The new feed 'em. Why low tariffs mean low wages and no tariffs mean no work, by Birch Helms.

The New Feed ’Em. Why Low Tariffs Mean Low Wages and No Tariffs Mean No Work By BIRCH HELMS Published by THE HOME MARKET CLUB Thomas O. Marvin, Sec’y Summer Street, - Boston UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN DAK STREET imwwry OF THE UNIVERSITY' OF ILLINOIS 5 CCT1S14 The New Feed ’Em. Why Low Tariffs Mean Low Wages and No Tariffs Mean No Work. By BIECH HELMS. Published by THE HOME MARKET CLUB Thomas O. Marvin, Secy. Summer Street, - Boston Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates i https://archive.org/details/newfeedemwhylowtOOhelm THE NEW FEED ’EM. Why Low Tariffs Mean Low Wages and No Tariffs Mean No Work. By Birch Helms. There was no doubt about it. Bill Cobb was down and out. At least Bill knew that he was, if no one else in the wide world did, for as he sat in the “smoker” of the “Chicago Express” with not a single possession to his name but a railroad ticket and some loose change, his unfortunate plight was more keenly evident than ever before. The rapid shifting of the scenery as the train thundered ahead only revitalized the swift course of events that had swal- lowed up his hard earned savings and blasted his aspirations for a successful future. Of average intelligence, the pos- sessor of a strong, sturdy body and very willing to work hard, here he was after a bitter experience of two years’ dura- tion without a decent suit of clothes on his back. Whatever fond and ambitious dreams he may have cherished had long ere this vanished in his disheartening, disappointing daily search for a job, for when the pangs of unsatisfied hunger are sharp, little time can be devoted to building fantastic castles in the air. Absorbed in such gloomy recollections, Bill was the picture of despair, instantly attracting the attention and enlisting the sympathy of a middle aged gentle- man who, as he sat upon the same seat, detected Bill sadly murmuring as if to himself: “I am certainly a flat, dismal failure.” “A failure?” echoed the middle aged gentleman; “well, if that is the case, tell me about it, for I am a specialist on failures.” Conscious of having been overheard and realizing that he presented a sorry figure in his soiled and crumpled clothes, Bill was almost ashamed to look around at his fellow-passenger, but when he did, he gazed directly into clear blue eyes, which twinkled with such a kindly light, that whatever re- sentment Bill might have harbored be- cause of this stranger’s apparent at- tempt to pry into his private affairs was completely overcome by this, the first companionable, friendly glance be- stowed upon him in many months. “Here is my card; my name is Sul- livan, as you will observe,” continued the middle aged gentleman, handing Bill his business card: “I have been a traveling salesman for almost thirty-five years. Experience has taught me that business men do not devote a lifetime of hard work and economy to building up a business and reputation and will- ingly permit them to be swept away, unless conditions force them to fail. You may be a poor man, young sir, but not a dismal failure. Which are you, for there is a vital distinction?” Now Bill had always dreaded the moment when he might be required to disclose his tale of woe. In days by- gone, he had always scoffed at hard luck stories, divulged by beggars on the street. Why should others be any less incredulous than he had been. How- ever, here at last was an opportunity to learn about other men just as hapless as himself, and from one who knew them personally. Misery loves com- pany and Bill was no exception to the rule. Heretofore he had secretly nur- tured his disappointments until they conspired to embitter him towards all whom he regarded more fortunate than himself but perhaps some friendly ad- vice at this juncture might extricate him from his difficulties, so he concluded that it would be wise to confide in his open-hearted fellow-traveler. A Democratic Tariff Experience. “My parents,” began Bill, “were immi- grants. They settled at Minersville, Pa., where my father soon obtained employ- ment in the anthracite coal mines. Al- though working and living conditions, 4 THE NEW FEED 'EM as well as wages, could have been im- proved upon then, yet we were ten times better off than in the old country. While our neighbors spent their earn- ings freely, our family saved my father’s wages, so that when he died a few years ago, there was a small inheritance for my mother and us children. Thereupon, I decided to discontinue my work in the mines, where I had started at the age of thirteen, when commencing in the collieries, and gradually advanced until at the age of thirty-three I was fire boss. With my own savings, for I had accu- mulated a small account in one of the local savings’ banks, and with the money I inherited, I planned to enter upon the manufacture of celluloid col- lars, since for years I had been care- fully studying the sales of these collars while working in the evenings at a dry goods’ store in Minersville.” “Was it wise for you to discontinue your mining occupation in which you must have been proficient to undertake a manufacturing business of which you knew nothing, save perhaps the selling end?” commented the traveling sales- man. “But I entered into a partnership with an uncle, who had been employed for more than forty years in celluloid factories at Arlington, N. J., and Leom- inster, Mass. He was the superintend- ent of a small factory in Leominster, when we agreed upon our partner- ship. He had the manufacturing ex- perience with a little money, while I contributed more money with an experi- ence of fifteen years in selling celluloid collars to miners, who were to be our customers throughout the country.” “Together you constituted a practical, efficient business combination,” replied the traveling salesman. “So we thought,” rejoined Bill, “but as you will observe events were not favorable. We arranged to commence our business in San Francisco, because of the small competition we would meet with upon the Pacific Coast, and because camphor, the chief raw material in the manufacture of celluloid, could be landed at our factory