is TO guarantee n common
mar a reasonable proft"! And why
should there be Il difference in treat
mento Why should not the farmer
and the builder the blacksmith and
the merchant. be guaranteed "A
profit.
In Eng and, hen the govern
ment undertook TO guarantee a 'liv-
ing wage to the poor, there was the
motive of a fine philanthropic pur-
post in it. But that experiment
bankrupted the country. The fac
tory owners who were no. already
paying u living wage found the gov
eminent making up the deficit for
them. The factory owner who was
already paying a living wage to his
men cut the scale and let the govern
ment help him. too. The employe.
assured OF a living wage, eXerted
himself no more"
There is, OF course. a difference be
tween guaranteeing a living wage
to the workingman and g~uaranteeins
rich profits TO the manufacturer. The
work; but since the manufacturers
total profits must depend upon tho
amount Of his output, the o his
profit on each sale. the more eager
he will be TO increase his output. He
il not so likely to practice econo-
raios in the anaremenl OF his plant
as he would be if re were taking his
chances. and. III he does make such
savings. he. VIII conclude from the
sact. that.the government is enough
interested in him to guarantee. his
profits, that he is entitled to all the
savings he may be able to make i.
the manufacture OF his products.
1t is the consumer who suffers by
any artificial or natural law that per
mitsg any dealer TO fix his prices il
gleed. Surely it is most Inconsistent
of TAFT to say in one breath that com
i:..e Sherman law. and at the sam
lime TO hola. that no shadoy
pete with itself, then is it right Il
issue orders commandin
the Standard Oil Company to com
| pete with itself, then is it right t
say that it shalt be protected by tn
government from anything approach
ing competition from abroad!
Suppose the party's platform ha
J, stopped when it said that the tart
\ should measure the difference be
: tween the cost OF production at HON
!, and abroad. Under that amount
n protection, n American manufa,
turer would be protected by the di
e ference in freight rates which he an
e his foreign competitor must pay ,
: reach his patrons. Further. he
: protected by the fact that his con
y pctitor must be presumed to be ;
G anxious as he to sell his wares at
G good profit. Therefore, if their co:
Il OF production is equalized by the TIA
u if and the nome manufacturer he
q the further advantage of lowt
e freight rates and quicker servic
q can it be said in reason that til
American manufacturer would M
e be sure OF IA fair profit? AT that tt
! government would be giving I'll
American all the hest OF 1t. For
n is not proposed to eliminate from h
expense any items due to careless
= unintelligent management. item
that, strictly speaking, he should n
be authorized by any act OF COVER
ment to collect from his customers
. OF course every manufacture
: wants an unreasonable profit If
7" can get it. And If the governme!
makes it possible for him to do s
then he cannot be expected to Ollie
g to it, even If his subsidy is in the n
AFi - a r--