Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-07-09
LAB0R'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRklNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.


 Prices Stimulate Both consur, ption 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 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 k especially good. Here is a part of 1t:
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy a tariff for the bene- fit of the wageworkers. 1 say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom it comes, that does not contain provision for prohibiting the free in- flow of immigration from foreign coun. tries is obliNi ieas of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest of all wageworkers. Applause,
 " Protection is always asked in the 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 laborine man getting rich manufacturing? The sta. tistieians clearly figured from the cen- sus of 1880 that about 6 per cent on our dutiable list would cover the differ enee between the European wage sched- ule and ours, or that about IS per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the manufae. turer then asked for the poor laborel his per cent he got for himself at the hands of congress six times C per cent.
 Is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en abling employers to build up Yicions 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 65 Co., in their weekly review Of trade, dated Feb. 12, 1t is stated:
 ' No other event of the week ap- breaches ill importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. In two days. says li1t putt a4ACl II tl ELEatVl lOtJlGSS bJ rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year, re- ported at 600, 900 tons And instead ol $29 in December and $25 in January, $17 is now the pIiee at which works east and west are seeking orders And further, says tie report, the Carnegie company has been selling at ST, Chi eago delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands, with an impor- tant decrease in the cost of track laying on renewal of railroads.
 Now, 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 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 q high tariff or through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? Nc. Will they ever share the profits of q tariff? Never.
 It takes no political economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under high tariff by limiting themselves to the home market and running half time, why slea.sld 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 ramps the country in search of work just as he now does under the trust system.
 It is unfortunate that the humdrum of the taIiif has been sounded in the ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un. important, if Got curse. Why did tht breaking Of the steel rail pool put SC many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered pIice for iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad s we'll as at home. Suppose the tariff had been prohibitive and we would nave been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they would have doubled their profits oil what they did make. The people conld not have bought so many because of the increased price. Who would have sui | fered2 First, the wurkmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make, l secondly, the consumer, because hs could not have bought so many Ut 2 higher price Who would have been ben 1 efited: The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled less goods, made double profit. and really have gained as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit.
 "Ihis bill will increase the manufae- | turer's profits en the individual aTti cles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use bis wares.
 Tt is the poverty of tue buyer, not the producer, thal must bs relieved be- fore things will thrive.