Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-31
THE ROBBER OF THE
LABORER.

When a man, or mass OF men, in defiance
of reason, and the evidence of their own
senses, cling to an idea or theory that facts
demonstrate to be false, all their zeal and
the clamor by which that zeal is expressed
will not make the false true. In the long
run reason will resume lis sway and win the
victory. The great sheet anchor OF the pro-
hibitionist theory is that high pay for labor
has been originated in this country, and is
now sustained by the operation OF artificial
and arbitrary interference with the regular
operation of the law Of supply and demand.
The prohibitionists are like the man who had
a wood-chopping contract, and whose boast
YVES that he paid his men 81 a week more
than any other contractor. He carefully re-
Trained from adding that his men were COM
PEELED 10 buy their clothing and various
uecessaries and comforts at his store,
where they had TO pay IS week Tor
what other CONTRACTOR men got for -; 30
that while paying them 81 week more than
others, he got their lsber for 81 a week less
than otherp. His system was the whole
practice, in a nutshell, of the prohibitive
system, as it respects the wages OF the work.
ingman. The Louisville COurier-Journdi has
been engaged in showing up this portion OF
the prohibition fallacy. 1t points out the
fact that the rate Of wages was not made
higher than that of Europe by the war tariff,
but sprung into being long before by the
spontaneous operation Of the law Of supply
and demand. When prohibition undertakes
to increase the income OF capitalist 1t does
80 by increasing the price OF what be has TO
sell. For instance, by taxing the 1878, 646,-
O56 pounds OF sugar that the United States
imported last year two and half cents
pound, the growers Of the 25O,OO0,OOO
pounds produced in the United States were
able to get two and half cents pound for
what they had to sell, more than they would
have done il the whole people OF the country
had not been taxed two and half cents
pound for 1873, 545, O56 pounds Of imported
sugar they consumed. This is the way the
workingmsn's wages are "choused out OF
him" by bis being compelled to buy at the
protectionists' stores What the working
man has 10 sell is labor; does the protection
ist tax what the workingman has to sell, as
he does when he wants to raise the capital
lists profits? If he does not, he does not
protect American labor and he does not.
The importation of foreign sugar and rice
the workiDgman is compelled TO buy at the
proteciionist's store is taxed, but the i'm
portation of foreign labor is not taxed.
This single fact upsets and falsi6es the whole
theory of protection OF American labor"
against the pauper labor OF Europe, Tor
that labor is imported in immense
thousands untaxed. This one fact upsets
the whole protectionist theory, and no adj
herence to it in the face of so clear demon
stration Of lis falsehood can prevent it in
the long run from perishing as thousands OF
theories have perished before it, because
they were not true. Before the tariff came
TO betray the workingman with the Judas
kiss. wages here we're better than "the pauper
wages Of Europe because, if the capitalist
offered such wages the American would not
do the work. Then the capitalists demanded
protection, so that they could import the
pauper labor of Europe and employ it
against American labor. For their own
profit, protection" taxed upon what they
had TO eel; to make the workingman
the victim of the psuper labor Of
Europe he was taxed what he had to
buy! Does not the reader see the effect
Of this? OF course it will be understood
that we are not fayoring The taxa
ton Of imported labor that the capitalist
buys, but the freedom from more than a
revenue taxation Of what the workiDgman
buys. As the Courier.Journdi says, when
the nonopolist wants 10 "protsct" iron, he
taxes imported iron; does the wool-grower
want protection? he taxes imported wool;
for the sugar-grower's profit, sugar is taxed
or the auinine maker, quinine; for the iron