The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1897-06-04

One of the best speeches made in III,
house while the Dingley bill was be
ing discussed was made by John {. Bell
of Colorado. With facts which are in
dsputablc. aud logic which is unan.
swerable. he exposed many Of the fal.
lacics of protection. His exposure Of
the absurd claim that protection helps
the workingman is especially good.
Here is part oft
but our friends upon the other side
say that they levy Il tariff for the bene-
fit of the wage-worlcrs. 1 say to YOU
that any tariff bill. care not from
whom il comes, that does not contain Il
provision for prohibiting the free in
flow of immigration from foreign coun-
tries is oblivous of the rights of labor
and is opposed to the interest of all
wage-workers. (Applause)
protection is always asked in the
interest of others. Now. observe how il
is asked in behalf of the poor laborng
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 GEN.
sus of 1850 that about six per cent. on
our dutiable list would cover the differ
encc 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 1850. While the manufac-
turer then asked forth poor laborer his
six per cent. he got for himself at the
hand OF congress six times six per cent.
lis there any reason why high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by
enabling employers To build up Vi
cious trust system for the nianufactur-
er and against the laborer. The high
tariff makes the manufactures com
plete master of the wage-worker.
in the review of Il. G.. Dun d Co..
in their weekly review Of trade. dated
February ~. it is stated:
mo other event of the week APP
proaches in Importance the disruption
of the steel rail pool. In two days says
the report. after il greater tonnage of
rails was probably purchased than the
entire production of the last year. re-
ported at 100000 tons. and instead of
SIS in December and S25 in January,
SIT 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 II 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 differ
ence in giving the manufacture a
double profit through 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.
1T takes no political economist to
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice
the profit under high tariff by limit
iunning half time. why should they run
hll time and invade foreign markets?
hey never will. They will sit down
comfortably and sell their limited sup
ply OF goods for increased profits. max
my them more than whole, while tn
hborcr tramps the country in search OF
work just as he does under the trust
system.
1T is unfortunate that the hum
drum of the tariff has been sounded in
The ears Of the people until many OF
them really believe that foreign trade
Us unimportant. if not curse. WHY
did the breaking Of the steel rail pool
put SO many men to work? II was be-
cause the consequent lower price for
IRON and steel brought most liberal or
ders from abroad as well as at home
suppose the tariff had been prohibitive
ana we world have been confined 10 the
nome market. Would the manufac-
tnIers have made so many goods? No.
mn 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
fought so many mt a higher price. Who
would have been benefited? The man
"acturer. because be might have made
"hd handled less goods. made double
roiii. and really have gained. as ne
would have had fewer TO handle for the
same profit.
his bill will increase the manufac-
lrers profits on the individual arti- 4
lFs but will lessen the power of the S
t'ople TO buy or use his wares. y
IS the poverty of the buyer. not O
,ue producer. that must be relieved be- I
'se things will thrive Il
me manufacturers has every facility s,
\ produce, bu; no facility to sell
Is The consumption that must first
nula'ed. and that will stimulate
production. Al