direct from Japan, thereby saving freight charges across the country.” “Business bad or good?” asked the traveling salesman. “Business should have been flourish- ing after all the precautions we had taken against failure,” remarked Bill reminisciently, “but we relied too strongly upon the assertion of the Democratic Party when it stated that a low revision of the tariff would not in- jure a single legitimate industry. Our prices were low, our profits very small, while the celluloid industry is divided among hundreds of small factories, em- ploying only from ten to twenty-five workmen. There is no celluloid trust. But the Democrats, nevertheless, cut low the duty upon finished celluloid articles while a tariff duty was placed upon camphor. They cut away our pro- tection upon the finished celluloid goods but taxed our raw material, for since camphor could not be produced in this country, domestic competition had no effect upon prices, with the result that Japan immediately added the duty to the original price of camphor.” “Did the Democrats, after claiming in the last election that they would place raw materials upon the free list, tax camphor — your raw material, and in addition reduce the protection upon your celluloid goods?” exclaimed the traveling salesman in amazement. “Exactly,” answered Bill. “They got us coming and going. As camphor comes only from the Island of Formosa in Japan, a tariff duty upon it would not protect a single American manufacturer but it did force the Japanese to raise their price for camphor. On the other hand, when the protection was taken away from our finished product, Euro- pean countries and Japan undersold us in our own markets, because they paid their labor one-third to one-sixth w'hat we paid ours, thereby having a much smaller cost of production.” “You must have faced a very serious problem?” suggested the traveling sales- man. The New Freedom Becomes the New Feed’Em. “We reduced our prices until our goods were sold below cost,” continued Bill. “Our workingmen refused to take THE NEW FEED ’EM 5 less wages, asserting that they would not and could not come down to the level and standard of living that prevail among foreign workmen. There was no doubt that, as President Wilson said, we must whet our wits with foreign competition, but he neglected to state that our workingmen would also be re- quired to compete with foreign labor. Finally, we were forced to reduce wages, so our workmen walked out of the shop, causing us to close down. Our mill was sold to pay the debts we contracted and I sailed for the Argen- tine Republic with some American ma- chinists, who were looking for work. After a search of five or six weeks for jobs, with the best offer for skilled ma- chinists at 43 cents a day for four work- ing days in the week, and ham selling at S1.60 a pound, a ten cent box of sar- dines selling at $1.10, and all other eat- ables to which we were accustomed selling as high in proportion, we all came back by steerage instead of first class. Conditions in Argentina may be inferred from this item in the Buenos Aires Standard of July 21: ‘In June 8,000 immigrants arrived and 28,000 emigrants left. In May 9,000 entered and 24.000 left. Others would leave if they could.’ ” “Why did you not remain in Cali- fornia or at least return to the coal mines in Pennsylvania, instead of ex- perimenting in South America?” in- quired the traveling salesman. “I learned that the Underwood tariff law had injured the lumber, mining, sugar industries, and orange and lemon growing in California more than the celluloid business,” responded Bill, “while the industries in Pennsylvania were running but a few days a week. There was little demand for coal be- cause of closed mills and a mild winter, so that the mines were shut down. It seemed as if every state in the Union, except a few cotton states in the South, had more men out of work than it could take care of. I understood that there were to be large crops, but it would be a half year before farmers would need helpers and then for just a couple of months during harvest time. I wanted a steady job, not a job that would keep me at work a couple of months and un- employed for the remainder of the year.” “It is true that business conditions have been depressed,” added the travel- ing salesman. “One never appreciates how extensive this depression is until he has traveled throughout the country. The present wars in Europe may par- tially revive business in order to supply the needs of the combatants but such a stimulation is purely temporary. But do not let me interrupt you. Please con- tinue the account of your experiences.” “Upon my arrival in New York City, I was unable to locate a job, so I went to Leominster, Mass., hoping that my uncle, who had returned there direct from San Francisco, could assist me. I was unsuccessful there. Without a cent, I then boarded a freight train for Bos- ton. I shall never forget the winter night I arrived in Boston, cold and hungry. After walking around briskly in order to keep warm, I found room on a bench between two other occupants and huddling between them I tried to sleep. The next day, I tramped the city, look- ing for work, asking at cellar doors for a bite to eat. But labor was a drug on the market. Finally, a soup kitchen was opened, so I was assured of one meal every day. Two weeks ago, the man- ager of the soup kitchen secured a job for me on the docks. I worked hard, so yesterday he handed me this railroad ticket for St. Louis, where there is a position open for me as a gardener. I shall remain there until good times re- turn to Pennsylvania coal mines or the celluloid business. Doubtless the Euro- pean wars will revive business, as you say, for a short time, when I might return.” A Farmer’s Experience. “Pardon me, sirs,” broke in a tall, loose-jointed but muscular gentleman, who, with a young man, occupied the seat directly in front of Bill and the traveling salesman, “but would you ob- ject if I reversed our seat so that my nephew and I might listen to your con- versation, which I could not but over- hear, and in which I am interested in as much as it relates to business condi- tions throughout the country. I am a farmer from the West and this