Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-07-20
LAB0R'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WORNNGMEM WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.

The L2borer Row CGsnpetes With Lowest
 Responsible nidder of the world--Loss
 Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and
 Production Example of Steel Rail Pool.
 One of the best speeches made in the house while the Dingley bill was being discussed vas made by John c. Bell of Colorado. With facts which are indis- putoble and logic which is unanswer- able he exposed many of tEe fallacies ef protection. His exposure of tho absurd claim that protection helps the work ingman is especially good. Hero is 9 part of it:
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy q tariff for tho beno- fit of tho wageworkers. I say to you that any. tariff bill, I care not from whom it comes, that does not contain 3 provision for prohibiting the free i'll. flow of immigration from foreign coun. tries is oblivious of tho rights of labol and is opposed to the interest of all wageworkers. Applause.
 ' Protection is always asked i'll the interest of others Now, observe how it is asked il behalf of the poor laboring man-just enough to cover tho differ enee between the European scale of wages and OUT own. What hypocrisyl Who ever heard Of the labering man getting 1icA m#nlfaeturing? Tho sta tisticiana clearly figured from the een- 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 s per cent ad valore1a covered the entire labor cost of cur list of 1880. While the manufae, turer then asked fer the poor laborel his 6 per cent he got for himself at the hands of congress six times 6 per cent.
 Is there any reason why 2 high tariff affects wages injariessly? Yes; by ea abling employers to build up q vicious trust system for the manufacturer and against the lahorer. The high tariff makes tie manufacturer complete mas ter of the wageworker.
 In the review of R. c. Dan 6 Co, in their weekly review of afade, datee Feb. l2, 1t is stated:
 No other event of the week ap- breaches ia importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. h two days, says the report, after it n greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production Of the last year, re. ported at 500, ,000 tons. Aid instead oi $29 in December and $25 i'll January, S17 is now the pIiee at which works east and west are seeking orders. And further, says the report, the Carnegie company has been selling at SIT, Chi cage delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands, with an impor- tant decrease i'll the cost of track laying on renewal of railroads.
 Now, ny friends. let mo ask you, WIS it the rising or lowering price thai employed these thousands Of men? Our friend Mir Hopkins of Illinois tells Of the benefits of higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail peel need more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving the manufacturer 2 double profit through q high tariff or through T pool? Do they ever share tho profits of the pool with labor? No. Will they ever share the profits of tariff? Never.
 St takes TO political economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under a high tariff hy limiting themselves to the homo market and running half ti1ne, why sleessld they run full time-,.nd invade foreign mar kets? They never will. TLey will sit down comfortably and sell their limited supply of goods fer increased profits, 4f,y Jo the laborer trarEps the country in search of work just as he HOW does under the trust system.
 1t is unfortunate that the humdrum of the tariff has been sounded il tie earn of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un- important, if not curse. Why did tht breaking of tho steel rail peol put Sc many men to work? 1t was because the consequent lowered price fer iron and steel brought most liberal orders from the tariff had heen prolibitive aud we would have been confined to the home market. Would tho manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they would have doubled their profits oil what they did inalNe. The people could not have bought so many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered? First, the wofklaen, because they would have had fewer goods to make, secondly, tie consumer, because he could not have bought so many at higher price Who would have been ben- efted? The manufacturer, because he might have mado 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 cles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use his wares.
 It is the poverty of the buyer, noi tho producer, thai must be relieved be- fore things will thrive.