The Forrest City times., 1891-01-03

self, and as long as land can be had cheaply men will become landowners, and thereby not only take their own la Dor out of the labor market, but they will become employers of other men, and thus further reduce the number of con- peting laborcrs who might otherwise Seel. employment in manufacturing in dustries. On the contrary, in Q country which has so much unoccupied land in reserve the entire increase of population must find employment in existing indus tries, or, if possible, must create new in dustries.
 The countries affording an adequate comparison are such as England, France and Germany. It is wel-known fact that in "free trade England" wages by the day or week are much higher than in "protected' France or Germany. Protectionists themselves admit this when they are not discussing the subject of wages and protection. Only last win ter Philadelphia manufacturer of glassware confessed before the Mckinley committee that the wages in his particu- lar industry were twice as high in Eng land as ia Germany. If protection in- creases wages, how does it happen that Germany has not succeeded in getting wages up to the English standard?
 Nor will it do for the protectionists to answer that we have got ours up to the English standard and beyond 1t: for we had higher wages than England before we had any protection. Even when we were yet colonies we were paying higher wages than England, and were sending pig iron to that country and successfully competing with English iron makers, mt fu,it bct a pli hn fan bnt Ett t,ia nd at that tine had protective duty on iron.
 It is a fact which the protectionists themselves are fond of calling our atten- tion to, that even in colonial days En- gland prohibited rolling and sitting mills in the iron industry of America. The long concerns of En- gland, with their "pauper labor" and protective duties in addition, found themselves unable to compete success fully with the free-trade American colonies and their dearer labor Is it not, then, very cheeky thing for the protectionists to claim that protection is the cause of our higher wages?
 The only comparison that is worth anything between the wages of two countries is a comparison of the labor cost of commodities, not one of wages by the day or week. It is always this latter form of comparison that the pro- tCctioniStS insist on making, Of course, we pay higher wages by the day or week, but as our labor produces more than Eu- ropcan labor, the actual labor cost of production is less with us than in Europe. An official report from the United States Labor Commissioner shows, for example, that the labor cost of producing ton of steel rails from the steel bars in this country is Sl. .54 in one mill and Si.3 3S in another; that in England the like cost is Sl. 36 in one mill and S2.54 in another; that on the Continent of Europe the cost in sev- era mills is Sl,04, S2.51 S2.97, and Si.64.
 And now as to tho second point, the laws which control the production and distribution of wealth. Everybody knows that it is an inoxerahle law that compe- titlon forces down prices, and nobody knows this better than the protected manufacturers who combine and fern trusts for the purpose of stifling compe titiou. The men who have commodities to sell want first of sIl to cut of compe tition from-not from some other com modities that are ditferent--but from commodities of the same kind The hat manufacturer wants no competition from foreign hats, hence he asks for q protec- tive duty on hats, not one on hatchets: and the manufacturer of saws cares nothing for duty on eggs. Like com petes with like, hats with hats. and saws with saws; shut of competition from tho outside on hats and saws and the home price will go up.
 But the laborer has no hats and saws for l. f.t only his services If he refuses to sell his services at satisfactory price other laborers stand ready to underbd him, There is no duty on abor; our ports arc open to the mighty stream that flows in from Europe. The population is grow ing rapidly from the natural increase, and no part of 1t so rapidly as the labor ing population There is thus a rapidly
 increasing number of laborers offering their services in the labor market and obliged to sell their toll under the law of supply and demand Where laborers aro scarce wages will be high, but as the number of laborers increases eompcti- tion for work grows sharper, and wages become lower. Like competes with like, and no protective duty on commodities ever prevented competition in the labor market. Labor competition goes on all the same, and as no duties on com modities can prevent this competition of labor with labor, no such duues can raise wages.
 Nobody knows this simple fact better than aborers themselves. hence the enormous growth in late years of labor organizations for the purpose of enforc- ing their demands for higher wages. The regulations of these organizations are shaped with a view to preventing labor competition. In no industries is the fight of the workmen for higher wages more determined and better or. ganized than in the highly protected in- dustries.
 One of the most highly protected in- dustries in this country is the window glass manufacture, the average duties paid on imported window glass being considerably over 100 per cent and yet the American glass workers have ono of the mo ot compact, well-organized associ- ations among all our labor organizations They have the most cast-iron rules for limiting tho number of apprentices in each factory, in order thus to keep down labor competition among themselves The owners of the factories want as many apprentices as possible, so as to incrt ase this labor competition and thus make wages lower. On this point tho worhmen make vigorous fight and no increase of apprentices can be made without their consent. The workmen are too sensible to trust to the high pro- tective duties on glass to keep their wages high.
 When the protectionists speak of in-