Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 October 1893 — “DEAR WORKINGMAN” [ARTICLE]

“DEAR WORKINGMAN”

THE PROTECTION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED. A Writer Demonstrates Mathematically the Absurdity of the Elea that Protection Is for the «Dear Workingman"— The Campaign in Ohio. Does He Get It ? Mr. Walter Sanders, of Montclair, N. J., has been doing s< me figuring to learn the actual percentage of protection to which our protected workingmen are entitled, on the claim of the manufacturers that it is all for “the dear workingman. ” The problem is a simple one, and he has demonstrated mathematically the absurdity of this protectionist plea. Following is his interesting letter in the New York Post of Oct. 4: Sib: £f there were not so much humbug about It, the tender solicitude of protected industries on behalf ot their dear workingmen as expressed recently before the Ways and Means Committee would be quite pathetic. I do not suppose one in a thousand has ever considered what amount of protection is given to these various industries for the protection of labor, so I have drawn up a few tables, and I wish every workingman could read them and judge for himself whether he has been fooled long enough. Not only have the American manufacturers the duties in their favor, but also the various other expenses incident to importing, such as commissions, freight, insurance, etc. The i elation these items bear to the cost value of course varies with the character of the goods, being on coarse, bulky goods 16 to 20 per cent., ranging down to from to 10 per cent, on finer, more compact articles. It is a very conservative estimate to put the average at 10 per cent., and I will show how it works out. The amount of protection to labor that the manufacturer gets under certain rates of duty and expenses on the foreign articles depends upon the relative value between the material consumed, together with the incidental expenses of manufacturing and the labor expended in the production of said article. I will work out one example in detail and give the result of soma others. Take an article which Is made up of half materials and incidentals and half labor and subject to duty of 60 per cent., and it works out in this way upon MOO worth of foreign goods: Foreign cost material and incidentals.. .too Foreign cost labor M sloo Duty 60 per cent 60 Expenses, commission, freight, insurance, etc 1° $l6O Now the American manufacturer expends *6O in material and incidentals, and he has left *llO which he can (but does he?) pay to his workingmen as against the foreigner’s labor cost of 660; or. in other words, his labor is protected to the extent of 120 per cent, over the foreign labor. The variations of duty are so great under the McKinley bill that it would be an endless task to catalogue them all, but a few will suffice, and as the rates exceed 100 per cent, on many articles, the calculations could be carried much further towards showing how greatly favored the American manufacturers are. The following calculations are made at various rates of duty and with 10 per cent, added for expenses, and upon goods which comprise different relative values ot labor and material, etc.: PBOTBCTION THE AMEBICAN MANUFACTUBEB HAS OVEB THE FOBBIOK LABOR. Goods composed ot _ Duty- and and . and Si material. 14 material, % material. per ct. per ct. per ct. per ct. 86 180 90 60 60 •-« 120 80 76 3*o 170 110% ItO 4*o 223 I*o%

These calculations are made upon the supposition of the actual material costing alike in both places, and will in the main hold good. In the immense list of articles of every-day use there are very few where the labor is more than 60 per cent, of the total cost, so that in actual experience the higher schedules of protection prevail, but here, as in other features, the so-called protective policy is fallacious because in those very articles where more labor is expended the less piotection there is to labor, and on the contrary the less labor the more protection in corresponding ratio, all ot which goes to prove that this care for. the workmen te a magnificent hnmbug. the manufacturers appreciating that not upon any other ground could they make their claims credible or acceptable for a moment. If they were to ask outright for themselves for that which they now get under the guise of pure philanthropy, how quickly the whole protective fabric would go to pieces. One could go on with many Interesting deductions from the study of these figures, but I will only refer to one fact which has come under mv experience, viz., the very great ease with which the average American manufacturer switches off in regard to his capacity to manufacture according to the requirements of the moment. To-day he is interested in the export business, and his song is the familiar strain ot wonderfully adapted labor saving machinery, super-intelligent workpeople, improved methods, etc., which enable him to turn out many times the goods in a given time as the European maker, and with less force of men, so he can successfully compete against all creation, a great deal of which I believe to be absolutely true. To-morrow he will be heard before the Ways and Means Committee stating with equal fervor that he cannot stand up despite all his advantages, against the pauper labor of Europe, and insisting that in order to keep his factory going he must have 6> to 100 per cent, bonus to distrioute among his workmen, and fortelllng dreadtul disaster if he does not get it. A vicious policy such as I believe this to be always requires great versatility and ingenuity on the part of its advocates to support it, and I believe the intelligent portion of the people ot the United States are beginning to understand it and will condemn it; and I have faith enough in the American capability to believe that without governmental protection our manufacturers can hold their own in a free competition with anyone, and that they will in the end win in spite ot pauper labor or anything else; but it looks to me as though at the present they were exercising their brains to get as mnch the start of others as possible by outside assist noe, and br gging when it suits their purpose that they can come out ahead.

McKinley Couldn't Walt. The Republican campaign in Ohio was to have begun at Akron on Sept. 12, but Gov. McKinley couldn't wait. He began it at South Salem on Sept. 5, not far from Chillicothe, the home of the Hon. Lawrence Talbott Neal. Fifteen hundred people from Chillicothe came to hear Gov. McKinley, presumably for the sake of enjoying better the smashing of his arguments which Mr. Neal win do when the Democratic canvass begins at Newark in a few days. Gov. McKin’ey spoke in his usual tariff-shedule manner, attributing all prosperity to protection and all adversity to the Democrats. He read from divers English newspapers, which, with a soundness of information uncommon to English newspapers discussing American politics, exulted over Mr. Cleveland's election as over the death of protection; and then he read what is much more pertinent and important, a letter written by the Hon. Lawrence Talbott Neal last fall. “We stand,” wrote Mr. Neal, “unalterably committed to the overthrow of McKinleyism in its every shape and form.”

