Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-06-03
The Payment for American Labor.

Ht dS llClIb IdDDI.
Do you know of anyone who has ever
answered single argument brought
against protection by one Of it's foes?
Have any of you readers ever heard of
protectionist who even quoted any
thing against it and made reply, when
what he quoted was not of his own
imagination, or a Misrepresentation of
what an opponent really said? Pro-
lection is a bunco-invented by a gang
of swlndlers to swindle the farmers and
wage earners of the United States. 1t
can be proven bunco to any person
of ordinary intelligence, willing to
listen to reason, in fifteen minutes.
Every assertion made by the advocates
engaged in steering into the bunco is
steer" SO apparent that it should not
deceive a child.
The first untruth steer that the
protection bunco men offer to the voter
is that what we import is the product
of foreign labor, and that if we made
here what we import we should be bet
ter off and provide more work for
American labor. For four years the
protection bunco steerers have been
challenged to show, and not one has
ever attempted it, how even a pin, the
product of foreign labor, could come
into the possession of an American ex-
cept as payment for his labor, by
theft, or as a gift. If he earned
it, if it were paid to him by
a foreigner for American labor, or
the product of American labor, then it
was the final product of the American
labor, not of foreign labor. Unless
the product of foreign labor was gift,
she American must have stolen it. We
import 80O,0OO,OOO yearly. Do we
steal it! The protectionist dares not
say we steal our imports; but he as
sumes that we do every time he says
our imports are the product of foreign
labor. If what we import is the foreign
payment for American labor done here
for foreigners, then 1t is the product of
American labor, the only product that
1000, 900 Americans, working for
foreign markets, can have for their
labor. Can any reader induce any pro-
tectioDist to make honest reply to the
question whether our imports are
stolen or whether they are the foreign
payment for American labor? If any
reader thinks he can let him try it.
Let him write to the New York
Tribune, New York Press, or any other
Republican organ engaged like it in
hoodwinking its readers that they may
be robbed in the protection banks, and
see what answer he will get.
VI.
that he does not object to any imports
lin payment for American labor ex-
cept "such as come into competition
with American labor" He objects to
and wishes to prevent one kind of
American labor (that on our farms)
competing with another kind Chat in
our mills). He objects to any American
farmer producing surplus of farm
products beyond the needs of the Amer
lean market, for which he must get for
eign mill goods in payment, if any profit
is to be made. The American farmer
must not work for u foreigner-what-
ever payment the latter offers. The
foreign competition" to which he
objects is the foreign competition in
employing American labor, and when
he talks about the foreign labor ''com-
peting' with domestic labor, he is
hoodwin<ing deliberately and for a
purpose, as every intelligent American
should be able to see. 1t is the foreign
mill labor that employs the surplus
American farm labor-and pays it. No
other foreign labor can afford to pay
our Aurplus farm labor profitable
wages