New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1888-10-10

" ~ OfSi eAod Nv " CnS law oAAasc oAAS
present MISREPRESENTATION dilemma
affords an excellent subject to illustrate
the workings of democratic free trade?
We have on the one side the foreign
contractor, as we may call him, who in
having right to offer q bid for the
services the convicts, here to be con-
sidered as paupers, is matched against
employers of free, here taken as Ameri-
can labor The prison contractor pays
his la5orers about fifty cents a day, and
gets in return the products Of this Ia
Dor which amount to the same quantity,
if not quality, turned out by the free
laborer receiving at least ssl.25 day.
What is the result? Surely, an unjust
and harmful competition. The prison
contractor can offer his manufactures
at lower rates than the free contractor
can afford to sell his goods for. This is
absolutely the fact. And what creates
this difference? The difference in wag.
es, which are in favor of the free labor
er, and unjust to the convict, and be-
cause the latter is underpaid as it were
for the benefit of the prison contractor,
the outside manufacturer, forced to
offer free labor just compensation for
its efforts, can not compete with the
prison employer, protected, protected
as we may take it, by pauper wages.
How could we remedy this state of
things? To protect the manufacturer,
the employer of free labor, we would
either have to reduce the wages paid
his working-men or heighten the wages
paid the convicts. If the former is
done, the general public suffers, while
a few are protected. It is therefore en-
tirely out of the question to resort to
such a proceeding. If we pay the con-
victs more, what happens? Their en-
ployer can then not under sell the out.
side manufacturer. Equality of con-
ditions is produced, a just competition
is established THERE'S then therefore no
need of a protection for the employer
of free labor.
Now comes the comparison. Let us
consider foreign countries as employers
of convict labor, inasmuch as they do
not nearly pay their working-men the
wages received by our American labor
ers. AS a consequence their goods are
sold cheaper and may at any time be
procured, as general thing, at lesser
cost than the American manufacturers.
Now what, and what only prevents
them from ruling our market, from
driving the American employer into
obscurity The protective tariff as
advocated by the republican party. It
is necessarily at present high one.
Were we to abolish this tariff, to
place therefore our working-man at
par with the pauper Of Europe, the pris-
Oh convict, what would be the result:
Clearly the closing up of our factorr..
the unemployment of our working
men.
If the foreign laborer would receive
instead of half the wages now paid our
own, an equivalent amount, it would
not be necessary to have 3 protective
tariff; free-tade in the full sense of the
word would be imperative. hut not till
this is the case, can We afford to have a
tariff for revenue only.
Another lesson are we taught by con-
sidering the above: equalization Of
wages is the only means to secure an
unrestricted Importation Of goods to all
countries.
Here is a. specimen4 selection from, n