The River Falls times. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1894-1933, 1897-06-15

One of the best speeches made in the
house while the Dingley bill was being
discussed was made by John G. Bell of
Colorado. With facts which are indiS-
putable and logic which is unanswer-
able he exposed many of the fallacies
of protection. His exposure of the alb
surd claim that protection helps the
workingman is especially good Here
is a part of it:
But our friends upon the other side
say that they make a tariff for the ben
eft of the wage workers. / say to you
that any tariff bill, | care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain
a provision for prohibiting the free in
flow Of immigration from foreign cOun-
tries is obliviOus of the rights of labor
and is opposed to the interests Of ali
wageWOrkers. (Applause)
protection is always asked in the
interest of others. Now, observe how
If is asked in behalf of the poor labor
ing man-iust enough to cover the diff
ference between the European scale of
wages and our own. What hypocrisy!
Who ever heard of the laboring man
getting rich manufacturing? The sta
tisticianS clearly figured from the cen
sus of 1880 that about 6 per cent on
our dutiable list would cover the diff
ference between the European wage
schedule and ours, or that about Is
ner cent ad ValOrem covered the entire
labor cost of our list of 1880. While
the manufacturer then asked for the
Door labOrer his per cent he got for
himself at the hands of congress six
times per cent.
is there any reason why high tar
if affects wages injuriOuSly! Yes; by
enabling employers to build up
vicious trust system for the manufac-
turer and against the labOrer. The high
tariff makes the manufacturer COM
plete master of the WagewOrker
In the review of r. G. Dun & Co,
in their weekly review of trade, dated
Feb. r. it is stated:
- No other event of the week APP
proaches in Importance the disruption
of the steel rail pool In two days.
says the report after it a greater ton
mage of rails was probably purchased
than the entire production of last year,
reported at 100000 tons. And instead
of $2S in December and $25 in Janu-
ary, ST. is now the price at which
works East and West are seeking or
ders. And further says the report,
the Carnegie company has been selling
at ST. Chicago delivery. These sales
will employ many thousand hands,
with an important decrease in the cost
of track laying on renewal of rail
roads.
Now, my friends, let me ask you,
was it the rising or lowering price that
employed these thousands of men?
Our friend, Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois
tells of the benefit of a higher duty on
iron and steel. Did the steel rail pool
need more tariff?
What is the difference in giving the
manufacturer a double profit through
a high tariff or through pool? Do
they ever share the profits. of the
pool with labor? No. Will they ever
share the profits of tariff? Never.
1T takes no political economist to
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice
the profit under high tariff by limit
ing themselves to the home market and
running half-time, why should they
run full-time and invade foreign mar
kets? They never will. They will sit
down comfortably and sell their limit
ed supply of goods for increased prof
its, making them more than whole,
while the laborer tramps the country
i'll search of work, just as h enow does
under the trust system.
1T is unfortunate that the humdrum
of the tariff has been sounded in the
ears of the people until many of them
really belive that foreign trade is I'M
important, if not curse Why did the
breaking of the steel rail pool put so
many men to work? 1t was because
the consequent lowered price for iron
and steel brought most liberal orders
from abroad as we'll as at home. Sup
pose the tariff had been prohibitive
and we would have been confined to
the home market. Would the manu-
facturers have made so many goods?
No; but they would have doubled their
profits on what they did make The
people could not have bought so many
because of the increased price, Who
would have suffered? First, the work
men, because they would have had
fewer goods to make; secondly, the
consumer, because he could not have
bought so many at higher price
Who would have been benefited? The
manufacturer. because he might have
made and handled less goods, made a
double profit and really have gained,
as he would have had fewer to handle
for the same profit
This bill will increase the manu-
facturers' profits on the individual arti-
cles' but will lessen the power OF the.
people to buy or use his wares.
1T is the poverty of the buyer, not
the producer, that must be relieved be-
fore things will thrive.
The manufacturer has every facil-
ity to produce, but no facility to sell.
1T is the consumption that must
first he Stinnnln+ad and that will slim