The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1897-05-20
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO
WORKlNoMEN WHILE LABOR
is ON THE FREE LIST.


; Priccs Stimulate Both Consumption and
uction--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 G. Bell Of
Colorado. With facts which are indis-
putablo and logic which is unanswer-
able he exposed many of the fallacies of
protection. His exposure of the absurd
elaim 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-
At Of the wageworkers. say to you
that, any tariff bill, care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain q
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 in the
interest Of others. Now, observe how it
is asked in behalf of the poor laboring
man-just enough to cover the differ
enoe 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 1880 that about 6 per cent ON
our dutiable list would cover the differ
ence between the European wage sched-
ule and ours, or that about 18 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 6 per cent he got for himself at the
hands of congress six times per cent.
is there any reason why high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en-
abling employers to build up a vicious
trust system for the manufacturer aud
against the laborer. The high tariff
makes the manufacturer complete mas
ter Of the wageworker.
"Jn the review Of R. q. Dun q 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 il greater tonnage of
rails was probably purchased than the
entire production Of the last year, re-
ported at 8O0,O tons. And instead Of
$2S in December and $25 in January,
$l7 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 Sl7, 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 IL 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
high tariff or through 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. lf the United
States manufacturers can reap twice the
profit under a high tariff by limiting
themselves to the hcme 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 countiy in search
of work justNas he now does under the
trust system.
"It is unfortunate that the humdrum
of the tariff has been sounded in the
ears of the people until many Of them
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. lt was because the
consequent lowered price for iron and
steel brought most liberal orders from
abroad rs 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-
fercd? First, the workmcn, because they
would have had fewer goods to make;
secondly, the consumer, because he
could not have bought so many ut "a
higher price. Who would have been ben
efted: The manufacturer, because he
might have made and handled less
goods. made "a 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-
tufer's profits On the individual arti.
'les, but will lessen the power of the
people TO buy or use hs wares.
ut liz the poverty ~ the buyer, not
the producer. that ,nust be- relieved be-
fore things will thrive.
"Thc manufacturer has every facility
20 produce. hut no facility to sell.
l... ta,. tb..t