Semi=weekly graphic., 1897-08-04
LAB8RS SHARE.
9no1EcT0& GA& GtfE NOTHING TO WOE&iN1H6M WHILE LABOR
 IS ca 1Re fRsE Lls1

E@ap1nstDia Eiddez af tE4 World Low
 Psiees se!ae.-5s cst.. Consumption and
 Production Example af aleei Ran Peol.
 oue of tta best speeches made in the house while lae lJing;cy b.a @as being 1 discusgcd Has madt by John c Bell of Colorado With facts Ehiah arc indis- putable aud logic > fdch is unanswer. abe he exposed many af tbe fallaeies ot pretse4loa lis = Easela af tse absard 1 olaiia that protection helps the work l ingmaa is especially good Hero ia 9 part ot it.
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy q tariff for Che Bene- fit of the wagewoF2ers l say to you that any tariff hiil l care not from whom it comes that does not contain o provision fer prohibiting the free iu. flow of immigration from foreign eoan. tries is obliN ious of the rights of labor and Is opposed to the interest of all wageworkers. fApplaase.
 Protection is always asked in tho 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 laboring man getting rich manufacturing? The sta tistieims clearly figured from the cen sus of 1880 that about per cent ou our dutiable list would cover the differ enee between the European wage sched. ule and ouIs, or that about s per cent cd yalorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the manufae turer then asked for the poor laborel 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 cn, abling employers to build up a vicious trust system fer the manufacturer and against the laborer. The high tariff , makes the manufacturer complete mas ter of Inc waGeworker.
 "m the review of R. c. Dun 6 Go. i. in thei1 weekly review of trade, dated Feb. 12, 1t is stated
 , ,. No other event of the week ap- breaches in importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. In two days. says the report, after if a greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the , entire predue n of the last year, 1a ported at SG at0 tons. And instead ot $28 i'll December aad $25 in January, s17 is new the p1iee at which works east and Hest are seeking orders. And further, says tEe report, the Carnegie company has been selling at $t7, Chi cago delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands, with aH impor tant deerease in the cost of track laying , on renewal ct railroads.
 Now, ny friends, let mo ask you, was it the rising CT lowering price that employed these thousands of mem Our friend Alr. Hopkins of Illinois tells of the benefits ef a higher duty on ira and steel Did the steel rail pool need more tatif2
 What is the difference In giving the manufacturer double profit through q high tariff or through a pool2 Do they ever sE.ue the profits of the pool with labor Nc. Will they ever share the profits of a tariH2 Never
 "it takes ho political economist tc answer these questions. If the United btates manufacturers can reap twice the profit under a high tariff Hy limiting themselves to the heue market and running half time, why siAAa}d they run full time and invade foreign mar kets? They never will They will sit down comfortably ard sell their limited . supply of goods for increased profits, making them more than whole, while the laboIer tramps the country in search of work just as he now does under the trus5 system.
 1t 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 uu. important, if not c0lse Why did the breaking of tho steel rail poeI put SC manY men to Wor6: IL Mas because the consequent lowered luiso fer iaoA and steel brought most llhetal orders from abroad well aa at home Suppose Che 1T bad been prohjbitiNa and we would nave been confined 10 the home market Would the manufacturors have made so many aoeds2 Nc, but they would haHe doubled their profits OF what they did make The people could not have tought SO many because of the increased price Who would have sui fered: First, the worknen, because they would have had fewer goods te make. secondly. tne consumer, because he could not have bought so many at higher price NLo would have been ben edted? The mauufae,mcr because he might have made and handled les. goods, made a double moht, aHd really have gained. as he 9ould have had few ef to handle for tine same profit
 This bill will increase the manufac. tuIer profits ou the individual anti cles, but will lessen tte power of the people 10 bty or use his wares.
 1t k thu poverty of the buyer, moi the producer thl Hast be relieved be. fore things NSili thrive.
 The maauls tuferhas every facilb, to produce, lnl no facility to sell
 It is tie consumption that must first be stimulated, and that will stim ulate production
 ''There 9in bat q few crumbs in this bill to aid the oppr5 ssea tarmer Cf tie interior or the iabcrer, bat thousanda Sf things to ofalgher oppress him. Iieksl sugar, higher salt, higher lumber. h.gn CT clothing higher manufactured prod uets and absolutely nothing to raise the price of laacs--a high talitr on talor's