young gentleman is my nephew. I have been 6 THE NEW FEED 'EM discussing the tariff question with him, citing to him many farming failures under Democratic tariffs similar to your experience in the celluloid industry. We farmers could not and cannot to- day compete with Canada, South Amer- ica or foreign countries simply because our crops are usually late compared with the crops in other countries, while our farm help and farm land cost many times what farm help and farm land cost in foreign lands. My own inability to run a farm in 1893-96 under the last Democratic tariff constituted the last lesson I wish to learn under non-pro- tective tariffs, for I not only realized that it was difficult to compete with the low prices of foreign farmers but that if no farm products should come into this country at all, the fact that our in- dustries were idle or closed through Democratic free trade prevented work- men from buying our products and consequently our farm products sold at a sacrifice without benefiting anyone. However, my nephew, who is attending college in the East, has not yet learned the effort and the trial of earning a dollar, so he honestly believes in free trade. Like many other college men, he will be a free trader until he com- prehends how difficult it is to succeed in life and just how protective tariffs re- strict the ruinous competition of our working people with low paid and humbly housed foreigners.” “We will be pleased to have you join us,” replied Bill and the traveling sales- man simultaneously. “Will you not be seated?” “You are a protectionist, I judge?” added the traveling salesman good naturedly, when the farmer and the young college student had become com- fortably seated. “I am, indeed, sir,” asserted the farmer earnestly. “So ought every American citizen to be. I am for the full dinner pail.” “Oh, rubbish,” laughed the young col- lege student. “You protectionists, my dear uncle, always play to the gallery. You never rely upon reasonable argu- ments but endeavor to terrify working- men, thereby hoping to scare them into voting for a protective tariff with threats of hard times, no work, no wages, starvation and ruin. The day is now past when our intelligent labor can be influenced by such fraudulent and ex- travagant arguments. Protective tariffs have departed never to return, until it can be proven that the farmer and workingmen will benefit under them.” “To convince anyone that the eco- nomic policy, termed protection, is of real benefit to the farmer and working- man, two methods are possible,” re- sponded the farmer. “The first method is to be learned through argument or from books and is defined as theoretical. The other method must be learned from the observations of practical experience and might be termed the practical method. The two methods are distin- guished from each other by designating them as theory and practice. Bill Cobb, as his story illustrates, has learned the benefits derived from a protective tariff by endeavoring to operate a business under a tariff that is not protective. His failure has been his lesson, his teaching has been from the daily experiences of his life and business. As a college stu- dent, you can be convinced only by the theoretical method or by reason. Now theoretically the advantages of a protec- tive tariff can be best demonstrated by comparing the national prosperity of the country under protection with the widespread depression under non-pro- tective tariffs.” Tariff Laws and Custom Duties. “May I ask what is your definition of a tariff and what is the precise dif- ference between free trade, tariff for revenue, and protective tariffs?” queried the traveling salesman. “A tariff, sir,” responded the farmer, “is the amount of money that our gov- ernment requires a foreign merchant to pay to it before he can land his products upon our shores and sell them in our markets. He must pay us for the privi- lege of selling in our markets since we have built up the United States from a wilderness, developing the most profit- able market and the best purchasing public in the world. There can be no justifiable reason why our people should allow a foreign merchant, who employs THE NEW FEED ’EM 7 foreign workmen and does not even contribute to the support of our govern- ment, to receive the benefits of our mar- kets, unless he pays us for them. The tariff law, which is passed by Congress, is thus a list or schedule of such im- ported articles that must pay to the government this amount of money, otherwise known as custom duties. As you all know, the foreign merchant sending goods into this country is called an importer and when goods are sent out of the country, they are said to be exported. Duties are specific when levied for a certain specified amount of money, as io cents per yard or per pound. Ad valorem duties are levied according to the value of the goods or upon a percentage basis, such as io per cent, of the declared value. Compound duties are a combination of both specific and ad valorem duties. Thus the rates of a tariff are specific, ad valorem and compound, but there are only two kinds of tariffs, protective and for revenue.” “What becomes of this money, col- lected by the government,” cautiously inquired Bill, for he had followed the farmer’s remarks only with considerable difficulty. “The tariff or custom duties constitute a large portion of our national revenue, used to pay the current expenses of the nation. In 1910, our total revenue was $899,640,373, while our custom duties amounted to $333)683,445. In 1912 our total revenue was $938,522,481, while our custom duties amounted to $311,321 ,672. The United States must have sufficient money to meet its current expenses and maturing obligations, for our country has but little income, except what it secures by internal revenue taxes or by duties upon imported goods. Since di- rect taxation, with the exception of in- come taxes, is not seriously favored, much of our revenue must come from taxing foreigners, or from custom duties.” Free Trade. “What is the distinction between free trade and a tariff for revenue?” interro- gated a short, thick set gentleman, who had walked over to the group from across the aisle, and leaning over the