Evening journal., 1897-06-05
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO
WORKlNGMEN WHILE LABOR
is ON THE FREE LIST.

Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and I
Prbduotion-Example Of Steel Rail Pool. /
One Of the best speeches made in the |
house while the Dingley bill was being I
discussed was made by John @. 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-
I'll Of the wageworkers. / say TO you
that any tariff bill, ] care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain a
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
wageworkcrs. [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
ence between the European scale Of
wages and our own What hypocrisy
Who ever heard of the laborinp 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 sched-
ule and ours, OF that about Is per cent
al ,..l,,.,,,, ,,,-o.cl tl,o 80 tiro 1ob,r ooct
Of our list of 1850. While the manufac-
turer then asked for the poor laborer
his 6 per cent he got for himself at the
hands Of congress six timcs 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 and
against the laborer The high tariff
makes the manufacturer complete mas
ter OF the wageworker.
"In the review Of r. G. Dun & Co.,
in their weekly review Of trade, dated
Feb. p, it is stated;
" No other event Of the week APP
moaohes 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 500, 900 tons And instead of
s2S in December aud $25 in January,
| Sl7 is now the price at which works
enst 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 inpor-
tant decrease in the cost Of track laying
on renewal of railroads.
"Now, my friends, let mo ask you,
was it the rising OF lowering price that
employed these thousands of men? Our
friend Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois tells of
the benefits of a 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 a tariff? Never
1T takes no political economist tc
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice the
profit under a high tariff by limiting
themselves to the home market anC
running half time, why should they
run full time and invade foreign mar
: kets? They never will. They will si
2 down comfortably and sell their limited
supply of goods for increased profits
making them more than whole, Will,
the laborer tramps the country in searcl
of work just as he now does under th'
trust system.
"It is unfortunate that the humdrun
l of the tariff has been sounded in tn
/ ears of the people until many Of then
j. really believe that foreign trade is un
d important if not q curse. Why did tn
J breaking of the steel rail pool put g
q many men TO work? 1t was because tn
consequent lowered price for iron an
steel brought most liberal orders frou
abroad as we'll as at home. Suppos
the tariff had been prohibitive an
! we would have been confined to th
. home market. Would the manufacturer
/ have made so many goodsg No, but the
!. would have doubled their profits o
what they did make. The people coul
not have bought so many because Of tn
S increased price Who would have sui
fered? First, the workmen, because the
would have had fewer goods to make
secondly, the consumer, because j
could not have bought so many at
higher price. Who would have been bef
l. Gifted? The manufacturer, because
a might have made and handled les
Il goods, made a double profit. and reall
is have gained, as he would have had few
l. er 90 handle for the same profit
II "This bill will increase tho manufa'
~ turer's profits on tho individual ant
p cles, but will lessen the power Of Il
y, people to buy or use his wares
1T is the poverty of the buyer, nj
= the producer, that must be relieved b.
fore things viii thrive.
"The manufacturer has every facilii
to produce, but no facility to sell.
"It is the consumption that mu
first be stimulated, and that Will stin
ulate production.
"There are but a few crumbs in tn
1s1l 20 old tho orf,rnccod farf,,pr of ri