Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1897-06-23
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO
WORkiNGMEN WHILE LABOR
IS ON THE ,REG LIST.


Production-ExampIeo OF Steel Rail Pool.
One of the best speeches mado 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 unanswcr-
able he exposed many of the fallacies Of
protection. His exposure of the absurd
claim that protection helps the work
ingman is especially good. Hero is u
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, I care not from
whom 1t comes, that does not contain n
provision for prohibiting the free in
flow of immigration from foreign coun-
tries is oblivious of tho rights Of labor
and is opposed to the interest of all
wageworkors. tApplausc.
Protection il 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 1850 that about 6 per cent on
our dutiablc list would cover the differ
ence between the European wage sched-
ulc 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 tines q per cent.
is there amy 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 The high tariff
makes the manufacturer complete mas
ter OF the wageworker
'In the review of r. G. Dun 81 Co.
III their weekly review OF trade, dated
Feb. IL, it is stated:
No other event of the week ap-
proaches i'll Importance the disruption
OF the steel rail pool. In two days, says
the report, after it Il greater tonnage of
rails was probably purchased than tho
entire production of the last year, re-
ported at 500, 900 tons. And instead of
S2S i'll December and $40 in January,
S17 is now tho 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 1T the rising or lowering price that
employed these thousands Of men? Our
friend Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois tells Of
the benefits of u 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
profit under high tariff Iy limiting
themselves To the home market and
running half time, why should they
run full time and invade foreign mar
Scts: They never will. They will sit
down comfortably and sell their limited
supply of goods for increased profits,
making them more than whole, while
;!'2 labolor tramps the country in search
of work just as he now does under the
rust system.
1t Is unfortunate that the humdrum
IF the tariff has been sounded III tho
ears Of the people until many of them
ieaIly believe that foreign trade is un-
important, If not Il curse. Why did the
breaking of the steel rail pool put so
many men 10 work? 1t was because the
consequent lowered price for iron and
't,"l brought most liberal orders from
tbroad IT'S we'll aS at home. Suppose
he tariff had been prohibitivo and
We would have been confined to the
1omc market. Would the manufacturers
aavo made so many goods? No, but they
would have doubled their profits ON
What they did make The people could
,ot have bought so many because of the
increased price. Who would have suf-
'ered! First, the workmen, because they
would have had fewer goods to make;
econdly, the consumer, because he
Duld not have bought so many ut IA
higher price. Who would have been ben
.ftglI Tho fprturer Icpnngn ln