DEBATE OF OCTOBER 10, 1889.Question: Resolved, That a high protective tariff raises wages.

(Brief for the Affirmative).R. D. Brown '90, and E. S. Griffing '90.

Best general references.- Taussig, Forum VI. p 169; Thompson's Ireland and Free Trade.

I. The United States is the best example of the effect of the tariff on wages.

II. Money wages are higher in the United States than in Europe-Walker's Pamphlet, esp. pp. 4-5.

III. Real wages are also higher in the United States-Consular Report 40, p 304, et seq; 42 pp. 12-14 and 15; 45 pp. 117-118. (a) Proven directly by the amount an American workman can save. (b) Proven indirectly by his higher standard of living.

IV. High authorities hold that a high protective tariff raises wages.- Thompson's Pol. Econ., Carey's Pol. Econ., International Review XIII, p. 455. (a) Opinion of writers. (b) Opinion of manufacturers.

V. It is shown historically that a high protective tariff raises wages-(a) Effect of tariff in England and Ireland. (b) Effect of tariff in Germany and United States-Porter's "Bread Winners Abroad;" Seank's International Trade Report.

Brief for the Negative.F. F. Causey and F. L. DeLong.

Best general reference: Professor F. W. Taussig's article in Forum for October, 1888. Evils of the Tariff system, in North American Review, September 8, 1884; Sumner on Protective Taxes and Wages, in Fortnightly review, vol. 37, p. 272.

I. Loose comparisons are untrustworthy. (1) There is no uniform rate of wages in any country; (2) Such comparisons prove too much-American Almanac for 1889, p. 103; Shoenhof's, The Industrial situation, p. 124; Wells' Practical Economics, p. 137; (3) There are many local causes which must necessarily make wages higher in one country than in another. (a) Natural advantages-D. N. Wells, Relation of Tarriff to Wages, p. 2; (b) Standing service-Wells as above; (c) Question of unoccupied land-Sumner, Protective Taxes and Wages; North American Review, vol. 136, p. 270.

II. Careful use of statistics show higher relative wages under a low tariff. (1) High wages in the United States are set by unprotected industries. Laughlin's note to Mill, p. 619. (2) Compare wages in protected industries in the United States and wages in those same industries in England-Report of J. G. Blaine, secretary of state, on the Button Goods Trade of the World, published by Department of State, Washington, June 25, 1881, (cited in Wells', Relation of the Tariff to Wages); Wells' Practical Economics, p. 143. (3) Wages in United States higher than abroad before there was any protection in the United States-Nation, October 25, 1888. (4) New South Wales is more prosperous than Victoria: The Results of Protection in Young Communities.- Fortnightly Review for March, 1882.

III. In a given country, changes in the rate of wages can only be produced by changes in the amount of capital distributed in wages, or by changes in the number of persons competing for work-Sumner, Protective Taxes. (1) But since the number of persons competing for work is not changed by high protection, if high protection affects wages at all it must affect them through the amount of capital distributed in wages. (2) Yet protection diminishes the amount of capital distributed in wages for two reasons: (a) The productiveness of industry being less, the product to be divided between capital and labor is less-Wells' Practical Economics, p. 135; (b) and also the proportion in which that produced is divided is less favorable to labor. (3) Evil effect of limiting the sale of commodities to a domestic market-Wells' Practical Economics, p. 139.

IV. The tariff increases the price of commodities, and thus puts them out of the reach of the poorer classes. Their real wages thus become less-Sumner, Protective Taxes and Wages.