Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-31
EVERYDAY TALKS ON TARIFF.

L ldUOI0Ib WcIo ADTupIly bCOpptus
EVERYDAY TALKS ON TARIFF
A "Protectedo W0rkIngman Ex
pIodes High Tariff Fallacies.
When the United States Senate Com
mittee on Education and Labor held
session in the Postoffice building in thii
city in 1883 one of the witnesses wat
Robert Howard, of Fall River, Mass
Here are few questions and answers
that introduced his testimony:
| @. What is your occupation? A
lMule-spinner in the cotton mills. l am
the secretary OF our organization.
@. Have you knowledge of the con.
dition Of the working people generally,
or of those in Your own craft in New
England and also in Old England? A.
Yes, sir; have thorough knowledge OF
it. 1 worked in England for upward of
seventeen years as mule-spinner, and
my opinion of the condition of the
workmen in that branch of in
dustry relatively in the United
States and England is that the Eng
lish spinner is in a far better condition.
They are better off in England because
the manufacturers there don't appear to
be 80 desirous Of working the men 80
much like horses and slaves as they do
in our State-they don't work at
the same extraordinary rate OF speed
as we do in Fall River. AS the
secretary of the Mule-Spinners' Associa-
ton l know what the practice is in the
mills here. We turn out cloth at the
rate of mile minute in Fall River, and
three-ffths of the entire production of
print cloths in the United States is in
that city.
@. In Oldham, England, do they turn
out as much cloth in proportion to the
number of mules as they do in Fall
river? A. l think they can get the same
production there that we get in Fall
River. But the spinners, have more as
sistance there. There is not as much
labor put upon one man there as there is
in our city and our machinery goes at a
higher rate of speed.
@. Then, mule for mule, Fall river
produces more cloth? A. Yes.
Mr.. Howard called the committees
attention to the report of Mr.. Albert d.
Shaw (the then Republican consul at
LiverpooD made to Mr.. Blaine, while
that gentleman was Secretary of State,
as to the relative condition of the cotton
operatives in England and Massachu-
sets. Mr.. Shaw, after going over the
whole field, said he didn't know why we
couldn't compete on free terms with the
English manufacturers. Mr.. Shaw
gives comparisons of wages here and in
England, and Mr.. Howard's COM
ment is
"There is hardly any difference. But
we are not paid as much in proportion to
our production as they are paid in Eng
land, for the reason that if we get as
much wages here we have to give more
work for it. You will see good, smart
girl running eight print cloth looms in
our mills here. There is not weaver in
England that is allowed to run over four,
even with an assistant"
Mr.. Howard showed pretty plainly
that the high protection given to the
wealthy manufacturers of Fall River by
the tariff had very little to do with the
wages of the men. The bosses simply
got the labor as cheap as they could, and
| it was only organization among the men
that kept wages at any decent level. He
stated very clearly also that restrictions
of trade by the tariff ways tended to the
injury Of "protected" workingmen, for
he said:
There is one notable fact in the busi-
ness. Whenever trade is dull you will
find wages low.
| With the unrestricted market that a
lifting of the tariff would give would
cause greater demand for goods, and of
course the opposite of dull trade. The
only reason we are asked to vote for high
protection taxes is, not that they benefit
The manufacturer, but that they benefit
the workingmen. "The manufacturer
will be able by the tariff to get higher
price for his product" says the protec-
ZIONIST, "and the more profit the boss
makes the higher will wages be-" Here's
what Mr. Howard swore to on this point
in answer to Republican Senator Blair ::
O. Have you ever known an instance
where the employers profitshaving been
increased by some cause that sent up the
market price OF the goods, the employer
came for ward voluntarily and said to his
operatives: II will give you more wages !;
l can afford to do it?" A. Not one. l
never heard of such an occurrence. In
1880, when there was an extraordinary
rise in prices, there was an advance given
by our manufacturers in Fall River on
the very same day that some resolutions
Of ours appeared in the papers resolving
to strike their mills. The constant ten
dency is to bring our wages down and, un-
less by organized effort, we cannot stop it.
When the Senators got Mr.. Howard
talking on the Tariff question they got
lots of information they didn't bargain
for. He said he believed that if the
manufacture of these goods was per-
mitted to be carried on without tariff re-.
strictions our goods could soon compete
on more than even terms in the worlds
markets with English goods. "Our
CLOTH" he said, "is generally admitted
to be superior to the English article
now."
Q.-But is not the tariff adjusted so as
to afford protection for the benefit of the
American laborer by enabling the manu-
facturer to pay him the highest wages for
his work? Is not that the general
ground on which it is claimed there
should be protection? A.-That is the
ground upon which it is claimed, but
that is not the prevalent opinion among
the working people.
@. How much benefit do they actually
get from the increased prices which the
protective tariff gives to the product? A.
Benefit? Looking at the wages here
compared with the wages in England /
cannot see any benefit.
n That ia Won think the manufacturer