Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 August 1882 — A PLAIN TALK TO WORKINGMEN. [ARTICLE]

A PLAIN TALK TO WORKINGMEN.

[From the lowa State Leader.] The farmers and the laborers have the votes which change elections. They are also the men upon whom falls the heavy burden of taxation, for it is conceded that wealth has a faculty for eluding the assessor. It follows then that when the real workingmen—the men whose sweat kneads the dough for their daily bread—once learn how unjustly the tariff' presses upon them there will be a revolution. The following clear and powerful statement of their case is from the pen of Mr. E. M. Turner, of West Virginia, in reply to some musing sophistries of the Wheeling Intelligencer. It is the most complete answer and thorough annihilation we have yet seen : Mr. Editor : In reply to your criticism upon me in the Intelligencer of the 26th of June, and your inquiries as to the position I assume upon the tariff in reference to the farmer and other unprotected classes in this country, I bog leave to say: My position upon the tariff question is based upon the following propositions, which I hold to be essential truths in all popular government, and necessary to the maintenance of free institutions, namely : That all government is instituted for the purpose of securing to the people who live under it the equal enjoyment of life, liberty and property ; that all taxation should be equal &Dd uniform, so far as the nature of human government can make it so ; that every man has a natural right to the fruit of his own labor, which fruits no government can rightly takeaway from him without reward, except for the maintenance of government itself ; that every law which takes more than this is tyrannical and wrong. A protective tariff is an enactment which, in our case, compels the larger number of our population to surrender a large part of the profits of their labor to a smaller number without compensation ; which restricts the right of the producer of wheat and corn, or the labor for hire, to exchange his product or his wages for the greatest quantity and best quality of things which he needs, because it forbids his trading, except under heavy penalties, where these things may be had most cheaply. The object of a protective tariff is to raise the price of manufactured articles of various kinds, upon the ground that tley cannot be produced here as cheaply as abroad on account of high wages, and the employer must theiefore be allowed to add to his price the additional cost of labor. The consumer of Alio article pays the increased prico and is the loser of the difference between that and the natural price, or the price without the tariff. For example, if he is compelled by the tariff to pay $1.40 for an article which without the tariff be could buy for sl, he loses 40 cents. But you assert that this is made up (to tho farmer at least) by the increased price he gets for what he has to sell, either productions or labor. But if he makes it back again he must make it back from those whose industry is protected ; for it is their demand for the farmers products which you say has increased the price of them. But this destroys the object of protection, for if the protected workman has to pay out his increase of wages for increased puce of farm products, how is he protected? He simply pays out of one pocket what he puts into the other. And so with the farmer. He pays out for what he buys all the increased price he gets for what he sells. I fail to see how anybody is profited by such an operation. Protection therefore cannot protect the workman unless it takes from some one else a part of that other’s earnings and give it to the workman. The other person is injured to the extent to which this is done, and no one can make it up to him. The largest unprotected class in this country consists of farmers and farm laborers. They are also the largest consumers and therefore most injured by a protective tariff. If we did not produce more agricultural products than our people could consume, the case would not be so hard upon them. But producing a large surplus, as we do, of agricultural products, they must find a market in Europe and other countries. As a matter of fact, our foreign market is mainly England, a free-trade country, and the price of our surplus is fixed by England, and the price of the surplus determines the price of the whole crop. So that, as matter of fact, our farm laborers and farmers sell their labor and their products in a free-trade market which you say is a cheap, pauper-labor market, while your protsetive tariff compels them to buy at home in a market which you acknowledge to be a dear market. What are tho facts? The average price of wheat in New York from 1846 to 1861, a period, as you know, of low tariff in this country, was $1.66 ; from 1861 to 1880, a period of tho highest tariff this country has evor had, the average price was $1.51. The average prico of corn was, from 1846 to 1861, seventy-three cents ; from 1861 to 1880 it was sixty-six cents (see report of Director of the Mint for 1880, page fifty). What has become of your increased price under the high tariff ? The numbor of the country’s working force in 1880, supposing a pro-rata increase from 1870, was fifteen millions, and divided as follows : Employment. No. Per cent. Agricultural 7,050,003 47 Professions and personal services.3,3oo,ooo 22 Trade and transportation 1,385,000 9 Manufacturing, mechanical and mining 3,300,000 22 This moans, protected workers, 3,300,000, including mechanics, many of whom are not protected, and miners also; unprotec'.ed, 11,700,000. Why should 11,000,000 of workers be taxed at the average rate of 40 per cent on nearly everything they consume and wear in order to give high wagos to 3,000,000? What was the amount of that taxation in 1880? Let us see. The consumption of manufactured articles was not less than $1.50 per head, including their families,-making $1,650,000,000. The extra cost was $470,000,000 ; deduct SIOO,000,000 for tariff on foreign goods imported and we have $370,000,000 as the price which the unprotected classes paid to the 3,000,000 protected workers—more than SIOO to each man. This estimate is a very moderate one (but I prefer to be entirely within the truth). And yet the farmer has no cause of complaint aocording to yonr doctrine ! And yet with all this bonus your protected workmen find employment in onr protected industries, notably the iron industries, only about nine months in the year, and have to strike every year or two to live! Where does all this bonus go, then, if not to the proteoted worker? Let the census report on the iron and steel industry made by yonr pet statistician. Mr. James M. Swank, President of the American Iron and Steel Association, answer. Yonr iron industries made a profit in 1880 of 20 per cent, on a capital of $230,000,000. The Pennsylvania Steel Company (a part of the Bessemor steel ring) divided profits in the last three years of 213 per cent, on a capital of $2,200,000 ; the extra tariff rates on spool thread amounted to $6,000,000, divided among three firms in Ibis country ; census bulletin 289 shows tho profits of manufactures from wool to have been 35 per cent on a capital of $150,000,000; this is where that $370,000,000 exacted from the unprotected people of this country went. And yet you ask me in derision if these are the people whose interest I am assuming to defend in calling attention to this question of tariff ! I answer most emphatically, they are, and they are beginning to get their attention directod to tho injustice of this so-called protective tariff which is transferring a large part of the earnings of this country into the coffers of a few capitalists under the pretense of protecting the American workingman. If yon will allow me the use of yonr columns I shall be glad to give you further reasons for the faith that is in me. Yours respectfully, E. M. Turner.