The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-07-16
THE TARIFF AND sTRlK Es.

just tnlnk OF it! -Four tnOusdnu
strikes during the administration OF
Cleveland and without a Mckinley bill.
Minneapolis Tribune.
The Minneapolis Tribune as far as
ability and fairness are concerned,
with the ordinary, average eastern re-
publican newspaper. 1t is a bitterly
partisan sheet and it's readers do not ex-
pect to find in its editoria! columns that
exact justice to its political opponents
which distinguishes journals conducted
upon a higher plane. But we submit
that the veriest chump who wastes his
time in scanning its editorial page will
experience no little surprise in reading
the above precious excerpt.
The evident intention of the Tribune
is to convey the impression to the mind
of the reader that Mr.. Cleveland is re-
sponsible for the strikes which occurred.
during his administration of the govern
ment. The Tribune does not say so
much for it knows better. 1t knows
that Mr.. Cleveland had about as much
to do with the labor strikes in this u
try between the 4th of March, 1885, and
the 4th of March, 1889, as did the dead
Capulets. 1t furthermore knows that
labor strikes are traceable directly or in
directly to the operation of tariff laws
and it still further knows that the re-
publican Morrill, tariff was almost as
prolific of strikes and lockouts and re
auctions in wages as is the Ubiquitous
Mckinley tariff.
Who ever heard Of a labor strike be-
fore the high protective Morrill,, or wal
tariff of 1861? The Hamilton tariff of
1889 was drawn IN the interest of the
whole people. There were no labor
strikes under it. Nor were there any
under the Calhoun tariff of 1916; MOI
the Clay tariff of 1924; nor the tariff of
denominations Of 1928; MOI the comprom-
Use tariff of 1893; nor the whig tariff Of
1912; nor the Polk Walker tariff of 1876.
They began under the operation of the
Morrill, tariff of 1861 and have continued
with more or less frequency during the
administrations of Lincoln, Grant,
Hayes, Garfield, Arthur. Cleveland and
Harrison.
1t was not due to any personal effort
upon the part of Washington, jefferson,
the two Adams, Madison, Munroe, jack
son, Van Buren,, the first Harrison,
Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce and
| Buchanan that labor strikes did not &C.
cur during their several administrations.
They had no more to do with preventing
strikes than did their successors to the
presidency have in producing them. The
cause of strikes is found, not in the per-
sonnet of the chief magistrate, but in the
tariff laws which are in force during his
administration.
Labor strikes followed the organiza-
ton of labor unions. Labor unions were
not formed until labor found it neces-
sary to protect itself against the oppres-
sion of capital, and capital did not be-
come oppressive until it was protected
by tariff laws. Therefore strikes are
the legitimate ofIsprings of high pro-
lection. High protection stimulated an
unhealthy growth of large numbers Of
industries which, if they had been left
to themselves, would nov be established
upon a basis not requiring the interven-
ton of high protection to maintain them.
This unhealthy growth melted close
competition; competition called for a re-
duction of wages; labor unions resisted
the call and strikes or lockouts followed.
Thus the relation of a high tariff to labor
strikes is shown.
The effect of high protection is shown
in another direction. 1t has created
great trusts and combines which are
robbing the people. 1t has built up d
plutocracy or money power which is
shaping the policy of the government in
the line Of the interests Of the few as
against those of the many. 1t has made
somewhere neal 10000 milliOnaires and
100000 tramps. 1t has erected palaces
for it's beneficiaries and novels for its vic
TINS. 1T has given the country 23J,SlO
rich families whose aggregate wealth is
over Si3yOOO,OOO,OOO and ll,5G5,0O0 poor
families whose aggregate wealth Is only
a little over 81 100000, the former with
nearly 100000 each, the latter with less
than $1,000 each.
This is what high protection has done
and is still doing. 1t has created two
widely separated classes of people-tht
very rich and the very poor-with q
middle class aping the manners and Gus
toms of the former and disdaining those
of the latter into whose arms one by ont
it's members finally fall unowned by
either. High protection is now yielding
a much less welcome fruit, Of which
Homestead gave but an early dropping
And yet no n is foolish enough to sa,
; that Mr.. Harrison is responsible for thu