National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-03-27
TIE INTERESTS or LABOR.

| ference 10 ch'ot upon home indus
try, whether agricultural, manufacture
ing or mining. AlN>know that in the
order Of things the maiArity Of men must
work. II they find nothing to do they find
nothing to eat. The Accumulated capitol
OF the world will support the Inhabitants
| but a short time. Capital must 10 con.
stantly replenished or the race wiz die.
| Capital can be replenished only by laI1r
| Continued prosperity, therefore, depends o.
labor; and consequently the general good
| will be promoted or retarded by legislation,
as the laws may or may not favor the in
terests Of labor by aiding the laborer to
| find something to do.
| These propositions appear to be iucontro-
vertible, and here we meet the fact that a
| division Of labor is an essential condition Of
| prosperity. This is ascertained by very
| slight observation. IL takes so long to learn
| to do one thing well that man has to limit
| the number Of trades he will learn aud fol-
| low. Universal trial has proved that the labor
| OF thrce-one at forming, one at tool max
| ing, and one at clothes maklng-will secure
| more Of the necessaries OF life than the
| three can obtain by each one attempting TO
do the three kinds of work. The man who
works at many trades becomes expert at
none, and this determines the matter and
| compels diversity Of employments. The
| same thing is shown In another way. Nature
has ordained variety in faculties, so that
man without mechanical eye will not sue.
coed at q mechanical trade, and hence
| variety OF employments becomes nccessar y
| TO properly utilize the forces and genius OF
| mankind.
From this It becomes Obvious that the In
| torest Of the farmer as well as Of all other
| persons must be promoted by division Of
labor, and It follows that when farmer
who can do something else better leaves his
/ IL 4. a.. IL -.
| competitor and secures u customer He
| will be able to obtain his tools for less out
lay OF labor and sell more produce Of the
| farm. The farming interest cannot help
| gaining by diversified labor, and hence the
frequent statement that mechanical pros
| pcrity is obtained at the expense OF the
farmers is wholly without foundation. The
exact contrary is true, and 1t is always and
| everywhere true that good prices and ready
| pay for produce are more sure when manu-
features flourish than when they languish.
| So plain is this that farmers invest largely
| In mills when they can, and farming COM
| munities often raise money and give II as a
bonus to manufacturers for starting shops
in their neighborhood. They can afford TO
tax themselves to promote manufactures,
and with great good sense they do.
Now, II this is right and natural, all the
talk to the effect that mechanical prosper
| ity has been obtained at the expense of ag-
rieultural prosperity is without any basis.
Mechanical prosperity means a largely d.
minished number Of farmers and more Gus
toners for farm produce, and can mean
nothing less. II this Is not SO It becomes
| necessary to deny first principles, to deny
that diversi fed industry is beneficial, for
there would be no diversity possible II
farmers were convinced that II was not
beneficial.
Could 1t be shown that farming interests
and mechanical interests are hostile and
not mutual, 1t would be shown that divis-
ion Of labor has been injurious to society,
and to show that would create demand
for the immediate abolition of our whole
| system Of diversified industries.
| The revenue reformer cannot logically
hold that diversity of labor is good and
hold that ell couragement Of diversity is an
evil. In some things there can be too
much Of good. Rain is good, yet there can
be too much {; but in the matter OF employ
ment no mechanic will complain that there
is the least danger Of too much demand for
his services. And as diversity OF labor
creates demand, encQpragements to
diversity are never In excess TO the degree
OF injuriousness. The reformer must stand
for encouragement or against 1t. 1t is
absurd for him to say he Is friendly TO
manufacturing industry and deny 1t is
beneficial. 1t is absurd for him 10 say he
favors 1t and at the same time argue II
ought not to be favored. Some endeavor to
escape this dilemma when caught In 1t by
constituting the constitution as inimical, but
this makes the matter much worse, for 1t
puts that instrument In hostility to the
protection and encouragement OF human
labor, and makes 1t an obstacle to the gen.
eral welfare. And there is no middle
ground In the matter. We cannot be partly
for and partly against. We cannot partly
promote and partly discourage manufac-
lures, or say We do and maintain our self
respect.
diversity Of employment is for the general
good to q degree which warrants the gov
eminent to encouraged by suitable legisla-
ton. lie believes that II a tariff has any
bearing on industry 1t must be shaped to
benefit and not to injure 1t. This is the
main question and the whole question, eX-
cept as to details. The matter Of in
cidental protection need not be discussed
at length, because no one can be In favor
| of that without admitting there is virtue in
| protection, and that admitted the incidental
protection can always be carried as far as
wanted to secure the benefit denied. Who
ever stands against these positions is
obliged to deny the whole basis and the
| philosophy of the modern industrial sys-
TEN, because diversity Of labor comes only
from inducements and announcements,
and their removal must result In removing
the thing itself.
A bill to change the principle of indus
trial legislation II is understood has been
prepared by the committee of ways and
means. II is to be met on its principles
rather than on its details, because the new
principle once admitted implies an ultimate
change of all details. There are several
ways of ascertaining the purpose of the
proposed bill, but only three will here be
noted.
We have first the avowed intentions of
the friends Of the measure. They pretty
unanimously assert that the tariff creates
high prices Of goods to the general detrl-
ment, and the bill is their remedy. Prices
they say must come down. 1t is fair to in
fer that the bill has been framed with care
to effect reduction OF prices, and II
enacted into law will accomplish the end
designed. The direct questions here pre-
sented to the laborer OF special interest are
whether reduction In prices will tend to
the building of mills, work shops, houses,
and appurtenances OF manufacturing or
tend the other way; whether chances for
employment will be increased or dimin-
ished, and whether, on the whole, wages
will be advanced or lessened.
The first and natural effect Of fall in
] prices is a curtailmcut OF business, n cessa-
sation of building, II closing OF mills, and a
reduction OF force. Every workingman OF
any experience feels blue when prices 20
down, and in the business world an adj
vance, even slight one, is hailed as a sign
Of approaching prosperity. This needs no
argument, for 1t is so far admitted that the
friends of the bill have recognized 1t and
given assurances that compensation will be
made in the opening of new and more profit
bic markets. These assurances are well in-
tended, no doubt, but they are without
guaranty and against experience, The coun-
tries where the cheapest goods are made are
cOLfessedly the countries where labor Ia
most depressed, and the low-priced coun-
tries, after long years Of trial, find their