The Valentine Democrat. [volume] (Valentine, Cherry Co., Neb.) 1896-1898, 1897-06-17
LABOR ON THE FREE LIST.

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 absurd
claim that protection helps the work
ingman is especially good. Here is
part of it:
But our friends upon the other side
say that they levy tariff for the bene-
fit of the wageworkers. I say to you
that any tariff bill, I care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain
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 interest of all
wageworkers. (Applause.l
| "Protection is always asked in the
interest of others Now, observe how it
is asked in behalf of the poor laboring
man-just enough to cover the differ
ence 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 per cent on
our dutiable list would cover the differ
ence 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 the manufac-
turer then asked for the poor laborer
his per cent he got for himself at the
hands of congress six times 6 per cent.
SIS there any reason why high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en-
abling employers to build up vicious
trust system for the manufacturer and
against the laborer.
"In the review of R. G.. Dun & Co.,
in their weekly review Of trade, dated
Feb. 12, it is stated:
No other event of the week ap-
proaches in importance the disruption
of the steel rail pool. In two days, says
the report, after it greater tonnage of
rails was probably purchased than the
entire production of the last year, re-
ported at S00,00 tons. And instead of
$2S in December and $50 in January,
$17 is now the price at which works
east and 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, my friends, let me ask you,
was it the rising or lowering price that
Tlr- Df n
friend Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois tells of
the benefits Of higher duty on iron
! and steel. Did the steel rail pool need
more tariff?
What is the difference in giving
manufacturer double profit through a
high tariff or through a pool: Do they
ever share the profits of the pool with
labor? No Will they ever share the
profits Of a tariff? Never
''It takes no political economist to
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice the
profit under high tariff by limiting
| 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 limited
supply of goods for increased profits,
making them more than whole, while
the laborer tramps the country in search
Of work just as he now does under the
trust system.
''It is unfortunate that the humdrum
of the tariff has been sounded in the
4 Of he Of
really believe that foreign trade is un-
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. Suppose
the tariff had been prohibitive and
we would 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 so many because Of the
increased price. Who would have suf
| fereG? First, the workmen, 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 ben
efted? The manufacturer, because he
might have made and handled less
goods, made d double profit. and really
have gained, as he would have had few
er to handle for the same profit.
'This bill will increase the manufac-
turer's 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 facility
to produce, hut no facility to sell.
1T is the consumption that must
first be stimulated, and that will stim-
ulate production.
There are but few crumbs in this
bill to aid the oppressed farmer of the
interior or the laborer, but thousands
of things to further oppress him. Higher
sugar, higher salt, higher lumber, high
er clothing, higher manufactured prod