The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1897-06-10
LABOR'S SHARE.
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO
WORkINGMEN WHILE LABOR
is ON THE FREE LIST.

One Of the best speeches made in the
house while the Dingley bill was being
discussed was made by John c. 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
part of it:
But our friends upon the other side
say that they levy tariff for the bene-
fit Of the wagewOrkers. l say to you
that any tariff bill, 1 care not from
whom it comes, that does not contain
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
wageworkers. IApplause.
"Protcction is always asked III the
interest Of Others. Now, observe how 1t
is asked in behalf of the poor laboring
man-just enough to cover the differ
cnce between the European scale OF
wages and our own. What hypocrisy!
Who ever heard Of the labOriDg man
getting Iich manufacturing: The sta
tisticians clearly figured from the CEN
sus Of 1850 that about per cent ON
our dutiablc list would cover the differ
ence between the European wage sched-
ule and Ouls, or that about Is per cent
ad valOrcm covered the entire labor cost
of our list of 1880 While the manufac-
turer then asked for the poor laborer
his 6 per cent he got for himself at the
hands Of congress six times 6 per cent.
rs there any reason why a high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en-
abling employers to build up II vicious
trust system for the manufacturer and
against the laborcr. The high tariff
makes the manufacturer complete mas
ter Of the wagcworkcr.
"In the review of r. c. Dun & Co.,
III their weekly review of trade, dated
Feb. II, it Is stated:
No other event Of the week ap-
proaches in importance the disruption
of the steel rail pool. In two days, says
the report, after it q greater tonnage OF
rails was probably purchased than the
entire production Of the last year, re
ported at 500, 900 tons. And instead Of
$2S in December and $50 i'll January,
SIT is now the price at 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 tho cost Of track laying
on renewal Of railroads.
Nov, my friends, let me ask you,
was it the rising or lowering price that
employed these thousands of men? Our
friend Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois tells Of
the benefits of 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 d
high tariff or through a pool: Do they
ever share the profits of the pool with
labor? No Will they ever share the
profits of tariff! Never.
lit takes no political economist to
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice the
profit under a high tariff by limiting
themselves to the home market and
running half time, why should 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
the laborer tramps the country in search
of work just as he now does under the
trust 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 un-
important, if not a curse. Why did the
breaking Of the steel rail pool put 80
many men to work? 1t was because the
consequent lowered price for iron and
steel brought most liberal orders from
abroad as well as at home. Suppose
the tariff had been prohibitive and
we would have been confined to the
home market. Would the manufacturers
have made SO many goods? No, but they
would have doubled their profits on
what they did make. The people could
not have bought so many because Of tho
increased price. Who would have SUI
fered? 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
Gifted? The manufacturer, because he
might have made and handled less
goods, made IL double profit. and really
have gained, as he would have had few
er to handle for the same profit.
This bill will increase the manufac-
turers profits ON the individual arti-
Giles. but will lessen the power of the
people to buy or use his wares.
1t Is the poverty of the buyer, not
tho producer. that must be relieved be-
fore things will thrive.
The manufacturer has every facility
to produce, but no facility to sell.
1t is the consumption that must
first be stimulated, and that will slim
nlate production.
There are but n few crumbs in this
blllt aid the oppressed farmer of the
interior or the labOrer, but thousands
Of things to further Cypress him. Higher
sugar, higher salt, higher lumber, high
erclothing, higher manufactured prod
ucts and absolutely nothing to raise the
price of labor-a high tariff on labor S
products, limiting the demand for his
labor by narrowing the market. but
throwing the ports wide open for the
tree importation Of other laborers from
foreign countries to freely compete with
his work
CONSISTENCY. thou art a jewel"
a New Kind of Blessing.