PROTECTION IN AMERICA.

Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 2, Issue 59, 17 February 1868, Page 42

PROTECTION IN AMERICA.

(Prom the Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 9.) Our Protectionist friends send us to a poor example when they cite America as affording an instance of what a re strictive policy would do for this colony. Protection might be very well were we all producers; but seeing that we are consumers also, it is well that we should keep an eye upon our double interest, when dealing with other countries. If it is true that we wish to sell our productions dear* it is no less true that we wish to go into the market for what we-want, and buy cheap. It would be laughable too see in what misery we should be lodged, could each producer use the powers of the Legislature for bis own protection —that is to say, for giving him the-monopoly in his own particular branch of trade. We should then have an amusing illustration, provided it was not prolonged, of the theory of this party. It is not the scarcity of things but the abundance of things that they fear. In consequence of having been constantly told that “Free Trade is a device of England to plunder the rest of the world,” the workmen of America gladly gave the weight of their support to their employers in the Legislature. The narrowness of the view suited their minds To men who could meet at the National Labor Congress at Chicego, for the purpose of keeping out all foreign competitors from manufacturing populations, and otherwise establishing monopolies, such an appeal would not be made in vain. We are, therefore, not surprised to find them readily lending themselves to a policy which, contrary to their notion, ifcflicts no direct injury‘upon other countries, but usually raises the price upon everything the protected, consumers want to buy, Can the working man of America consider himself a gainer by Protection ? “ We see that he is periodically out on strike,” says, the New York Tribune, “and that he is driven to complain of the inadequacy of his wages to sustain his family,” while another influential Republican journal owns that> the American laborer pays from 25 to 33 per cent, of his average earnings in indirect taxation* and yet the Republican party resolutely pursues a policy which must inevitably lead to an aggravation of all the evils now complained of. Reference has recently been made by us to the silence of the once .busy shipbuilding yards of the Northern States. We have also pointed to the fact that the foreign trade of the States is perishing; that whereas it exceeded that of great Britain in 1853, by nearly 15 per cent, at the beginning of 1867 it was more than 33 per cent, less! Not only was the foreign trade shown to be much decreased, but the coasting and inland trade also, and. although, these consequences may not be entirely due to onO and the same cause, there need be no difficulty in pointing to one that has very much to do with them. No longer ago. than September last we find an oppressive stagnation in every department of American industry except husbandry. The mills and factories /were either closed .or rtjnmug short time, and the shop-keepers. bit* terly complaining of the state of trade. U was the same; in every direotioh. Prices forced up by artificial wore in most cases, even further raised by the demands of-the workmen*- who obliged the capitalists to pay, as long

as they could, a higher rate of wages than the price of gddds would warrant. In die Philadelphia district, famous for coaßand iron, the owners, we are told, “cannot get as much for their coal as it costs’ them to get it out of the pit and .ship it to market;” and English iron can pay the exorbitant rates of duty charged in the American tariff, and still be sold alongside of the American furnace at a cheaper rate than the products of that very furnace itself. Wages , for miners and puddlers, and other iron workers, cannot be got down, and the railroads and oanals will not reduce their tolls on the transportation of coals, and the production of each languishes. Many collieries are idle, while the iron mills have but a sickly existence, and the American steel manufacture is at present at a standstill.” The case is precisely similar with the petroleum works. Refined oil is cheaper at Antwerp than in the Pennsylvania oil region. “The consequence is that wells are being everywhere abandoned; and on Oil Creek, where 20,000 barrels daily were produced, not over 6000 are now reported.” The production decreases, yet strange to say the price will not advance, and well owners turning upon the workmen “are now seriously con sidering whether the wages of the operatives cannot be forced down, and the Pittsburg refiners are reported to be -all on the point of suspending operations until the surplus stock is worked off.”

It appears, too, notwithstanding all that can be done, that the cotton and woollen products of American looms, and the knit goods and the shoes are all undersold by English and German manufacturers. The enormous pro tective duty still leaves a considerable margin for the importer. The owners of the knitting mills state that it costs them sll 20 cents currency, a dozen, to manufacture shirts and drawers, yet, owing to successful foreign competition, their goods have not brought for some time past more than $lO 50 cents, and an enormous stock is now on band. The cotton mills of Lowell and Lawrence and other northern towns are running at a loss, and these manufacturers are also burdened with heavy stocks of unsold f.ibrics.

It may be supposed by some readers that there is no difficulty here; that the duties could at once be raised, and the foreign manufactures excluded. But would not this act reduce the revenue ? The withdrawal of the foreign goods from the American market would not render the American consumers more able to give the higher prices wanted for home-made products, but less. They would be so much the poorer by the loss of the advantage offered by the foreigner. But if the difficulty cannot be met by increasing the protective duties on foreign produce, already heavy, can it be met by forcing down the wages of the working inan? This question the working men are well able to answer for themseives. Practically, they have answered it by attempting to make the masters support them out of capital. They were told that the institution of a restrictive policy would increase their wages, and we can hardly wonder if they do not take, kindly to falling the first sacrifice to the stagnation of trade caused by it. Protection has checked foreign importation, but it does not seem to have increased domestic industry.