The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-04-10
MILLS ON TARIFF REFORM
HIS GREAT SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD.
How the Republican Protective Policy Robs
Labor-A System Which Breeds MIL
lionaires and Paupers-A Mag
nifice1t Effort.

of Springfield, o., last Tuesday evening in
honor of the anniversary of Thomas Jeferson's
birth, the Hon. Roger Q. Mills of Texas re-
sponded to the toast of tariff Reform" His
speech was magnificent effort and must have
been heard to be appreciated. He said among
other things:
Tariff reform is dull subject for
speech at a banquet, but dull as it is, IL is
subject that demands the attention of the
American people, and it will continue to de-
mand the attention of the American people
| until the monuments which an unjust and ex-
| cessive taxation has placed in the pathway of
| our Industrial advancement have been re-
moved. As people we have arrived at that
stage when the productive capacity of our labor
has far outstriped the capacity of our people
for consumption. This is a remarkable condi-
| ton in which country is placed.
| 1t demands the serious consideration
not only of the craftsmanship of
the country, but of the people,
who, thanks to the memory of Thomas Jefier
| son. are the sources of all power in this land.
| [Applause.l What are we 10 do with this sur
| plus production of our labor? For nine months
\ In the year We produce more than our people
\ can consume in twelve. 1t means three months
4 of idleness for men who cannot afford to be
/ idle, men upon whose work depends the sub
! sistence of themselves, their wives and chill
! dren. They must have employment. What is
| the solution of this question? You must have
1 an cAIe0ueu capacity among your own ptOple
| to consume, and you must open pathway to
| all the people of the world to help consume
| that product How are you going TO get that?
There is only one way in which you can have
| the markets OF the country or any market, and
| that is to undersel your rivals. Distort this
! question In any way you will, surround 1t
| with any fallacies you may, it is question OF
| business. You can't keep the market unless
| you underseu your rivals. You must produce
the thing you sell in the market at lower
cost than your rival. Every article that goes
into the market has cause OF value--the pro-
ductiOn of the thing labor and material. l
maintain before you all tonight and no man
can successfully contradict it, that we have
the cheapest labor In the world. We have
the poorest paid labor in the world in proper
ton to the amount of labor they do. We have
the most skilled labor; we have the most ef-
hcient labor in the world; we have the most
productive labor in the world. No people on
the face of the globe can stand in the way of
the advancement of American genius and
American enterprise. [Applause.l Do not
misunderstood me- A great many people are
deceived by the rate of wages paid in this
country, by the day, by the week, by the month,
by the year, or by any given time. That is no
index to the cost of labor except that il proves
pretty conclusively that we nay the highest
wages in the world paid to any people. 1t SIM
ply means that we produce the thing lower
than any other people so far as the labor is
involved.
Let me illustrate 10 you. MI. wright, the
chief of our bureau at Washington one of the
most distinguished statishcans in the United
States, some years ago instituted an investiga-
ton into the relative rates OF wages paid in
some forty-hve or fifty branches of industries
in England and Massachusetts,, taking England
as a class paying the highest wages in Europe,
and Massachusetts, as paying the highest in this
country. Take for instance the boot and shoe
industry, and he showed conclusively that in
Massachusetts we paid 129 per cent. higher
rate of wages than were paid anywhere in
Great Britain. Now our friends who talked
about protection would say you must protect
our American labor. Why, we are paying
129 per cent. more for the same labor,
and we can not afford to come In
competition with that shoemaker over
us go little further and see about that. When
we take that very instance and go down TO the
very bottom of the question we find that the
shoemaker in Great Britain was paid 90 cents
q pair for making the same pair OF shoes
that the shoemaker in Massachusetts, was paid
SO cents pair for. The shoemaker in Massa-
chusetts gets, for making wholesale, So cents
pair, while the laborer in England gets 90 cents
pair, and yet the Massachusetts, man gets 129
per cent. more by the day week than the
Englishman. How are you going to account
for this? 1t is just this that the Massachusetts
man makes thirty-hve pairs in week at 50
cents pair, making $11,55, while the English
man makes ten pairs of shoes at 80 cents
illustrated. Now, my friend, is the rate of
wages paid in England, and imported TO this
country, sold in competition with the rate of
wages paid to the Massachusetts, shoemaker, or
is it the pair of shoes? Why, it is pair of
shoes.
Then tell me how pair of shoes that cost SOC
for the labor put upon them can be imported,
and pay the cost of transportation to the
United States, and be sold in competition with
a pair of shoes that cost 33c? Now, L told you
a while ago that our labor is the cheapest labor
In the world in proportion to the labor done.
Let me give you one more instance. BY the
statistics of our state department it is shown
that a weaver earns in Switzerland $3.50, in |
England $, and weaver in the United States
gets $3.50 week. This is the average here.
Our weaver earns more wages by the day,
week or year than any other laborer in the
world Therefore people say we must
protect our labor against the cheap foreign
labor. Let US see about that When we take
piece of cloth and go back where it was
made, and see the cloth for which the weaver
was paid, we find that the Swiss weaver
paid 60c for weaving, and we find that the En-
glish weaver is paid 90, and we find that the
American weaver is paid 4Oc for weaving. Is
the American not the cheaper paid labor?
Now, how is it that the American weaver gets
$3.50, while the Swiss gets $3.50? 1t is because
the Swiss weaves 40 yards, the English weayes
200, and the American weaves 1200 yards in a
week. Therefore, in proportion to the amount
anybody else in the world.
Now. gentlemen, we don't want to protect
the genius and the productive capacity of the
American workman against the inc0mpetency
of foreigners who can meet with him and
compete with him. He is not to be protected
against our genius and our enterprise lap
plausel, and when high-priced labor comes
into competition with low-priced labor, il is the
low-priced labor that needs protection, not the
high-priced labor and in all the world where
these two have come in competition the low
priced labor, like the Arab, has folded his tent
and stolen away. Applause. Why, we used
TO have low-priced labor all over the country.
L remember when | was a boy of my mother
using the spinningwheel to clothe the family.
How many pounds of cotton could she spin
in a week? Three pounds. What was
the rate of wages per week? About So.
That is 81 pound for the spin
ming of that cloth, the labor cost of
ii. Now think of the spinning by machinery
at cost of 1 cent per pound. By the aid
of machinery and the inventive skill of
Americans, we are able to turn out 5000
pounds week; and what is the labor cost of
pound of thread spun by machinery?
Three thousand pounds cost So; So a week;
and the wages are increased 100 per cent, but
the productive capacity of the labor is in
creased 5000 per cent. Now, what is the cost
of pound? Not 81, but 10 cent. Now, take
the product of cheap labor fifty years ago,
and compare il with the cost of the thread
produced by the present machinery, at a cost
of 10 cent per pound, and everybody knows
h. o.Id baa If fha