Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-07-09
WAGES OF LABOR.
The Eallacy that Protection En
hances them Demonstrated.

4
ment on Mr.. Spencer's partial reply tc
one of my questions which were pub.
lished by your courtesy in the HERALI
of June 20. The question that he chose
to answer (in the Tribune of July A. is
"Why are wages so much lower in pro-
tected European nations than in Free
trade England, if as you say, protection
keeps up wages?"
From the protected nations of Europe
he selects Germany for his text. He
tacitly admits that protection has not
benefited German labor. So much al
tected European countries to hear from.
But he attempts to account for that fact
| by alleging that the German working
occupying neutral attitude of hopeless
| is, is right" Is Socialism an acceptance
a power in German politics. German
workingmen carry elections against the
Governmental party. Does that indi-
cate sluggish apathy on their part
Mr.. Spencer mistakes the German char
acter. As members of the same Teutonic
race, the Anglo-Saxon and the German
alike. from the time of Tacitus to the
present, have been celebrated for sturdy
independence.
Bismarck's political foes charge him
with misusing the anti-Socialist law in
some instances for the purpose of break
ing up trades unions. The charge may
or may not be true. But if Mr.. Spencer
grounds upon this his statement that
every combination Of workingmen has
been thus suppressed, he certainly
claims too much. Bismarck openly
avows that high wages are national de-
sideratum-he has secured for labor a
protection against accident and other
misfortunes by an insurance law. Ger
many is the birthplace of trades unions.
German legislation favored workingmen
and trades unions long before it was
done in England. Employers and en-
ployed were not made equal before Eng.
lish law until 1875.
No serious obstacle has been shown
either in the institutions or animus OF
the German government, or in the "men-
tai attitude. of German laborers them
selves, that would prevent them from
seizing any of the alleged benefits sup
posed to be held out to them by the
tariff system. The ''mental attitude" OF
a laborer who will not take higher wages
if he can get them is unknown to me.
therefore re-iterate my question.
Can Mr.. Spencer give any other an
swer?
But it will be seen that Mr.. Spencer
introduces striking truth into his pro-
lection theory. Protection alone, he ad.
|
in the protected industries must COM
bine, must strike, mus. compel their en-
ployers to raise them. This truth and
Mr.. Spencer's theory make queer com
bination. See! So long as protection is
any benefit to an industry, We all .(most-
ly working people, must give from our
earnings an enhanced price to the pro-
tected manufacturer for his wares, in
order that he can pay increased wages to
his men. In like manner, if our EN- ploy.
er is protected. universal contribution
is enforced in his favor. The unprotect
ed industries don't come in yet-they
must wait until mutual contributions
have enriched the others, and then profit
by their increased custom.
| Result so far-protected manufacturers
enriched at the expense, principally, o.
all labor. Now protected" labor asks
how it will get its money back. Mr.
Spencer says: "You can't get it unless
your mental attitude is all right. You
must combine-strike if necessary" Mr.
Spencer never was nearer the truth, as
protected" Pennsylvania miners can
testify. But when they struck in accord
ance with this advice, they were often
beaten by imported foreign "paupel
labor"
Mr.. Spencer, you are lawyer. When
client comes to you and says, ga man
is claiming some of my property" do
you say, "Let him take it and then we
will sue him and get it back?" No! You
say, Possession is nine points of the
law; hold on to it, and let him sue you il
he likes"
Sound advice! but we have been act
ing contrary to it ever since the rebellion.
The fable Of the "Belly and the Mem
bers" which you quote, has been preached
to us (by those in the interest of the
BELLY with such effect that what with
war tariff, giant monopolies, monstrous
fortunes, and grasping trusts on the one
hand and tramps, strikes and distress on
the other-this with growing surplus in
the Treasury-that there is stealing over
the people an impression that Uncle Sam
is becoming somewhat "pot-bellied."
| But to return to the cause of this dis.
cussion. You published table of wages
paid in one revenue tariff country and in
four protected countries. One of these
four paid higher wages than the revenue
tariff country. Three of them paid lower
wages. Yet this table above you claimed
as conclusive against the proposition that
revenue tariff was better for the work.
ingman than protective tariff. 1t was
not until the table was turned against
you that you recognized the fact that
other things must be considered. You
now justly say that an argument from
such table standing alone is "falla-
cious;" !" that we must consider, in max
ing such comparisons, character of labor
ers, and Qet me add natural advantages,
But, tell me, do Republicans consider
those things when they compare Ameri-
can and English wages?
From James G. Blaine, in such exag-
gerated utterances as the one that daily
heads the Tribune editorial column.
down to the blatant street-corner advo.
cate of war-tariff, such mere COM
parison of wages is "fallaciously' held
out by them as conclusive. 1t is not that
we have inherited an untouched con.
tinent, while England has used her land
thousands of years, not that we have
thirty-fold more acres apiece than the
Englishmen, not our more easily worked
- 4