Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-08-23
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRKlNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.


 Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and roduction--ExampIe of Steel Rail Pool. One of the best speeches made in the house while the Dingley bill was being discussed was made by John 0. Bell of Colorado. With facts which are indis- putable and logic which is unanswer- able he exposed many of the fallaeies of protection. His exposure of the absurd claim that protection helps the work ingman is especially good. Here is a part of it:
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy a tariff for the bene- lit of the wageworkers. I 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 iron. foreign ooJr. tries is ehliyious of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest of all wageweekers. Applause.
 Protection is always asked in the interest of others. Now, observe how it is asked ill behalf of the poor laborina man-just enough to cover the differ enee hetHeen the European scale of wages and our own. What hypocrisyl Who ever heard of the laboring man getting rich manufacturing? The sta tisticians clearly figured from the cen. sus of 1880 that about per cent on our dutiab1e list would cover the differ. ence between the European wage sehed. ule and oa1s, CT that about s per cent ad yalorem covered the entire labor cost of cur list of 1880. While the manufac, turer then asked for the poor laborel his per cent he got for himself at tbe hands of congress six times 6 per cent.
 Is there any reason why a high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en- ab1ing employers to build up vieious trust system for the manufacturer and against the laborer The high tariff makes the manufacturer complete mas ter of the wageworker.
 In the review of R. G. Dun & Go, ill their weekly review of trade, dated Feb. 12, it is stated:
 :. No other event of the week ap- breaches i'll importance the disruption of tho steel rail pool. h two days, says the report, after 1t a greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire prcdunTi3n of the last year, re- ported at 80G,a ,a40 tons. And instead of S2S in December and $25 i'll January, ST is ROW the price at which works east anG west are seeking orders. And further, says the report, the Carnegie company has been selling at SIT, Chi cago delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands, with an impor- tant decrease in the cost of track laying on renewal of railroads.
 ..Now, Icy friends, let me ask you, was it the rising or lowering price that employed these thousands of men? Our friend Mir Hopkins of Illinois tells of the benefits of higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail pool nee6 more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving the manufacturer a double profit through 8 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.
 Ut takes no political economist tc answer these questions If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under a high tariff by limiting themselves to the home market and running half time, why sbessld 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 tranlps the country i'll search of work just as he now does under the trust system.
 Tt is unfortunate that the humdrum of the tariff has been sounded ill the ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un. important, if not curse. Why did tht breaking Of tho steel rail pool put SC many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price fer iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as we'll as at home. Suppose the tiff bad Iieen prohibitive aud we weld have been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they would have doubled their profits on what they did make The people could not have bought SC many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered? First, the workmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make; secondly, tue consumer, because he could not have bought so many at higher price Who would have been bell efited? The manufacturer, because he might haye nlada aiid handled les goods, made double profit, and really have gained, as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit.
 'sThis bill will increase the manufac. turer's profits OH the individual aftl cles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use his wares.
 Ut is the poverty of the buyer, not the producer, tha' must be relieved be- fore things will thrive.
 1.-The manufacturer has every facility to produce but Lo facility to sell
 II -.4