OCR Text |
Show n.;s ju-TiriF:i itself. Ilurfirr'.i MaytKine for September has an artu;loof great iutereston "The New York Chamber of Commerce." Tho article contains the following statement in regard to one of the most important of American industries aud its relatiou to the tariff: "The lust presidential election is said to have turned upon the question of free wool. But, notwithstanding an enormous enor-mous tariff, both upon a raw material and tho manufactured article, the entire en-tire wool business was in declining condition con-dition up to the close of 18V,J. Since then idie machinery has resumed aa-tivity, aa-tivity, and uew mills are now in pro cess of construction. It seems to be probable that the design of the tariff to transfer tho manufacture of woolens needed in America to this country will bo accomplished." This is a candid statement both of the principle and the results of protection. It is a common thing for free traders to describe protection as designed only to keep up wages. The object of protection protec-tion is not only to keep up the wages of American workingmen, but also, and as of eqtisi importance, to transfer to and retain, in America the industries requisite for the support of the American Ameri-can people. It is with no little satisfaction, satis-faction, therefore, that we find in the monthly periodical issued by a firm of publishers of supposed mugwump proclivities pro-clivities the admission that the Mi'KiN-i.icy Mi'KiN-i.icy law will result in transferring the manufacture of wooleus needed in America to America. That alone would bo justification enough for the M.'Kinlev law, but it is only one of tho numerous benelits secured to the uation by that great republican measure. meas-ure. AV' York I'rt ss. In view of tho fact that Harpers'' Mag-a::iiif Mag-a::iiif does not pretend to bo neutral like tho Hi 'iv v and other publications, it is, as l;,s ' ' states, highly significant signifi-cant that it should pubii.-ih an srticle j sotting forth such facts. The free traders trad-ers have steadily insisted that the Mc-Kinlf.y Mc-Kinlf.y tariff would ru'.n the woolen j industry. At the time tho bill was under, un-der, consideration in congress, and j away back in tho Fiftieth congress when the Mills bill was before that bodv, it was ooutended that the then btunation of the woolen Industry re- ; suited from too much prelection rather , than too little as claimed by the repub- : Moans, anj that the changes proposed by the protectionists would entirely kill : the business. However, when tho Mi Kinlky bill was passed there wns au almost immediate imme-diate revival. It was noticed that such ; a strong free tracer as William M. Sin- gerly. proprietor of the Philadelphia Avon, rushed in to purchase woolen mills that had been dosed down am! depressed iu price. This suggested 1 that he, at lesst, realized that the republican re-publican contention was c-rrect, srd subsequent developments hive proved i the point. ! The democrats continually assert that ! the object of protection is to add to tha ! profits of the manufacturers at tho ex-I ex-I pense of consumers, but tbo investigator investi-gator finds the uuilorm rule to be that 1 it increases American business, sustain? sus-tain? wages while enlarging the opportunities oppor-tunities for labor and increasing tho general gen-eral prosperity without working a hardship hard-ship upon any class. We do not bear of any high prices for woolens because of the M Kin'ley law, but we do hear of greatly increased prosperity in the business of manufacturing them. In this line, as iu every other, the new law has justified itself, and the fact has to bo acknowledged even by such publications publi-cations as Harper's Magazine. |