The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-06-01
LABOR's SHARE
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO
WoRKlNoMEN WHILE LABOR
Is ON THE FREE LIST.

frlocs stimulate Doth Consumption ant
Produotion-Examplo of Steel Rail Pool
One Of the bost speeches made in th,
house while the Dingley bill was beinJ
discussed was made by John g. Bell O
Colorado. With facts which nre indis
putable and logic which is unanswor
able he exposed many of the fallacies o.
protection. His exposure of the absurd
claim that protection helps the work
ingman is especially good. Hero is .
part of it:
But our friends upon tho other side
say that they levy tariff for tho bone.
fit of the wageworkers. 1 say to you
that any tariff bill, I caro- not from
whom 1t comes, that does not contain O
provision for prohibiting tho free in.
flow of immigration from foreign coun-
trics is oblivious of tho rights Of labor
and is opposed to the interest of all
wageworkers. [Applauso.]
Protection is always asked in the
interest Of others. Now, observe how II
is asked In behalf of tho poor laboring
man-just enough to cover the differ
enoe between the European soule of
wages and our own. What hypocrisy
Who ever heard Of the laboring man
getting rich manufacturing2 The sta
tisticians clearly figured from tho GEN.
sus Of 1880 that about per cent on
our dutiable list would cover the differ
enoe between the European wage sched-
ule and ours, or that about Is per cent
ad valorem covered the entire labor cost
of our list of 1880. While tho manufao-
turer then asked for the poor laborer
his Q per cent ho got for himself at the
hands of congress six times @ per cent.
is there any reason why a high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en-
abling employers to build up n vicious
trust system for tho manufacturer and
against tho laborcr. The high tariff
makes the manufacturer complete mas
ter of tho wageworker.
an the review Of r. G. Dun s. Co.,
in their weekly review Of trade. dated
Feb. 10, it is stated:
No other event of tho week ap-
proaches in Importance the disruption
of the steel rail pool. In two days, says
the report, after 1t greater tonnage of
rails was probably purchased than tho
entiro production of the last year, re-
ported at 500, 900 tons. And instead of
$28 in December and s26 in January,
$17 is now the price at which works
east and west are seeking orders. And
further says the report, tho Carnegie
company has been selling at sl7, Chi
oago delivery. These sales will employ
many thousand hands, with an impor-
tant decrease in the cost Of track laying
OH renewal of railroads.
Now, my friends, let mo ask you,
was it the rising or lowering price that
employed these thousands of men? Our
friend Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois tells Of
the benefits ~ higher duty on iron
and steel. Did tho steel rail pool noed
moro tariff?
What is the difference In giving the
double profit through q
high tariff or through pool? Do they
ever share tho profits of tho pool with
labor? No. Will they ever share tho
profits of tariff? Never.
lit takes no political economist to
answer these questions If tho United
States manufacturers can reap twice the
profit under n high tariff by limiting
themselves to tho 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 limited
supply of goods for increased profits,
making them more than whole, while
the laborer tramps the country in search
Of work just ms ho now docs under the
trust system.
''It is unfortunate that the humdrum
Of the tariff has been sounded in the
cars of the people until many Of them
really believe that foreign trade is un-
important, if not curse. Why did the |
breaking Of the steel rail pool put 80
many men to work? 1t was because tho |
lowered price for iron and
steel brought most liberal orders from
abroad rs we'll as at home. Suppose
the tariff had been prohibitive aud
we would have been confined to the
homo market. Would the manufacturers
have made so many goods? No, but they
would have doubled their profits on
what they did mako. Tho people could
not have bought so many because Of the
increased price. Who would have suf-
feredY First, tho workmen, because they
would have had fewer goods to make;
secondly, tho consumer, because he
,ould not have bought so many at a
higher price. Who would have been ben
,fited? Tho manufacturer, because he
might have made and handled less
goods, made double profit. and really
nave gained, as he would have had few
n 10 handle for the same profit
"This bill will increase the manufao-
;urer's profits ON the individual arti-
lies, but will lessen the power of the
,eople to buy or use his wares.
1T is the poverty of the buyer, not
he producer, that must be relieved be-
ore things will thrive.
"The manufacturer has every facility
o produce, but no facility to sell.
at is the consumption that must
lrst bo stimulated, and that will stim-
llate production.
"There are but few crumbs In this
ill to aid the oppressed farmer Of the
Interior or the laboror, but thousands
# things to further oppress him. Higher
ugar, higher salt, higher lumber, high
r clothing, higher manufactured prod
ots and absolutely nothing to raise the
rice of labor-a high tariff on labor's
limiting the demand for his
abor by narrowing the market. but
hrowing tho ports wide open for tho
roo importation of other laborers from
orcign countries to freely compete with