Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-11-10
IABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRklnGMEN WHILE lAsoR
 IS OH THE FREE LIST.

Responsible Bidder or the Worfd-f.ox Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and Production Example of Steel Raft Pool. One of tie best speeches made in theg house while the Dingley bill was beipsg discussed was made ty John c. Bela of Colorado. With facts which are ifndis- patable ant logic ieh is unanswer able he exposed many ot Che fal1aoies ot l protection. His exposure Of tshe absurd 1 claim that protection helpA the work l ingman is especially gooN. Here is q part of it: But our friends uSbon the other side say that they leyEsa tariff for the bene= fit of the wagseworkers. ] say to you that any >tgariff bill, care not from Whom II comes, that does not contain provision for prohibiting the free in- flow of immigration from foreign cour- tries is obliyious of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest of all wageworkers. Applause.
 Protection is always asked i'll the interest of others Now, observe how ii is asked in behalf of the poor laboring nlan-just enough to cover the differ ence between the European scale ol wages and our own. What hypoerisyi Who ever heard of the 1ahoring man getting rich manufacturing? The sta. tistieians clearly figured from the cen slls of 1880 that about per cent on our dutiable list would cover the differ. ence between the European wage sched ule and ours, CT that about ] s per cent ad Valorem covered the entire labor cos. Of our list of 1880. While the manufao, furer then asked for the poor lahoreI his per cent be got for himself at the hands of congress six times 6 per cent.
 Is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injufiously? Yes; by ell. abling employers to build up q vicious trust system for the manufacturer and against the laborer Tho high tariff makes the manufacturer complete mas ter cf .s=zt -.
 in the aeslea If k. C. Daa & Ge. i. jn their weekly review of trade, dated Feb. 12, it is stated:
 :" No other event Of the week ap- prDsches in importance the disruption of the steel rail pool In two days. says the report, after it greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year. re- ported at 80H, 000 tons And instead of @28 in December and $25 i'll January, Sl7 Is HOW the price st which works east and west are seeking orders. And further, says the report, tho Carnegie company has been selling at ST, Chi cage delivery These sales will employ many thousand hands, with all impor tant decrease ill the cost of track laying oil renewal ef railroads.
 Now. my friends, let mo ask you, was 1t the rising or lowering price thaf employed these thousands of men? Ou1 friend Mr. Hopkins of Illinois tells oi the benefits of higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail pool need more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving sbc manufacturer douhla pp67ff through 2 high tarltf-1T through pool? Do they eVer share the profits of the pool with labor No Will they ever share the profta of q tariff? Never.
 IL takes no political economist te 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 sboasld 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 fhe lauerer traGps the country in search of work just as he now does under the trusg system.
 Tt is unfortunate that the humdruIn of the tariff has been sounded ill the ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade IS uil. impoi can't, if not curse. Why did the breaking of the steel rail pool put fe many men to work? It was because tie consequent lowered price for iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad e3 we'll as at homo. Suppose fhe tariff had t,een pfohibitive and we would nave been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No. but they would haze doubled their profits on what they did make The people could not have bought so many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered? First, the workmen, becanse they would have had fewer goods 10 make, secondly. thes consumer, because ht could not have bought so many at higher price. WEo would have been ben. efited? The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled les goods, made double profit, and really have gained, IS he would have had few er to handle for the same profit
 This bill will increase the manufao turer's profits on the individual arti cles. hut will lessen the power of the people te buy or use his wares.
 it Is the poverty of inc buyer, noi the producer, tha must be relieved be fere things will thrive.
 Tho manufacturer has every facility fo produce. but r9 facility to sell