“The Tariff.” from the March 22, 1883 Door County Advocate
THE TARIFF.
—————
To the Editor of The Advocate.
The figures given in my article in a previous issue (March 1st), in relation to rice and wool, were taken from statistics given on a gold basis. These few words may serve to answer the greater part of the article by “W. J. T.” in your issue of March 8th, wherein he devotes the greater portion of his arguments to the support of the assumption that the said figures were not given upon that basis.
Now, further, “W. J. T.” informs us that “more rice was raised in 1858 than in 1878.” Well, how and by what means was it raised, and was it any benefit to the country, as a country, after it was harvested? Let us go back to 1858 (and we hope our friend will accompany us.) What was the south? Simply a raw material producing country, sending all her productions to England; the country in the possession, in fact, of the few wealthy planters, and tending towards the aristocracy system of Europe—they wished for free trade, Why? Because they owned large tracts of valuable cotton or tobacco lands, and these lands were worked by slaves. And now I wish to say here that any country in which the slave system prevails always desires free trade. The rice swamps of the south in 1858 were worked by slaves, whose only recompense was the lash; who were forced to be content with their miserable rations of food and their scanty garments of English shoddy: English shoddy, made at Manchester, from the rags and gleanings of the pestilence devasted districts of Europe and Asia. This was the cost of production—this was the element of labor. Does the gentleman wish to return to the “good old days?” Does he still yearn for cheap rice, raised and gathered by the slave?—every kernel representing a tear, every pound a scourging, and every bushel a life, still costing the producer nothing, as slaves, who worked in the rice swamps, were fit for nothing else. Malaria, disease, toil and the whip were quick and merciful agents. Again, “W. J. T.” thinks that the government is not bound to reclaim the swamps of the south. The government is neither obliged to protect the British manufacturer. The government of this country is for the protection and benefit of this country and not for any foreign nation or class, and it is very foolish to try to apply the principles that may have proven, advantageous in some countries to the working our system.
I have declared that a slave-holding people are invariably in favor of free trade. Well, what is the difference between England and a slave-holding nation?' The cost of production of raw materials, in a slave-holding country, is small. Now, the cost manufacturing these raw productions in England is naturally small, for the distinction to be drawn between the slave of one and the slave of the other is barely perceptible. In Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, large manufacturing towns, where the raw materials of the victims of this “vampire of nations” are consumed, squalor, misery, crime, wretchedness, starvation, beastly immorality, all and every one of the furies that persecute are running riot; the laborer is a slave for his daily bread. He cannot help himself; the die is cast, and he must abide his fate—and why? because the system of wages in force is barely sufficient to feed and clothe him so abundantly and well as the black slave. The only difference is the black slave has his food and clothes furnished him and the white slave the privilege of purchasing—but not able to purchase better—and the added satisfaction (?) of studying the ways and means of procuring others. Now, “protection lowers wages,” it is stated. What incomprehensible idiocy! Protection and high wages are nearly synonymous, it would naturally follow,—and why? simply because protection means exchange of commodities, exchange of commodities tends to production, and production means labor for all. Not as we see in some sections of a free trade country where, in the glowing light of the furnaces, the half-naked men are waited upon and aided by girls and women; not the kind of labor that sends women and children into the depths of the mines and compels them to remain there for weeks without one breath of fresh air or one glimpse of heaven’s sunlight; not the class of labor that compels dozens to herd in one dimly-lighted, badly-ventilated room, and from association gradually to become lower than beasts; not the labor that compels all this in lieu of starvation. No, but free and intelligent labor, by noblemen in their own right; by men who, by their labor and the wages paid them therefor, are able to go home at night; labor that protects, that places the artisan on an equality with his employer; that sends his children to school; that takes him, upon the Sabbath, to his church; that provides for both body and soul. This is what protected labor means.
It is not for the laborer to derive the benefit of the free trade ideas; it is for the benefit of the manufacturer. Would it be, think you, a sound argument to claim that the laborers of England would be benefited by free trade? Would not the benefit simply enrich her manufacturers? Do you think that the British manufacturers are really suffering because the people of this country are not getting rich fast enough. Do you suppose that they are using every effort in their power simply to confer a favor upon us? Can any man in his senses give a reason why the principles upon which our finances have been conducted are not principles compatible with the wealth and happiness of this country? We have tried free trade three times, and we have failed each and every time, and a national bankruptcy has resulted, it would seem that experience ought to teach us to let well enough alone and not listen to foreign counsels.
The question simply is, whether, having established an independence politically, having the possession of all needed territory adequate to the product of all the food and raw material we need, and a people thoroughly capable of understanding their needs, and, in intelligence, in numbers, and in education, adequate for all industries—whether we shall undertake the preservation of our industries and labor, or whether we shall allow them to become degraded to the common level of labor of men who are not citizens, but slaves. This is a question for all, and it is as wide and as long as our country.
The iron industry, so long a thorn in the side of my friend, is far too gigantic to be joined with others in a short article, and I shall be obliged to defer the pleasure of helping the gentleman understand the subject until further space permits.
I do wish to say a few words, however, in relation to the “pauper labor” question. Since 1861 over six and three-quarter millions of immigrants have landed in this country. European statisticans tell us that the average cost to them of raising the emigrants is $1,000 per head, and as producing machines they are worth more than that to us. They are worth to us at least six thousand seven hundred and fifty millions of dollars, and their coming here is the same as the taking of that amount of capital out of Europe and placing it in this country.
Every one of these immigrants, on landing here, becomes a consumer of our products as well as a producer, and this increases our market. Suppose we take poorhouse rates, then every one of these 6,750,000 consumes at least $150 per year. This, it will be seen, has added to our home market for home production during the twenty-one years over one billion of dollars ($1,000,000,000.) This new home market is created chiefly by our exclusion of foreign goods, and invitation to the makers to come here with their operatives. Other arguments might be cited and facts shown, but enough has been said to show the utter fallacy of the arguments advanced, that protection brings to our shores these, who, by reason of poverty, are obliged to accept a lower rate of wages, and, by so doing, decrease the average. Every immigrant that lands upon our shores increases the wealth of the country, both by increasing our means of production and enlarging our market.
L.M.S
Courtesy of the Door County Library Newspaper Archive
[The spelling of “statisticans” was ordinary at the time.]
Foreign trade related articles
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/foreign-trade