shoulder of the traveling salesman, now introduced himself as Mr. Noss of New Bedford, Mass., an executive officer in the United Textile Workers of America. “Free trade,” continued the farmer, “is an economic status where no tariff laws whatsoever exist. There is no restric- tion in the form of custom duties im- posed upon trade or commerce. Trade is as free and as open as between the several states of the Union. Under free trade, it is claimed that everyone would be employed at that occupation for which he is best fitted. There would be a survival of the fittest. Before the world was civilized free trade existed everywhere. To return to free trade would mean that the entire world would soon be reduced to the same level from which it came, but it is doubtful whether any modern nation would be willing to return to such conditions. No country of any prominence or civilization is to- day without tariff duties, except semi- barbarous and savage races. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said: ‘If a nation were made of adamant, it could not stand up under free trade.’ George Washington said: ‘Harmony and lib- eral intercourse with all nations may be recommended by humanity but we should constantly keep in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinter- ested favors from another. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which ex- perience must cure, which just pride ought to discard.’ James Madison said: ‘The theory which would leave to the sagacity and interest of individuals the development of industry and resources, supposes that all nations concur in a perfect freedom of commercial inter- course. But this golden age of free trade has not yet arrived. A nation leaving its foreign trade to regulate it- self might soon find it regulated by other nations into a subserviency to a foreign interest. Rather than be de- pendent upon foreign sources of supply, let us favor internal and independent sources instead, and let the general rule of consulting cheapness alone, because foreigners, for want of a ready and prof- itable market at home, have shipped their goods into the United States at 8 THE NEW FEED ’EM prices below their current values at the place of manufacture.’ Thus with Na- poleon, Washington and Madison op- posing free trade, it is apparent that other statesmen realize the disadvan- tages attending its restoration through- out the world, particularly since Demo- cratic free trade principles have abso- lutely destroyed our great merchant marine and shipping of earlier days.” Tariffs for Revenue. “How do you account for the fact that England is called a free trade country?” observed the young college student. “Because free trade and a tariff for revenue are regarded as identical in many ways. In reality, England has a tariff for revenue, which as its name indicates, is levied for the purpose of raising revenue only to help pay the ex- penses of government. The supporters of this form of a tariff law, now having a doubtful majority in Great Britain, all believe in free trade theoretically, but as they must have money to run their gov- ernment, they consider a revenue tariff as a necessary evil. If they could ob- tain revenue in other directions or by other means, all custom duties and tariff would be abolished, for since all gov- ernment expenses would be paid from other sources, tariffs could be sup- planted by free trade. Revenue duties are imposed upon those products that are usually not produced at home; pro- tective duties are placed on articles that are produced at home. In England, the necessities of the poor, such as tea, sugar, coffee and tobacco pay the larger share of this revenue, with the result that revenue tariffs directly weigh upon the poor, for tariff taxes in England are 80 cents per capita more than in United States. However, let me add that after the present European wars have been terminated, England will again become a strong protective tariff country in order to protect her commercial in- terests.” “Do the Democrats, who publicly maintain that they stand for a revenue tariff, actually believe in free trade?” asked the traveling salesman sceptically. “If they are consistent, they believe in free trade for the United States,” an- swered the farmer. “President Wilson and Mr. Champ Clark believe in abso- lute free trade while most Democrats agree with Senator Hollis of New Hampshire, Senator Thomas of Colo- rado, and Senator Williams of Missis- sippi, when they continually declare in the United States Senate that the Demo- cratic party, if retained in power, will soon cut the tariff to a free trade basis.” “A lot those gentlemen know about running a mill, or a farm,” caustically commented Bill. “They would not be so eager to place our workingmen and women in competition with foreign labor if they had ever had any practical business experience. Our country would be suffering terribly today if free trade instead of protective tariffs had prevailed since 1896. Our dependence upon Europe at the present time for supplies would mean destruction.” “Correct you are, sir,” admitted the labor leader. “Those well-meaning gentlemen know more how to tell us in what manner to run our business but less how to do it themselves. It is just the difference between theory and prac- tice, for it is one thing to tell how to accomplish a result but quite another matter to actually effect it.” Protective Tariffs. “What do Republicans and Progres- sives stand for,” testily inquired an aris- tocratic, silver-haired gentleman, who had joined the party and introduced himself as a gentleman from Missis- sippi, but in appearance bearing a marked resemblance to that dignified character, popularly known as a Ken- tucky Colonel. “Might I ask what their position upon the tariff question is, so as to be perfectly fair by permitting these gentlemen to compare their posi- tion with that of the Democratic Party.” “Certainly,” responded the farmer, “they advocate the maintenance of a protective tariff, which as its name im- plies, aims to protect the American farmer, workingman and manufacturer from disastrous foreign competition. It protects us in our home trade by making a taxpayer of every foreigner who sends us goods and