Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1888-08-09

produced 444 yards OF print cloth In q
day; in 1884 each operative in the
same factory produced 1872 yards a
day. This was an increase in efficiency
| of 12o per cent. In the same period
wages increased from 66 cents to 81,
about so per cent, and the labor cost of
the product decreased O. per cent
1t Is delusion, therefore, that the
cost of labor is greater in America than
in Europe. It is also q delusion that
the protected manufacturers pay their
working-men the bounties which they
receive by the operation of the tariff
law. If they did what they profess TO
do the wage-earners of this country
would soon become capitalists. Mr..
Mills has made an interesting calcula-
ton as to the cost of labor in certain
products and the duty charged on for
eign competing articles. A car wheel
of 500 pounds costs $13; the cost of the
labor in it is IS cents, and the tariff
duty amounts to $3.50. The cost of
labor in a twelve-dollar suit of woolens
is %, and the duty is IS. 48; in a suit of
cottons worth $1,000 the cost of labor
is $1.65 and the duty is 1857. Mr.. w.
L. Scott, himself manufacturer, esti-
mates that a duty of 81 a ton would be
amply sufficient to cover the difference
in the cost of labor and material in
American and English steel rails. It
will be seen, therefore, that the Mills
bill would have to be a much more rad
ical measure than it is to take away
the power of the manufacturer to pay
fha -
pie truth is, and it is doubtless fully
understood by many of the most clam
orOus opponents of the bill, that wages
would not be affected by its enactment,
but that the purchasing power of wages
would be greatly increased. In other
words, the working men will get more
for their money. The Mills bill does
not reduce the duty on steel rails to 81,
but to $11, so that whatever part of the
present duty goes to wages will remain
The only result will be that the rail-
roads will have cheaper rails, and this
means in time, cheaper transportation
and consequently cheaper food. The
bill will not take so much from the duty
on cotton cloth that the 50 of labor in
ten-dollar-and-a-hal suit of clothes
will not be covered if it should become
a law the duty would still be more than
the whole cost of labor, and the same
is true of the proposed change in the
wooden schedule. It is true of the
whole project, that if the Mills bill
should become law and the bounties
worl1ing-men, wages would be enor-
mously increased. At the same time
the wOrking-man would pay no duty on
the lumber that enters into the con-
struction of his dwelling, instead of
from 8 to 30 per cent, which are the
rates under the present tariff. He
would save the duty and bounty he now
pays on fruits, baskets and the chemi-
Gals that are used for domestic pur-
poses. He would save about 25 per
cent. on his earthenware and glass
ware, about Is per cent. on his wooden
ware, 20 per cent. on his sugar, 20 per
cent on his cottons, and about 40 per
cent. on his woolens.
These decisions which the protection
lists have succeeded in creating in the
minds of the farmers and wage-earners
of the country are exploded by the
facts. Protection has not created
home market. The Mills bill is not a
free-trade measure; on the contrary, it
provides for an average decrease of
rates which does not begin to be so
great as the reductions which protec-
tionists themselves have admitted
might be wisely made. The cost Of
labor in this country is not greater in
some of the most highly protected in
dustries than in similar industries in
Europe. The bounties are not paid out
by the protected manufacturers in
wages to the working-men. Protective
duties go to the capitalists and make
profits enormous.-N Y Times.