Semi=weekly graphic., 1897-07-24
LABOR'S SHARE:
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING Tc WORKlNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS Ca THE FREE LIST.

The Iaborer Now Competes With Lowest
 Responsible Bidder of the world-Low
 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 was made by John Q. Bell of Colorado With facts which are indis- putable and logic which is unanswer- able he exposed many of the fallaeies of protection. His exposure of the absurd claim that protection helps the work ingman is especially good. Here IS part of it:
 But our friends upon the other side say that they leYya tariff for the bene- it of the wageworkers. I say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom it comes, that does not contain @ provision for prohibiting the free i'll. flow of immigration from foreign coun- tries is obIiyious of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest ot all wageworkors Applause.
 Protection is always asked in the IAlEIEEb Ot AIlIlG4E. AN0Nt OAfseA " AASNa A is asked in behalf of the poor laboring maa-jast enough to cover the difer- enee 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 abont per cent on Iffpys. enee between the European wago sehed. ule aud oufs, or that about l s per cent sd galoreIn covered the entire labor cost of cur list of 1880 While the manufae' tarer then asked for the poor laborel his 6 per cent he got for himself at tbe hands of congress six times per cent.
 Is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en. abIing employers to build up q vicious l trust system fer 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 6 Co.. in their weekly review of &fade, dated Feb 12, it is stated:
 | proaches in importance the disruption of the s5eel rail pool. In two days, says i the report, after it greater tonnage of rails WAS probably purchased than the entire prCeuction of the last year, re- i ported at soc, 900 tons. And instead of l S28 ill December and $25 in January, i SIT is now the pIiee Ut which works east 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 t oil renewal of railroads
 Now, my friends, let me ask you, 1 was it the rising or lowering price that employed these thousands of men? Our friend Nlr. Hopkins of Illinois tells of the benefits Of q higher duty on iron and steel Did the steel rail pool need more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving the manufacturer a double profit through a high tariff CT through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? No. Will they ever share the profits of q tariff? Never
 Ut takes no political economist tc answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under q high tariff hy limiting themselves to the home market and
 running half time, why sbeald they ran full time ;,ud 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, whila the laborer tramps the country in search of work just as he HOW does under the trust system.
 it 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 un. important, if not a curse. Why did the breaking of the steel rail pool put SC many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price for iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as well a8 at home. Suppose the tariff had t,een prohibitive and we would nave been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods2 No, but they would have doubled their profits OH what they did mako The people coald not have bought So many because of the increased price. Who would have suf. fered2 First, the workmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make; secondly, the consumer, because he could not have bought so many at higher price Who would have been ben, eiited2 The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled leas goods, made J double profit, and really have gained, as he wonld have had few. CT to handle for the same profit.
 This bill will increase the nlannfae. torer's profits on the individual arti eles, but will lessen tho power of the people to buy or use his wares.
 It Is the poverty of the buyer, not the producer, thal must be relieved be- fore things will thrive.
 The manufactures has every facility to produce, but no facility to sell.
 It i$ the consumption that must first be stimulated. and that will stin. ulate production.
 There mo but a few cla2ab.es |: s..l,,;s ..ll,,;;s bill to aid the oppressed farmer of the interior or the laborer, but thousands Of things to further oppress him. Higher sugar, higher salt, higher lumber, high CT clothing, higher manufactured prod