"On the other hand the tariff-for-protection party, proposed to make the duties on imports so high that foreign productions would be kept out, and the home market secured to the employers of home labor. This, it was claimed, would enable the employers of labor to pay higher wages, which was true; but the selfishness of the heartless employer, was always in favor of keeping wages at a minimum and the noble, generous, employer could not afford to pay any more. If he did, his heartless competitor would undersell him in the market and destroy his business. Hence we are not surprised that statistics proved the tendency of wages to be toward a minimum under both parties--that is, a sum barely sufficient to provide food, clothing and shelter, and to enable the workman to raise other toilers to take his place when he was no longer able to work. "Under this tariff-for-protection policy, the revenues raised were just as oppressive and unjust to people of small incomes as under the policy of 'a tariff for revenue only,' but with this additional burden, that the increased price of home products was assessed upon the people in the same unequal manner. But on the other side, more home labor could be employed, which benefited the workmen in protected industries at the expense of the classes which were not protected. Of course, even the tariff-for-protection party which had so much to say in favor of holding the home market for home products, never seriously intended to exclude foreign products, as that would have put an end to all revenue.