also shields our own labor and skill from the underfed labor THE NEW FEED ’EM 9 and underpaid skill of every other coun- try in the world. It compels the for- eign merchant to pay into the U. S. Treasury what he has saved by not pay- ing his working people as much as our workmen receive. Protectionists main- tain that since the foreign merchant pays much less for his labor than we do, he can make his goods for much less than we can in as much as the labor cost in farming and manufacturing con- stitutes by far the largest proportion of the final cost of production. If foreign goods are then sold in our markets at lower prices than our goods can be sold for, they necessarily will be purchased instead of our goods. This lessens the demand for our merchandise, conse- quently our mills must close down and work and wages must cease. The con- tinuation of such an economic policy produces unemployment and hard times, for the commodities that our working- men and working women once made will then be produced by foreigners.” “Are not all excessively high duties protective tariff duties?” interrupted the gentleman from Mississippi. “By no means,” rejoined the farmer. “Protective tariff duties may be either high or low, so may tariffs for revenue. Many duties in Democratic tariffs are as high if not higher than duties in Re- publican tariffs. Under protection, high duties are imposed upon foreign goods only when such goods are being made in this country, or upon competitive commodities. Under tariffs for revenue, high duties are imposed upon articles not manufactured in this country, for in this manner sufficient revenue is ob- tained from the wares which must be imported.” Protection vs. Free Trade. “How does the protective tariff oper- ate compared with free trade?” queried Bill, endeavoring to relieve the visible embarrassment of the gentleman from Mississippi, who had always been con- vinced that protective duties must nec- essarily be high duties. “Protection means American markets for American taxpayers, but free trade means American markets for foreign taxpayers,” answered the farmer. “Re- cently the Democrats have undertaken a campaign to capture foreign markets. In 1910 the manufactured products of our people amounted to $20,000,000,000. Of this, $2,000,000,000 found a market abroad, while $18,000,000,000 was con- sumed at home. It should be our en- deavor to extend our dollar market by every means in our power, but this should not be done at the sacrifice of our greater market, the nine dollar market. We shall never be stronger abroad by making ourselves weaker at home, for a revenue tariff or free trade never built a factory in the United States, never opened a mine, never built a fire in a furnace, but they have more than once extinguished fires built under protective tariffs. A revenue tariff as well as free trade, is primarily based upon large importations and every dol- lar’s worth of goods imported means a dollar’s worth less made by us.” “But your arguments are against the continuance of protective tariffs, not for them,” exclaimed the young college stu- dent, “for if I can buy goods or grocer- ies at lower prices from foreign mer- chants than I can from our merchants, why is it not good business for me to pursue such a policy? To buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest will certainly reduce the cost of living in a very short time.” “How can we buy commodities when we are not earning money to buy them with?” asked Bill very seriously. “If the foreign merchant wins our markets, as you now propose he shall do and also retains his own markets by means of protective tariffs, where can we sell the goods that our working people produce? Where will we obtain money to buy in the cheapest market, when foreigners are earning wages instead of us? You may be certain that no foreign nation will surrender its market to us, particu- larly if we are too weak to retain our own markets. During the last year. I have seen more bargains in food and clothes than ever before in my lifetime, but I could not bother about low prices when I was not earning enough money to buy a square meal.” “Why could you not earn money like anybody else?” retorted the young col- lege student, somewhat disconcerted by Bill’s remarks as he realized that one IO THE NEW FEED ’EM well established fact in life’s experi- ence more than outweighs myriads of delicately spun theories. Consumers Must be First Producers. “Ah,” laughed the farmer, good naturedly, “that is the weak point in the elaborate policies of free trade and tar- iffs for revenue. Their supporters can- not see far enough ahead to understand that if we buy from foreign merchants because of their low prices and cheap labor, we must gradually lessen the de- mand for our own American products, until ultimately our mills must close down and labor be unemployed. Where there is no work there can be no wages. Where there are no wages or reduced wages, buying capacity must diminish in proportion to earning capacity, so finally our working people are anxious to secure merely enough to provide for the barest necessities of life. You cannot expect to give our business to foreigners by taking the work from our own people and then ask them why they have no money, when they are out of work. Low prices and no work are not attrac- tive to American labor, pa icularly when once the foreigner obtains a firm hold upon our markets and has us in his power, thus enabling him to raise his prices just as he pleases. Democrats assert that our workingmen must com- pete with the producers of the world in order to provide the consumer with arti- cles at the lowest price. The lowest price (with them) is the one great aim, but prices are no lower today than under Republican protection. Prices before the European wars commenced did not decline but continued to go higher than prices under Mr. Taft’s administration. However, the mere idea of low prices blinds them to the results of actual ex- perience. A price low in dollars and cents must be considered in connection with the consumer’s ability to pay the price. Democrats consider us all as consumers, as if it were not necessary for us to produce before we consume. You cannot divide the nation into pro- ducers and consumers when primarily the consumer must be a producer. The Democrat keeps his eye fixed on the price, while the protectionist claims that prices under protection will come down through competition, so he fixes his eye upon work and wages, believing that you can spend no more than you earn no matter whether prices are high or low. Abraham Lincoln said: ‘The con- dition of a nation is not best whenever it can buy the cheapest, for if it is com- pelled to sell correspondingly cheap nothing is gained. We must not aim towards buying cheap and selling dear, but to have constant employment which can be secured only by ample, steady and certain markets to sell the products of our labor in.’ Cheapness, therefore, to the consumer means that as a pro- ducer he must compete freely with the worst paid labor of any and every country, so that under tariffs for rev- enue and free trade, cheap goods mean cheap men and women. The cheapness of free trade and revenue tariffs has undermined the Welsh tin-plate indus- try, the Irish lace industry and the Eng- lish steel industry. Upon this theory of free trade cheapness, England is gradu- ally being transformed from the work shop of the world to the sweat shop of the world.” Protection Means High Wages. “Is it true that foreign workmen re- ceive less than do our own working people?” interrupted the traveling sales- man. “Yes, indeed,” replied the farmer. “In Japan, a laborer must work 6 1/2 days, in Italy 4 1/4 days, in Austria 3 days, in France 3 days, in Germany 2 5/6 days and in England, the highest wage coun- try in Europe, 2 1/2 days to earn as much as in one day here in the United States. The Tariff Board, in its report upon foreign cotton, woolen and paper industries showed conclusively that wages were much higher in this country than elsewhere. Recently the British Board of Trade, under the direction of a free trade official, stated in a compre- hensive report upon wages and the cost of living throughout the world, that American workmen receive 130 per cent, more in wages than do Englishmen, while it costs us but 53 per cent, more to live. President Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor, THE NEW FEED ’EM says: ‘My facts indicate (1911) that money wages in America in many trades are double those paid abroad. Whether the cost of living in America is greater to the workingman depends entirely upon the standard of living he adopts while in America. If he volun- tarily lives the life of self-denial, that he compulsorily lived in his native land, his outlay will remain about the same. Even then he will hardly be able to escape gaining something from the su- perior supply of good things in Amer- ica.’ You must therefore conclude from these facts which I have stated that wages are higher in this country than abroad and if what I have stated might be questioned, the fact that the emigra- tion of foreign workmen to United States has been continually on the increase should indicate that better working and living as well as wage conditions are an incentive for them to cross the ocean.” “Why should England, which is prac- tically a free trade country, pay more to its workmen than do all other protective tariff countries, except the United States?” asked the young college stu- dent? “Is not the difference in wages between the United States and England due to the fact that we are comparatively an undeveloped country, making labor scarce and wages higher?” “English wages are higher than those of other protective tariff countries except the United States because she has been established for years in a commanding trade position and also because English labor unions have forced wages higher each year,” said the farmer. “But while many are benefiting from these wages, there are many more who are unem- ployed and do not benefit. England has attained her present wage scale only after centuries under protection, while Germany and France within a score of years have almost equalled her wage level, and other protective tariff coun- tries are making rapid progress towards higher wages.” Are We More Efficient Than For- eigners? “Although wages are higher in the United States than in other countries 1 1 and labor is the principal item in the cost of production,” broke in the young college student, “nevertheless our work- men are more skilled than foreign work- men. In an hour we turn out so much more product than foreigners do that the difference in quantity and quality of our commodities offsets the lower wages and longer hours prevailing abroad. We pro- duce as much in eight hours as foreign- ers do in twelve.” “That is not correct,” exclaimed the labor leader. “It is an argument em- ployed by persons who have never seen foreign people at work. Although we might at one time have produced more for each unit of the day because of our machinery, it must not be forgotten that American machinery manufacturers are now establishing their machines in for- eign mills, erecting factories throughout the world and maintaining a large corps of officials to teach foreign workmen the proper operation of these machines.” “But how about the ability and effi- ciency of the foreign workman himself?” interrupted the traveling salesman. “The foreigner inherits his trade train- ing from many preceding generations, since abroad a trade is handed down from father to son,” replied the labor leader. “Further, he is required to serve a long apprenticeship, sometimes a dozen years, before he is admitted as a member of a trade. What textile opera- tive is therefore better equipped than the English cotton or woolen worker? What iron or steel workman is better than the German? What artisan can make superior lace to that of the Irish spinner, or lay claim to more finished work than the French shoe maker or the Chinese silk fabricator? France can take our cotton and Germany our copper and fashion them into wearing apparel and utensils that surpass in skill and ingenu- ity the work of any other country. Re- cently, an English firm bid $34,000 for a contract to supply high grade bunting to our navy when our factories could not produce a similar high grade of bunting for less than $44,000. Progress and effi- ciency with