Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1890-10-31
WAGES AND DUTIES.

w AOIAJ XA1ND - " 4A4lOs
A CASE WHERE PROTECTION DOES
NOT MAKE HIGHER WAGES.
Statements Which Were Made Before the
Mckinley Committee, with Some Later
Developments of the Subject-Wages in
England and Germany.
One of the most remarkable examples
of the stupid and blind way in which
the average protectionist bows down in
worship at the affairs of his idol protec-
ton is seen in the continued use that all
protectionists make Of the "pauper la
bor'' argument.
They keep up the old cry that we must
have protective tariff in order that
labor may get high wages In order to
prove that tariff keeps up wages they
always get together tables Of the daily
wages paid in various industries in this
country and in Europe.
One comparison, however, you can
never get the average protectionist ora
tor or so called statesman to make-a
comparison between wages in free
trade England and in neighboring coun-
tries on the continent of Europe where
there is a perfect paradise Of protection.
The fact that wages is much higher in
England than in the protected countries
of France, Germany and Italy has been
pointed out and proved over and over
again. This fact places it beyond all
question that protective duties have
substantially no influence on wages, and
yet protectionist stump speakers go up
and down the country asserting that
protection is needed for the working
man, and rich manufacturers go before
Mai. Mckinley and talk the same rot.
One of these men, Mr.. James Gill
Under, of Philadelphia, was heard by
the Mckinley committee last winter in
favor of higher duties on glassware for
average over nine months work in the
year." Mr.. Gillinder is benevolent
man. He said, 81 do not want to see our
well paid labor put On the same footing
with those who are said to get meat only
once week"
The workmen who "get meat only
once week" are the German workmen,
as Mr.. Gillinder had just been explain
ing to the committee. He knew all about
the wages Of glass workers in Germany
and in England; but he did not seem to
be able to draw any conclusion from his
stores of knowledge on that subject, ex-
cept that he was in need of higher
protection against the protected German
workman. The following interesting
dialogue will show that Mr.. Gillinder
was well acquainted with the facts as
to wages in England and Germany, but
that he was blind to the meaning of those
facts:
Mr. Flower-Some statement has been
made as to the efficiency of the German
labor?
Mr. Gillinder-I have not been in Ger
many myself, but my brother visited
there and was very much astonished by
the skill and quickness displayed by the
German glass blowers.
Mr.. McMillin-Does not your compe-
tition come more from Germany, where
they have protective tariff, than from
England, where they have not?
Mr. Gillinder-I think that is true.
The reason for that is that labor in Eng
land is as two to one in Germany.
Where workman gets $12 in England
he gets So in Germany.
Mr. McMillin-And yet Germany is
protected and England is not.
Yes, Germany protects her ''pauper
labor" against the better paid labor of
free trade England. Germany puts up
her tariff wall, which runs, in the glass
duties, from 35 cents to $3.50 per one
hundred pounds; and yet her glass max
ers, as Mr.. Gillinder himself confesses,
receive only one-half as much as those in
free trade England!
If Mr.. Gillinder would use the same
geographical argument as all protection
lists are in the habit of using he would
not have asked for any protection at all
not for his labor at least. For the argu
ment runs this way: We with our pro-
lection have higher wages than England
with her free trade; therefore protection
is the cause of our higher wages.
Now, if Mr. Gillinder had applied pre-
cisely the same method of reasoning to
the case of Germany and England he
would have been compelled to put the
case thus: England with her free trade
has wages twice higher than Germany
with her protection; therefore protection
is the cause Of Germany's lower wages.
AS matter of fact the reasoning is
false in both cases, but if protectionists
wish to use it between England and
America they must show cause why it
may not be used between England and
Germany. They must show why the
Englishman may not say: We have high
er wages than the Germans with all their
protection; therefore free trade makes
higher wages.
One curious fact deserves to be noted.
Mr.. CYLINDERS plea for higher duties
was needed by the obliging Mckinley
and the senate, while cutting down Nc
Kinleys work considerably, left the
duties at figure somewhat above the
present rate. It would naturally be ex-
pected therefore that under increased
protection labor would get increased
wages and would be very happy at the
prospect of those new duties. But it is
not so. Here is a report just published
by protection paper:
'.More boys at the glass houses of
Swindell Bros. and Baker Bros. &
Co., in Baltimore, went on strike. A
number of persons were thrown out of
employment by the strike. In the
afternoon the boys got an American flag
and, forming line, paraded the streets in
the neighborhood of the glass works,
shouting as they marched, More pay OF
no work. and whistling the popular airs.
The boys went out Of the city and into
the country where there are no police,
and organized mass meeting which
was addressed by the embryo Demos
themes and Garsides of their number,
who acclaimed yehe,pently about the
oppression Of capital and the slavery Of
labor"