Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 February 1888 — BLAINE VS. BLAINE. [ARTICLE]

BLAINE VS. BLAINE.

In 1 his Paris message by c tble, says the Chicago limes, Jim Blaine wants to know: “How we are to export staple fabrics to the markets of Europe unless we make them cheaper than they do in Europe, and how are we to manufactuie thm cheaper than they do in' Europe unless ws get cheaper label than they have in Europe?” In answer to the inquiry whether ha thought the question of labor was at the bottom of the whole subject of the tariff, Mr. Blaine added: “Of course it is. It is, in fact, the entire question, whenever we can force carpenters, masons, iron-workers and mechanics in every department to werk as cheaply and live as poorly in the United States as similar workmen in Europe, we can, of course, manufacture just as cheaply as they do in England and France.” That is to say, in order to compete with England and France in supplying “staple fabrics” to neutral markets equally accessible to them and to us, our workmen must work as cheaply and live as poorly as theirs. Ana in order to meet them in th°ir own markets, our men must work more cheaply and live more poorly than theirs, because < ur fabrics iiave to Rear the cost of transportation across the Atlantic, while theirs have not. Inferentially, our men must work almost as cheaply and live almost as poo r ly as those of Europe in order to hold| their home market in the absence of protective taxes; a id to maintain their present standard of living they must be protected by tariff taxes equal at least to the difference i i wages. If this be true, an ideally perfect tariff would either be absolutely prohibitory, or else adjusted to the different scale of rages in different countries, for in no two countries is either the sc le of wages or the standard of living the same, nor is it the same in every part of any one country, that is as large as an average American county. If, therefore, we have only

one tariff, it should be absolutely prohibitory; and if we do not make our tai iff prohibitory, we should have as many tariffs as there are countries, and indeed more,|or as many ns there are scales of wages’ and standards of living in the world. To this conclusion does the Blaine doctrine necessarily conduct. There is no escape from it.

According to that doctrine, also, England needs tariff protection against the countries of continental Europe, for in no country of the contirentis the scale of vages and the standard of living so high as in England, ncr are the hours of labor in a week so few. But as a matter of fact England does not find tariff taxes necessary for the protection of its comparatively well-pai i workmen against the iTpaid workmen of the confnent. “Staple fabrics” produced by the former are sold in th? markets of the latter, as well as in all the neutral markets of she world. The low wages and the low standard countries—Trance, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.,—are the ones that have the protective tariffs, and those tariffs are mainly directed against the products of England tnd the United B*a*es. It behooves Mr. Blaine and his co-economists to explain this fact before reasserting their doctrine that we need a tariff averaging 47 per cent, to protect our workmen in the enjoyment of high wages and a high standard of living. Again and again has their attention been called to this point, but not one of them has offered an explanation that is consistent with their own doctrine. This is not saying that they have ver offered any explanation.— . hey have offered one, but it does x et support their theory. Indeed, t tumbles their theory ignominiously into the dit h in 1881 Mr. Blaine was waving his plume in the state department at Washington. Ho took charge of that department in March of that year. In the October following, some seven months later, a report was issued from his office on the “Cot-ton-Goods Trade of the World,

and the Share of the United Btal es Therein.” Thia document was based on American consular reports. Mr. Blaine may not have written it. Very likely he did not He may not hav* read it even. He may have been too busy with his .neddling “hemispherical” protectorate projects to scrutinize carefully all the offi. ial papers submitted for |his s’geattre. Be that as it may, the document had his formal approval, and it is fair to presume that he was acquainted with its contents, and adopted its conclusions as his own.

From this report we learn that in the fiscal year 1881 England exported cotton goods to the value of $367,241,000, while this country exported such goods to the value of only $9,981,000. Of this latter total England and Canada took $5,653,779 worth, and all the rest of the world $4,327/21 worth.— Thus it appears that cotton goods produced by comparatively highpriced American labor were sold in England in competition with goods produced by comparatively low-priced English “pauper labor.” The report goes on to give comparative statement of wages paid in English and American cottonmills, from which it appears that Jhe difference is not so much in favor of the American operatives, •nd continues ;.s follows: “The hours of labor in the Lancashire mills are 56; in the Massachusetts mills 60 per week. -Thhours of labor in the mills in the other New England states, where the wages are generally less than in Massachusetts, are usually 66 to 69 hours per week. Undoubtedly the inequality in the wages of English and American operatives are more than equalled by the greater efficiency of the latter and th*dr longer hours of labor. ..If this should prove to be a fact in practice, as it seems to proven by official statistics, H would be a very important element in the establishment of our ability to compete with England for our share of the cotton-goods trade of the world. In the two prime factors which ma be said io form the basis of the cotton manufacturing industry —namely, raw material and labor, —we hold the advantage over England in the fi v st, and stand upon an equality with her in ; the second.” i

The subject i- still further developed, but the foregoing wil suffice. This, be it remembered 1 was given to tho public by the. state department when Mr. Blaine was at its head, and wi*h hi« effici a sanction. “Undoubtedly,” says the report, “the .nequalities in tho wages .of English and American operatives are more than equalized by the greater efficieicy of the latter, and their longer hours of labor.” This contusion, which “seems to be prove i by official statistics,” was so startling that it was moderated further on by saying that in the matter of labor “we stand upon an equality with England.”

Taking it either wav, we find an explanation of the fact that English cottons hold the markets of the world against continental cottons in spite of the higher wages and fewer hours in England. The exj lanation is eontained in the two words, “gr ater efficiency.” Those two words tell the story. The English operative needs no protection against his continental rival, although he works fewer hours and gets higher wages, because he is more efficient. He may ba more skillful, he may work harder, he may have better machinery, he may have cheaper materials, or cheaper power. Let it be any or all of these, so long as the greater efficiency is there, no protection is needed. And what |is true of the cotton manufacturing industiy is true of others.

But the real truth to which the report conducts us lies a little further on. It is this: The Amari ran workman gets higher wages and lives better than the workman elsewhere because he is more efficient; because for some reason or reasons he produces more. The fact that he gets more pay is the clearest proof that he is more efficient, produces more, and therefore needs no protection. He is the strong st workiugman in the world; protection is not for the strong against the weak, but for the weak against the strong.—

His strength com«s not from tariff laws but from himself, from the abounding resnurces of the country, and from the ambition, energy, and inventive genius of the people. If he earns more wages and lives better than the European workman, it is because he produces more. There is a certain aggregate produced each year. More this aggregate can not be distributed. The greater the aggregate the greater the share of each. — ihe aggregate is greater in this country than elsewhere, because the efficiency of producers is greater, and ior the same reason the man who works for wages, as we'l as ewery other pioducer, gets a larger share here than elsewhere. Laws which, under pretense of protection, taae from the shares of some men to increase the shares of other men can not increase the aggregate. On the contrary, they terd to diminish it by diverting capital and labor into others tnat are naturally unprofitable. That is their main purpose, and that is to a great extent their effect. If Mr. Blaine would study the document published with his offltial sanction in 1888, he might learn better than to inflict upon the pu die such amissions of nonsense and absurdity as his message rom Paris.