industrious work have devel- oped farming abroad to such an extent that although favored by climate and natural conditions, we produce but one- 12 THE NEW FEED ’EM half as much crop per acre as Germany and England, while the United States and Russia fall into the lowest class of food producers per acre. When you under- stand that more than 75 per cent, of our public school pupils leave our schools at the age of 14 to go to work without any trade or vocational training whatsoever and many foreign emigrants of little education also enter our mills, then you will realize that the American workman is often under a serious handicap, instead of having an advantage with which to start his life work.” “Do not government reports at Wash- ington prove that the units of produc- tion for each American workingman rise higher than those of the foreign work- man?” retorted the young college stu- dent. “Our government investigators have never been successful in ascertaining units or costs of production in foreign mills, simply because the foreign mer- chant is unwilling to reveal his business secrets to any tariff agent with the prob- ability that his cost figures may be di- vulged to his competitors throughout the world,” responded the labor leader. “You certainly do not place much con- fidence in our American working peo- ple,” rejoined the young college student. “If you are a labor leader, why not en- courage American labor and not humili- ate it.” “National pride, my young sir,” seri- ously said the labor leader, “must not blind us to facts as they exist. Now the protective tariff seems to me to mean just as much a closed shop to American workmen in their competition with for- eign workmen as does the labor union to organized employes in our country. Protection means a closed shop for American workmen against the world.” Does Protection Benefit our Working People? “But the American workingman does not actually receive the benefit of this protection,” suggested the gentleman from Mississippi. “His employer appro- priates the larger share of the tariff benefit for himself. What advantages do the miners in Colorado and the mill hands in Lawrence and Paterson receive from the operation of protective tariffs?” “The Census Bulletin of Manufactures for 1910,” answered the labor leader, “shows that employes in this country receive about 40 per cent, of the value which they add to a product in making it, while the manufacturer receives 10 per cent, of this value, out of which wear and tear and salaries, etc., must be met. The majority of the miners in Colorado receive from $4 to $5 a day but in the old country they would receive only from 50 cents to $1 a day. The wages in Lawrence and Paterson run from $8 to $22 a week as compared with from $2 to $12 a week in foreign lands. In case any employer, however, does not share the benefits of protection with his workmen then our labor unions demand it.” “Does every American workingman and woman require this protection from foreign competition?” observed Bill. “How about the railroad man, the brick- layer, the carpenter, the plasterer, plumber, stone mason, moulder, painter, barbers and clerks in banks and stores?” “These trades,” remarked the labor leader, “do not require protection, for they are protected from foreign compe- tition by geographical and natural con- ditions. They never come in direct com- petition with foreigners. The results of such labor as theirs cannot be trans- ported across the ocean and placed side by side with the product of American farms anl mills on the shelves and counters of American stores, thereby coming into immediate competition with the product of American industry. The same absolute protection shields the newspaper, the lawyer, the engineer, the physician, etc. But all these workers are dependent for work and wages upon our mills and our farms. In turn the prosperity of our mills and farms is de- pendent upon their protection from for- eign competition. Consequently the basis of national prosperity is the main- tenance of a protective tariff.” Oriental Competition. “Should competition with Japan and China be seriously considered in the continuance of a protective tariff pol- icy?” asked Bill of the labor leader. “Yes,” he replied. “Until the Russo- Japanese war, we always regarded Ori- THE NEW FEED ’EM 13 entals as inferior to us, even unworthy of association. But certain labor unions have for years realized the danger of skillful competition from the Orient, so in 1902 they procured the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today Cali- fornia excludes Japanese from her shores because of the large farm col- onies they have established and the low wages for which they do efficient work. The General Electric Co. is now com- pleting the electrification of Japan and the poorest houses are now lighted by electricity. There is a watch factory at Yanagishinia which produces 400,000 pieces annually, almost equal to the best watches made in New England but pay- ing its workmen about 70 sen or 35 cents a day. A great deal of the land used formerly in India and Japan for poppy growing has been diverted to cotton growing and cotton factories are being erected near by these fields. China is rich in mineral deposits and is rapidly becoming a modern industrial nation. Ex-President Eliot of Harvard stated recently that the Chinese impress one with their industry, patience and cheer- fulness as workers while the Japanese are exceptionally skillful in spinning and weaving cotton. As a result of his trip through the Orient, he became con- vinced that the Orientals would soon demand a prominent share of our trade.” “With present-day swift and cheap transportation, this Oriental competition can be brought directly to our markets,” interrupted the farmer with much fervor. “Therefore, how can we compete with such cheap but efficient labor when the cost of water transportation is small compared with our railroad freight charges? It costs less to send a bushel of wheat from Brazil to New York than from Denver to New York and yet it is claimed that our farmers do not need protection.” Democrats and Hard Times. “You are certainly a calamity howler,” snapped the gentleman from Mississippi, concealing