The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1888-04-26

the home market. 1t became over-sup
piled and the prices went down. 1t was
insisted that If duties were lower and
foreign goods were imported, our peo-
pie would be turned out of employment
and the rates Of wages would be reduc.
ed. Nothing of the sort would happen.
If we had no tariff, if all the custom
houses were torn down and the govern
ment supported by direct taxes. there
would not be exceeding 10 per cent. of
imported manufactured products con-
sumed by the people of this country.
WHY REPUBLICAN OPPOsITIoN2
Why was it that this little reduction
the Democrats were asking for was
fought with desperation? Why was it
that gentlemen on the other side not
only resented every effort to reduce
taxation, but were not asking that the
tariff on woOlen goods should be raised
over 100 per cent. when they could be
produced cheaper ana were produced
cheaper i'll this country than in Eu-
rope? If pig iron and scroll iron and
hoop iron and cotton goods were cheap
er here than in Europe, why did gen
tlemen resist every effort to reduce
taxation little and so reduce tie sur
plus in the treasury?
ItWas said that high tariff made high
wages for labor; it was said that If tne
tariff were reduced, wages must be IT
duced; it was said that if the value vi
the domestic product was increased the
higher wages. Unquestionably. But
hn n Nn 4 o. IA Ia,
to pay his bootblack $500, but did he do
itp No, he paid his nickel like u little
man. Vanderbilt, from his income
arising from the immense amount OF
United States bonds he owned, could
afford to pay his hostler $4,000 year,
but did he do it? Oh, no, he went out
into the market and employed his labor
at the market value and paid the same
as the humblest citizen in New York
did. High tariff did not regulate
wages. Wages were regulated by de
mand and supply and the capacity of
the laborer to do his work. 1t was coal
and steam and machinery that made
the high rate Of wages in this country,
and the high rate of wages made the
low cost of production.
DOESN L MAAE HUH
WAGES.
Mr.. Mills then proceeded, with fire.
quent citations from economic authors
and from tabulated statements, to
elucidate his argument that the high
rate of wages i'll this country was not
the result of the protective system. We
had grown rich, prosperous and power
full not by the aid of restrictions on
foreign commerce, but in spite of them.
He wished to show that the tariff was
not for the benefit of the woTkingman.
He wished to do this by figures given
by the manufacturers themselves, eX-
hibiting the total cost of the product
and the labor cost of the articles they
were making. He had put the tariff
table by the side of these figures to see
whether, in the little reduction the
committee asked III this bill, it was
going beyond that pledge made by the
Democratic party that it would not re-
duce taxation so low as to expose labor.
This table showed that the tariff was
not intended to benefit the labOrer-
that the benefits of the tariff pass into
the pockets of the manufacturers, and
never come to the pockets of the labor
er. Taking up the case of pair of
blankets where the tariff exceeded the
labor cost by $3.50, Mr.. Mills declared
that every dollar Of the excess was
reaped by the manufacturer.
Mr.. Cram, of Texas, interrupted to
ask how the ways and means commit
tee had treated those blankets.
BLANKETS CHEAPENED.
Mr., Mills replied that it had reduced
the tariff on the blankets from $1.78 to
II cents. Applause. Continuing he
said that it was asserted that Congress
had intended to benefit the laborer by
the tariff 1t had failed, and not dol
lar of the protection afforded got be-
yond the manufacturer. He, however,
hired his labor at the lowest rate in the
open market. The committee had left
in the bill more than enough protection
to pay for all the labor and bonus
besides.
Mr.. Mills then went into the details
of the table, citing flannel, bar iron,
bessemer steel, wool suits and other
articles as exhibiting cases where the
tariff charge invariably greatly exceed
ed the labor cost and where none of the
excess got beyond the manufacturer to
help the laborer. This policy, he said,
built up palaces, it concentrated wealth,
but it distributed not of its benefcence
in the homes of the poor labOrer. 1t
compelled the government to take a
large share of his daily earnings. 1t
was making vast distinction in this
country between two classes-One poor
and numerous, one small and powerful
and rich, The concentration of the
wealth of the country in the hands of a
few men would overthrow our free gov
ernment.
In conclusion, he said that he hoped
the bill which the committee had pres
ented-which had met with favor
throughout the country-would receive
a majority of the House, though it was
not all that the committee could ask
1t was very moderate bill, yet it would
send comfort and happiness into all the
homes and bosoms of the poor laboring
people of this country, and he asked
the House, in behalf of the people, to
consider their claims andhelp to reduce
the burdens that had been loaded upon
them. Applause and cries of "Vote,
vote" from the Democratic side.
WHAT THE CHIMNEY SANG.
over the chimney the night wind sang,
! -