That is where the Democratic party stood last fall and where it stands today. The only difference between the situation then and the situation now is that then the Democracy was asking the people to authorize the destruction of protection; now, the authorization having been given, the Democracy is beginning the work, which will not be completed until there is no trace of protection in the statute books of the United States. Mr. Neal and the Democratic party of Ohio and of the United States are unalterably committed to the overthrow of McKinleyism, and still mean to overthrow it; and they have the power to do so. Governor McKinley will find that Mr. Neal and the Ohio Democracy will meet him directly and without evasion. The Ohio election is to decide whether Ohio is for or against the destruction of McKinleyism.' Pulverize protection! Vindicate the Constitution!—New York Sun.

Equitable Distribution Wanted. It is useless for any intelligent man to try and deny that American manufacturers, under ths fostering care of a protective tariff, have made an enormous lit of money, There is no desire on the

part of the general public to curtail' these profits to a ruinous extent; whz is wanted is a more equitable distribution, for the benefit of wage-workers and consumers, and. when this point is reached, the meddlesome occupation of the tariff-tinker will cease. He will be completely disarmed, and manufacturing business will no longer be at the mercy of conscienceless demagogues. Upon this point all intelligent friends of protection ought to be able to agree, and now is the time for coming to a thorough understanding and permanent conclusion to this effect. —Philadelpnia Telegraph (Rep.). Some Economic Truths. Our manufacturers, especially those well shielded by tariff walls, form trusts which exact the highest possible price from the American consumer, while they continue to sell their goods at far lower prices to unprotected foreigners. This is true in regard to agricultural implements, cartridges, sewing machines, type-writers, saws, axes, and many other kinds of hardware and tools. It is plain that in such cases the tariff becomes what the New York Tribune calls “an instrument of extortion. ” The American Economist, the chief priest of high protection which swallows its Bible whole, finds sophistry thin enough to justify even this high-handed proceeding of the tariff-fondled trusts. It has a column entitled “Tariff Quiz,” in which it expounds the great economic principles underlying McKinleyism. We extract the following clear and lucid explanation of this iniquitous tariff phenomena from its issue of Sept. 29: “PROTECTION AND FOREIGN MARKETS.

“No. 4. —If you manufacture goods in this country and send them abroad and undersell foreign manufactures in foreign markets, what good, in such cases, does Protection do?—T. S. Owen, Correspondent American Protective Tariff League, Lebanon, Ohio, September 8, 1893. “It has been claimed by the party of Free Trade that Protection prevents American manufacturers from shipping American goods to foreign countries and completing with foreign manufacturers in foreign markets, but this is only theory, as our statistics of export well show. Protection does increase the price of goods, .which is checked by domestic competition, but the object of Protection is to enable our wage earners to find a good and constant employment at wages better than the average rate paid for foreign labor. Protection ‘in such cases’ as our correspondent refers to, enables us no Jonly to keep the foreign goods out of our own markets, but also enables us to enter the foreign markets and there compete with foreign goods, while at the same time affording more work for our wage earners at better rates of wages than are paid to the foreign laborers. Protection enables more industries, thus creating more demand for the products of each and enabling factories to run on full time, which cheapens the cost of product. ”

Any sample wayfaring man who believes in Protection (and such are usually simple enough to be caught on tin hooks without bait) ought surely to feel secure in his position after reading and studying this explanation. Suppose he analyzes it to extract from it as many simple truths as is possible: Protection does increase the price of goods. It also cheapens the cost of the product. It increases prices that wages may be higher. It cheapens cost to “enable more industries. ” It keeps foreign goods out of our markets. It also enables us to enter foreign markets and there compete with foreign goods. COROLLARIES TO ABOVE ARE: Protection increases prices at home to raise wages, but higher wages causes cheaper cost of production and thus it enables us to sell cheap in foreign markets. This cheapness causes more demand for our products and enables factories to run on full time. Therefore, Protection not only protects our dear labor from the cheap labor of Europe, by preventing our markets from being inundated with cheap foreign goods, but It enables dear-labor goods to undersell cheap-labor goods in their own markets. In time then, Protection will deprive foreigners of both our and their markets and leave them with nothing to do but to pay our tariff taxes and to consume our protection goods. Verily protection of the McKinley-tax-the-foreigner-brand is the greatest economic discovery on record. It will not only up-build the industries of the nation that adopts it and bring high wages, prosperity, exemption from taxation and good luck to all that abide therein, but it will strike terror into foreign industries and enemies and, at last, wipe them from off the face of the earth. O, thcu great and mighty McKinley, who hast discovered this law of the economic universe whose application brings peace and good will to all—except these unfortunates not under its protecting wings—to thee will we sing songs of praise forever and ever. B. W. H.

'fhe Paradoxes of Protection. Our protectionist friends say, put a high enough tariff on a thing, and instead of an increase of price of the corresponding thing made in this country resulting, as people ignorantly think, the price begins to go down for some mysterious reason; at the same time, the wages of the men engaged in its manufacture begin mysteriously to go up. And with lower prices for the product and higher wages for labor, the prosperity of the masters grows greater! It really does seem too good to be true, and we suspect it is.—lndianapolis News.

The McKinley Theory. The Minneapolis Tribune complaint because the builder* of that State are using an Ohio sandstone. As the Ohio sandstone is cheaper than the Minnesota article the difficulty might be overcome, did not the Constitution stand in the way, by a good stiff tariff on the product of Ohio. According to the McKinley theory the Minnesota people would not only be protected by this plan but the Ohio people would be compelled to pay their sandstone tax. —New York World.