his indignation with much difficulty. “Perhaps I do overestimate the evil effects of free trade or tariffs for rev- enue, but I prefer to yell aloud as a calamity howler than permit hard times, suffering and unemployment to be brought upon us by Democrats,” sharply replied the farmer. “Has there ever been any Democratic administration dur- ing which we did not have hard times? The last serious industrial depression, when the American workingman was without work and wages for a prolonged period, was from 1893-6, which period coincided with that of the last Demo- cratic Administration. From 1896 to 1912 under protective tariffs, this country has enjoyed unexampled prosperity, but commencing in 1913 through 1914 under Democratic tariffs, business is becoming more depressed and the numbers of the unemployed are constantly growing. The war in Europe may temporarily pre- vent foreign goods from entering our country but this condition of affairs will not be permanent.” “If hard times are peculiar only to Democratic administrations, how do you account for the panic of 1907, during President Roosevelt’s administration?” rejoined the gentleman from Mississippi with a confident air. “The so-called panic of 1907 was a financial and not an industrial depres- sion,” answered the farmer warmly. “President Roosevelt’s activity against trusts and corruption created an uncer- tainty in investments, with the result that people hoarded their savings and would not put their money out at inter- est. This stringency in the financial sit- uation caused banks to call in their loans, embarrassing certain big finan- ciers, who were unable to pay their debts at once. Financial panics affect bankers and speculators, who are sud- denly called upon to convert their assets into cash to pay their loans. In- dustrial panics affect general business, closing mills and factories, depriving working people of their livelihood. A disordered currency system was also a partial cause of the panic of 1907 but the new currency law, whipped into shape by Republican Senator Weeks of Massa- chusetts, will probably prevent serious future financial disturbances. However the new Currency Law cannot make prosperity. Banks do not make prosper- ity, they live on prosperitj^. The protec- THE NEW FEED ’EM tive tariff makes business and business makes prosperity, for business under protection deposits money in American banks instead of in foreign banks. Give a man a chance to do business and bank- ing will be good, for banks must first have depositors before they can loan money. The impractical and unwise eco- nomic policies of the Democratic Party are the causes of our present industrial depression. This country has suffered six periods of extreme prostration of business, in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873,, 1893 and in 1913, and it is a striking fact that each one followed after great reductions in tariff rates.” Hard Times Followed the “New Freedom”. “Is it not a fact that many of the un- employed to whom you continually refer as being out of work today are loafers and tramps?” inquired the young college student. “You are wrong, sir,” exclaimed the traveling man turning towards the young college student. “I thought as you do until I read the reports of the charity organizations in cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Last year, the street cleaning departments of the various large cities were besieged for any kind of work from men, who fed at pub- lic soup houses and kept warm in public buildings and over gratings. The Jew- ish Agricultural and Industrial Aid So- ciety of New York said during the win- ter: ‘There are at least ten city men waiting and ready to go on the farms as hired laborers to every job ready for them on the farms. The real difficulty is not in finding city men willing to be- come farmers but in finding farms and farmers for the employment of city folk. These men are intelligent, sober, alert, of good physique and they want work.’ “Your statement that because a man is unemployed he must be a loafer or a tramp is similar to President Wilson’s reply to a delegation of middle western manufacturers, representing 33,164 fac- tories, 1,084,000 employes and an annual pay roll of $792,365,000, who journeyed to Washington on May 28, 1914, with a desire to co-operate with Congress for the relief of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed. President Wilson told them that the present depression of busi- ness was merely psychological. Unfor- tunately the President has endeavored to make many dramatic political plays in order to impress the people of the country that his policies are working satisfactorily. For instance, when the future of the tariff bill was darkest, he declared that he had learned that a wealthy and insidious lobby was at work against it, but the lobby committee with Senator Overman at its head has never reported, after many months of investi- gation. When the currency bill was under fire, Secretary McAdoo asserted that the New York banks were conspir- ing to depreciate the value of two per cent. U. S. bonds, whereas those very banks were large holders of such bonds and would be seriously injured by any impairment in their value. When the trust bills were before Congress, the President announced that he had un- earthed a vicious conspiracy by stating for publication that a small publishing house in New York had sent out two hundred letters, asking the subscribers to its magazine to write to their Con- gressman protesting against certain fea- tures of the trust bills. Nevertheless neither the President nor any of the Democrats has ever mentioned their political conspiracy in opening up a press bureau for the purpose of adver- tising through newspapers that bad times were passing away with the dawning of a new era of prosperity which has not as yet really dawned.” “These charges of widespread conspir- acy emanating from the Democrats,” broke in the labor leader, “are as ridicu- lous as the statements of Secretary Redfield, who told the Boston Cham- ber of Commerce that it was nonsense for American business men to claim they could not compete with Europe because wages were less there, for all that would be necessary f