Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-10-02
STEEL RAILS.


of Labor-Labor Cost In . Ton of Steel
Rans-Comparative Cost In This Country
and Europe-Protection Not in the In
terest of the Workmen-Some Profits.
Under the existing law the tariff duty
on steel rails is SIT ton. In the Nc
Kinley bill, as it passed the House, this
was reduced to SIS. A ton, and in that
bill, as reported from the Senate Finance
Committee, it was still further reduced
to S11. 20 a ton On the basis of the i'm
portations for the year 1889. these duties
amounted respectively to q, 50 and A
per cent These figures should be care
fully noted.
Now the men for whom Congress thus
kindly legislates should be able to give
some good reason why such favGs
should be shown them What have
they to say for themselves?
The whole story of protection to steel
railmakers- to every one else-is
that the cost of production is so much
higher in this country than it is in
European countries that our manu-
facturers can not successfully compete,
even in the home market with the
cheaper foreign goods, unless the Gov
eminent helps them out If it were
not for the tariff, so it is ar
portations of ''pauper made stuff our
own manufacturers would be beaten out
of their home market, and they would
have to shut up shop and turn their
workmen adrift Therefore we must
maintain our s'indus trial defenses"
That it is believed, is perfectly fair
statement of the protectionist position
Pushing the inquiry little further, it
10 fox1nd hot no obi of
can not manufacture so cheaply as they
or abroad is that the rate of American
wages is so high We have the best
machinery and the most economically
organized mills in the world; we have
an abundance of raw material: there is
no scarcity of fuel. and in Pittsburgh
natural gas is used; but the great
trouble is that labor costs so much And
surely you would not, say these great
men, have US depress wages in order
that you may have cheaper rails. We
can beat the world making rails, but
we feel that the American work
man must be paid sufficient wages
to enable him to maintain his indie
pendence and self-respect The tariff
makes it possible for us to do this 1t
puts US on an even footing with the for
OA6AOAs ~ 20 oAOohS 81 ehO pm csc SOOSs
to ''equalize conditions" Thus it is
that we get back the excess that we
have to pay in wages over and above
what the Englishman pays.
So it comes to the question of labor
cost, and we have some very valuable
information upon that question in a re-
port prepared by Mr.. Carroll d. Wright
the Commissioner of Labor, on the cost
of production of pig iron, steel ingots,
| steel rails, etc. 1t bears date July L.
| 1890.
On pages "a and IS of this report the
| facts are given about steel rails Two
establishments are taken in the North
ern district in the United States, seven
in Continental Europe and two in Great
| Britain. 1t appears from this table that
| the cost of making one ton of steel rails
in the first American mill (the estimate
| is made on eleven days running time,
during which 4. $50 tons of rails were
produced) is $24.79, and in the second
it was S27.6 OF these sums 81. 81 and
81. 80 represent the labor cost That is,
the whole labor cost of making ton OF
steel rails in these two mills. And it
does seem that duty of SIT, or S13 A,
or even S11. 90 is considerably more than
| enough to cover the margin between
S1.54 1.-THE labor cost here) and any less
amount abroad If the foreign manu-.
| facturer gets his labor for nothing, he
would only be 81. 81 better off in the tor
| than his American rival. And so duty
of 81. 81 ton would be ample to equal
lied" labor cost
But this foreigner doesn't get his la.
Dor for nothing. In the seven Cont.
mental establishments the labor cost pei
ton is as follows: 81 o.; So 81; 81. 81:
81. IS; s262; s. 81; s.. OIL.
That is, in every instance, except the
first labor costs more than it does with
US. So the margin, instead of being
against US, is in our favor.
In the two English mills the labor
cost per ton is 81 81 and 81. SO.
It should be clear from these figure:
| that an exborbitant steel duty is no
necessary on account of great labor cost
and it should also be clear that it is mo-
in the interest of the wage-worker
One other fact in this connection: The
same table shows that the total cost o.
making ton of steel rails is between
Sa5 and s2s; call it s26. so. The price a
which they sell at the mills is now S32
an advance of SIS ton within a year
Here is profit of S.. so ton The tw,
American mills that figure in Mr.
Wright's tables have daily capacities o
S9s and 40 tons That means that a
this fair price for their product, the,
make from 81. 1s9 to 50, 400 day. And
when the price goes up to SS7 and SIS
as it did two or three years ago. then
under the protection of SIT ton, which
is put on for the benefit of the work
ing men," the gentlemen realize fully
as they do now partially, the blessed
ness of the American system.
The whole thing is a fraud. tn
employer gets all the protection; tn
employe gets none of it And it is pal
by the people who travel on the railroad
and the farmers who ship their product
to market An s11 duty is better tha
SIT one, but it is just 81 too much. In
; deed, unless Mr.. Carroll D. Wright
very much mistaken. it is the foreigne
with his high labor cost who needs pro
lection against us.
Some Points About the Mckinley Bill.
The duty fixed by the Mckinley bill
as reported to the Senate on 'commo
brown earthenware, common ston
ware, and crucibles not ornamented @
decorated in any manner" is 25 per CEN
This is the same as it is now. except i