St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-04-18

surplus productions were therefore
thrown upon the home market. 1t be-
came oversupplied and the prices went
down. 1t was insisted that if duties
were lower and foreign goods were inn
ported our people would be turned out
of employment, and the rates OF wages
would be reduced. Nothing of the sort
would happen.
IF WE HAD NO TARIFF,
if the custom houses were torn down
and the government supported bydirect
taxes, there would not be exceeding 10
per cent of imported manufactured pro-
ducts consumed by the people of this
country. Why was it that this little re-
duction the Democrats were asking for
was, fought with desperation? Why
was it that gentlemen of the other side
not only resisted every effort to reduce
taxation, but were now asking that the
tariff on wOOlen goods should be raised
over 100 per cent when they could be
produced cheaper, and were produced
cheaper, in this country than in Europe.
If pig iron and scrap iron and hoop iron
and cotton goods were cheaper here
than in Europe, why did gentlemen re-
sist every effort to reduce taxation
treasury? It was said that high tariff
made high wages for labor: it was said
that if the tariff were reduced wages
must be reduced. 1t was said that if
the value of the domestic product was
increased the manufacturer was enabled
to pay higher wages. UnqueStiOnably.
But did he do it? No. Jay Gould was
able to pay his bOotblack $500, but did
he do it? No; he paid his nickel like a
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 II?
Oh, no; he went out into the market
and employed his labor at the market
value, and paid the same as the hum
blest citizen in New York did. High
tariff did not regulate wages. Wages
were regulated by demand and supply,
and the capacity of the laborer to do
machinery that made the high rate of
wages in this country, and the right
rate of wages meant the low cost of
production. Mr.. Mills then proceeded,
with frequent citations from economic
authors and from tabulated statements,
to elucidate his argument that the high
rate of wages in 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 for
eign commerce, but in spite of them.
He wished to show that the tariff was
not for the benefit of the workingman.
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
4, %hn
committee asked in this bill it was
GOING BEYOND THAT PLEDGE
made by the Democratic party that it
would not reduce 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 manu-
facturers, and never come to the pockets
OF the laborer. Taking up the case of a
pair of blankets, where the tariff ex-
ceeded the labor cost by $1.52, Mr..
Mills declared that every dollar of the
excess was reaped by the manufactures.
Mr.. Grain, OF Texas, interrupted to ask
how the ways and means committee had
treated those blankets. Mr.. Mills re-
piled that it had reduced the tariff on
the blankets from SLIT to II cents. [Ap-
plause.l Continuing, he sold that itwas
asserted that congress had intended to
benefit the laborer by the tariff. 1t had
failed, and not dollar of the protection
afforded got beyond 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 exhibit
ing cases where the tariff charge in
variably greatly exceeded the labor cost,
and where none of the excess got be-
yond 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 power
full 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
had presented-which had met with
favor throughout the country-would
receive majority of the votes of the
house, though it was not all that the
committee could ask. 1t was a very
moderate bill, yet it would send COM
fort and happiness into all the homes
and bosoms of the poor laboring people
of this country, and he asked the house,
in behalf of these people, to consider
their claims and help to reduce the bur-
dens that had been loaded upon them.
Applause and cries of "Vote. - ''Vote,"
from the Democratic side.] Mr.. Mills
spoke about an hour and three-quarters,
and as he took his seat he was sur
rounded by the crowd of Democratic
members. who pressed forward to shake
his hand and tender their congratula
OnS.