PROTECTIONIST PRETENCES: THE DUTY IS PAID BY THE FOREIGNER

As the theory that prosperity is caused by the tariff did not work, it was claimed that the foreigner sending his goods to this country reduced his price by the amount of the tariff in order to secure sales here. This did not work any better, for it was pointed out that the importer, whether American or European, and whether living in this country or in Europe, did not buy what he imported with the amount of the American tariff duties taken off. So this had to be given up. Protectionism is full of these false pretences, sophistical reasonings, and patent absurdities, and as fast as the old ones are overthrown others equally false are put forward, only to be in turn demolished.

PROTECTIONIST PRETENCES: THE TARIFF IS THE CAUSE OF PROSPERITY

We have seen the excuses made for increased duties in 1861 and later—that is, they were necessary to pay the expenses of the war; they were to be moderate and temporary, and were to be reduced after the war. Alarmed by the "Great Debate" of 1886, the protectionists tried to throw dust in the eyes of free traders (meaning tariff for revenue only

men) by claiming that the tariff was the cause of prosperity. No, they said, the tariff is not a tax; it is the cause of our prosperity.

FALSE CLAIMS OF PROTECTIONISTS THAT THERE CAN BE NO MONOPOLY IN A PROTECTED ARTICLE

Kelly, Aldrich, and others claimed that domestic competition would prevent it. But the trusts multiplied and most of them were in the highly protected industries. President Cleveland had said, in his message on the tariff:

It is notorious that competition is too often strangled by combinations quite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, which have for their object the regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination. The people can hardly hope for any consideration in the operation of these selfish schemes.

The necessity of combination to maintain the price of any commodity to the tariff point furnishes proof that someone is willing to accept lower prices for such commodity, and that such prices are remunerative.

Thus, by combining and forming trusts competition is eliminated, only enough is supplied to Americans to meet the demand at the trusts' prices, and the excess is sold abroad cheaper than at home.

A PAEAN FOR PROTECTION

In concluding his painstaking but not always impartial work, American Tariff Controversies, Stanwood indulges in a triumphal song of victory for protection, rather bacchantic in tone, to the effect that the American people are fully convinced that the protective system has added immensely to their wealth, their prosperity, and their industrial independence, that it has been and is good for them and they propose to continue it.

This is like the attitude of the man who, having drunk to excess all his lifetime and is still hale and hearty, attributes all his success to drink, glories in his habit, and therefore proposes to continue it.

WHEN it is said that wages are high, either

meant.

one of two very different things may be

One is that a day's labor brings a large sum of money, without reference to the purchasing power of that money; the other is that the money paid for a day's labor will go far in supplying the laborer's wants. In this, the true sense, wages are high in this country, not only now, but ever since the settlement of the country, and of course long before such a thing as a tariff was ever thought of. Therefore, no tariff created our high wages. One reason is that the demand has exceeded the supply. This has remained so because, with plenty of land awaiting occupation, if wages fell below a certain rate, higher than the European rate, the laborer could take to the land with profit and still keep the style of living he had kept. Another reason is the superior efficiency and greater productive power of the American laborer, due to a variety of causes, such as our bracing climate, better education, better

food, a higher standard of home comforts and manner of living. It is evident that no tariff law has had anything to do with these matters, for they existed before there was any tariff and will continue to exist whatever the tariff may be. And if high wages are due to tariffs, why have not wages risen at every rise in tariff rates? As to the assertion of protectionists that free trade will lower wages, it is enough to cite the well known fact that wages have steadily risen and pauperism has steadily decreased in England since the adoption of free trade. Wherever labor is efficient and productive, high wages are paid. The employer can afford to pay high wages because he gets much in return, with the result that the cost of production by the piece or unit of production is low. This must be so, for otherwise the employer could not afford to continue to pay high wages. Certainly our smart business men would not carry on business year after year and decade after decade at a loss.

It is "pauper labor" that is dear, because it is unproductive. European protectionists have, therefore, a strong argument when they claim they must have protection against the efficient, productive labor of this country, which is not in reality dear, and our protectionists are in error when they claim we must have protection against the inefficient pauper labor" of Europe, which is really dear labor.