Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1897-05-29
LABoRS SHARE.
Protection Can Give Nothing with
Labor ON Free List

ne 1000RoP How COnD0f0O Win
Lowest 1esD0nsiblo DiAAer q the
W0ElA-L4w Prices 0tfRulate D~tA
CsnsuaDtisa ana Freaussssa-Hx.
ample q steel Ran REEL.
One Of the best speeches made in the
house while the Dingley bin was BE-
ing discussed was made by John C. Bell,
OF Colorado. With facts which are In
disputable, and logic which il unan-
swerable, he exposed many of the fal-
lacies Of protection. His exposure Of
the absurd claim that protection helps
the worlingman il especially good.
Here il part of it:
But our friends upon the other side
say that they levy q tariff for the bene-
1T OF the wage-workers. I say to you
that any tariff bill, I care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain .
provision for prohibiting the free In
flow OF immigration from foreign coun-
tries il oblivious Of the rights Of labor
and is opposed to the interest Of al
wage-workers. (Applause.)
Protection il always asked in the
interest of others. New, observe how It
Is asked in behalf of the poor laboring
man-just enough to cover the differ
ehce between the European scale Of
wages and our own. What hypocrisyl
Who ever heard of the laboring man
getting rich manufacturing? The sta
tisticians clearly figured from the CEN
sus Of 1880 that about six per cent. ON
our dutiable list would cover the differ
ence between the European wage sched-
ule and ours, or that about 10 per cent.
ad valorem covered the entire labor cost
of our list of 1880. While the manufac-
turer then asked for the poor laborer hia
six per cent. he got for himself at tho
hand of congress six times six per cent.
els there any reason why high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by
enabling employers to build up vi
cious trust system for the manufactur-
er and against the laborer. The high
tariff makes the manufacturer COM
plete master of the wage-worler.
'Tn the review of r. G. Dun & Co.,
in their weekly review of trade, dated
February 1R, it is stated:
"sNo other event of the week ap-
proaches in Importance the disruption
Of the steel rail pool. In two days. says
the report, after it a greater tonnage Of
rails was probably purchased than the
entire production Of the last year, re-
ported at 5000 tons, and instead Of
$2S in December and $25 in January,
SIT il now the price at which works
cast 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 differ-
ence in giving the manufacture q
double profit through high tariff or
through q pool? Do they ever share
the profits of the pool with labor? No.
Will they ever share tho profits Of q
tariff? Never.
1T takes no political economist to
answer these questions. # the United
States manufacturers can reap twice
the profit under a high tariff by limit
ing themselves to the home market and
running half time, why should they run
full time and invade foreign markets?
They never will. They will sit down
comfortably and sell their limited sup
ply Of goods for increased profits, max
ing them more than whole, while thS
laborer tramps the country in search Of
work Just Is he does under the trust
system.
ut il 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
is unimportant, if not q curse. Why
did the breaking Of the steel rail pool
put 20 many men to work? It was be.
cause the consequent lower price TO,
iron and steel brought most liberal or.
ders from abroad as well as at home
Suppose the tariff had been prohibitive
and we would have been confined to the
home market. Would the manufac.
turers have made SO many goods? No
but they would have doubled their
profits on what they did make. The
people could not have bought 30 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
bought so many Mt q higher price. Who
would have been benefited? The man.
ufacturer, because he might have made
and handled less goods, made double
profit, and really have gained, as he
would have had fewer to handle for the
same profit,
This bill win increase the manufac.
turer's profits on the individual arti.
cles. but win lessen the power Of the
people to buy or use his wares.
ut is the poverty Of the buyer. moi
the producer. that must be relieved be-
fore things win thrive.
The manufacturer has every facility
to produce. but no facility to sell.
'sIt Is the consumption that must first
be stimulated, and that viii stimulate