Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-06-22
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRKiNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.

Responsible BiddeE of the WorId--LoH
 Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and
 Production Example Of Steel Rail Pool.
 One of the best speeches made in the house while the Dingley bill was being discussed was made by John c 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 a part of it:
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy tariff for the bene- fit of the wageworkers. say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom 1t comes, that does not contain g 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.
 Protection is always asked ill 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 hypocrisyi 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 differ enee between the European wage sehed. ule and ours, CT that ahont s per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the manufac turer then asked for the poor labore1 his per cent he got for himself at tbe 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 vicious 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. c. Dun 6 Go, in thei1 weekly review of trade, dated Feb 19, it is stated:
 No other event of the week ap- proaches in importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. In two days, says + rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year, re- ported at 500, o00 tons. And instead of l $28 in December and $25 in January, l ST is HOW the price at which works l 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 employed these thousands of men? Our 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 the manufacturer 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 1 profit under a high tariff by limiting l themselves to the home market and running half time, why sheald they run full time and invade foreign mar kets? They never will. They will sii down comfortably and sell their limited supply of goods for increased profits. making them more than whole, while Ial, of work just as he now does under the trust system.
 It is unfortunate that the humdrum of the tariff has been sounded i'll the ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un- 1 important, if not curse. Why did the breaking of tho steel rail pool put SC many men to work? It was because the | consequent lowered price for iron ano steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as well as at home. Suppose the tariff had heen prohibitiye and we would have been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? Mo- but they 1 would have doubled their profits or what they did mako, The people coul6 not have bought SO many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered? First, the workmen, because they would have had fewer goods 10 make secondly. the consumer. because hs could not have bought so many at [ higher price Who would have been ben efited? The manufacturer, because hs might have made and handled lesl goods, made Il double profit. and really have gained, as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit.
 "This bill will increase the manufao turer's profits on the individual arti cles, but will lessen the power Of th, people to buy or nse his wares.
 It is the poverty of the bnyer, no fhe nradncnr thal lnnst ha r1.lievnd La