Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-05-27
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRKiNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.

Production--Ezemp1e 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. I say to you that any tariff bill, I care not from provision for prohibiting the free in foW of immigration from foreign coan- tries is obliS ious of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest of all wageworkers tApplause.
 Protection is always asked in the interest of others Now, observe how it is asked in behalf of tho poor laboring man-just enough to cover the differ ence between tho European scale of
 
 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 sohed ule and ou1s, or that about 8 per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the manufac. turer then asked for the poor laboreI his 6 per cent he get fer himself at the hands of congress six times 6 per cent.
 Is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injurionsly? Yes; by en. abling employers to build up vicioas 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 E. G. Dun $ Go, in their weekly review of trade, dated Feb. l3, it is stated:
 !" No other event of the week ap- breaches i'll importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. In two days, says the report after it q greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year, re ported at 500, GOO tons And instead of $28 in December and $25 in January, $17 Is now the price at which works east ard 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 all impor tant decrease in the cost of track lay ing on renewal of railroads.
 Now, my friends, let me ask you, was it the rising CT lowering price that employed these thousands of men? Our friend Mir. Hopkins of Illinois tells of the benefits of a higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail peel need more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving the manufacturer double profit through q high tariff or through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? No. Will they ever share the profits of q tariff? Never
 1t takes 10 political economist to Answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under q 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 new does under the trust system.
 "It is unfortunate that the humdrum of the tariff has been sounded in tie ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un- important, if rot curse. Why did the breaking Of the steel rail pool put so many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price fer iren and steel brought most liberal crders from abroad as we'll as at home. Suppose the tariff bad been prohibitive and we would have been confined to the home market. Would tie 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 nave SUI fered? First, the workmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make; secondly, the consumer, because he could not have bought so many at q higher price, Who would have been ben cited? The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled less goods. made double profit. and really have gained. as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit
 "This bill will increase the manufae- turer's profits on the individual arti- eles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use his wares.
 It is the poverty of the buyer, not the producer, thai must be relieved be- fore things will thrive.
 .'The manufacturer has every facility to produce, but no facility to sell.
 ffTf {t,o oooc,., n, '. o.a f1,a3- rr,,3cf