The Indianapolis journal., 1892-07-11
PROTECTION AND STRIKES.
There Is No Relation Between the Two, and
None but Demagogues Will So Assert.

To the Editor Of the Indianapolis journal:
The following statement Is taken from
the Courier-Journal of recent date:
We have in these Homestead pictures the
natural and inevitable results OF protection.
The writer of the above extract is man
of distinguished ability and wide reputa-
tion. He is one of leaders of the great free
trade party in this country; and although
he does not always name it's candidates for
presidency, he most generally dictates it's
platforms. Next to Henry George he Is
probably the ablest and best known free
trader in the United States. A man of this
character has no business to make such a
statement. There is not q syllable of truth
in it from the beginning to the end.
Protection Is no more responsible for the
violence growing ont of strikes and labor
troubles than it IL for q Kansas cy clone or
the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Was
projection responsible for the street-c ar
strike III this city, few months ago, and
the violence that grew out of itf Was the
war in Tennessee against the miners in
which Mr. Brice, chairman of the Demo-
cratic national committee, Is said TO have
had an interest. caused by protectlonf
Was the great strike in the Northwest. on
the c., Is. 81 Q. railroad or the still greater
one on the New York Central, 1.-The Inovit-
able result of protection" Are the fire.
Quently occurring strikes and labor
direful effects of protoctionf The truth is
that protection never was, and, in the
very nature of things, never can be the
cause of q strike in this country, or of tho
violence and bloodshed that usually ac-
company them.
What is the free-trade contentiona Why,
they assert that the profits of our manu-
facturers are not shared with their en-
ployes, and therefore protection is respon-
BILE for strikes. They assert that profits
OF mn nPl M n ha tact tirt,
makes them 30. But this is only an asser-
tion. The truth is that, on the average.
manufacturers are securing less profits at
this time than ever before. Competition
preserve market. but IL cannot of itself
maintain prices. Is there @ wage-worker
III all the land who is silly enough to be-
lieve that his wages are likely
TO be increased by decreasing the
who pays him his wagesg If so he should
join the free-trade procession at once.
What are the probabilitless If u manu-
facturer is making 20 per cent. on his In
vestment are not the men in his employ
more likely to secure an adv ance IN their
wages than il he were making only per
cent? Our free-tTade papers, such as the
Sentinel, say no." and they affirm with
great pertinaclty that profits have no rela-
tions whatever to wages; that small profits
are as likely to result in good wages as
large ones. This is the free-trade theory.
Let our workingmen consider IL.
Would farmer be as certain TO pay fair
wages to his harvest hands when ho gets Us
cents n bushel for his wheat as if he W ere
to receive So per bushel for It'll Your festive
free trader answers YES" What do you
wage workers sayG Democratic dema-
gogues hre trying to make party capital
out of the deplorsble affair at Homestead.
because Mr. Carnegie is u Republican, but
what were these same blatant demago CUES
doing whom Mr.. Brice and other Democrats
were engaged in the cheerful business Of
turning out the miners In Tennessee that
convicts might take their placess Such
demagogy should be spurned By every
sensible man. and it will be.
JOHN b. GLOVER.
INDIANAPOLIS, July 9. ~