Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-07-12
IAB0R'S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRklNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS cN T4E FREE LIST.

One of the best speeches made ill 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 unanswcr- able he exposed many of the fallacies of protection. His exposure Of the absurd claim that protection helps the work l ingman Is especially good. Here is q part of it
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy d tariff for the bene- fit of the wageworkers. say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom it oomes that does not contain q provision fer prohibiting the free in- flow of immigration from foreign conn. tries Is obliyious of the rights of labor aud 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 laboTine mGn-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- l tisticians clearly figured from the cen sus ef 1880 that about per cert ou our dutiable list would cover the differ once Letween the European wage sehed- ule and ours, or that about IS per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of cur list of 1880. While the manufae. turer then asked for the poor 1abore1 his 6 per cent he got fer himself at the l hands of congress six tines [ per cent
 ''Is there any reason why a high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en- abling employers to build mp vicious trust system for the manufacturer and 1 against the laborer. The high tariff makes the manufacturer complete mas. ter of the wa9eWorker
 'tIn the review of R. C. Dun G Co.,, in their weekly review of trade, dated Feb. 12, it 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 it I greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production of tie last year, re ported at 600, GOO tons And instead of i $28 ill December and S25 in January 9I7 is now the pIice at which works east and west are seeking orders. And further. SAYS tie report, the Carnegie company has been selling at SIT, Chi eago delivery These sales will employ many thousand hands, with an inror- { tant decrease in inc cost of tack laying OH renewal Of railroads
 Now. my friends. let mo ask you. was it the rising CT lowering price that employed these thousands of men? Om friend Mr. Hopkins eff Illinois tells oi ] the benefits of higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail pool need more tariff?
 What Is tie difference in giving the manufacturer a double profit through high tariff CT through pool? Do they ever share the profits Of the pool with 1 labor? No Will they ever share the profits of tarih? Never.
 It takes no political economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the 1 profit under q high tariff hy limiting themselves to tho home market and running half time, why sbe*sld they run full time and invade foreign mar kets? They never will. They will sit down comfortably and sell thejr limited l supply of goods for increased profits, making them more than whole, while the laborer tramps the country in search of work just as he HOW does under the trust system.
 Tt is unfortunate that the hRmdrum | of tie tariff has been sounded in the ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is un. important, If not curse. Why did thu i breaking of the steel rail pool put SC many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price for iron and l steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as well as at home. Suppose the tariff had lisen prohibitiye and we would have been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they 1 would have doubled their profits on what they did maku. The people could not have bought SO many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered2 First, the worl1lnen, because they 1 would have hdd fewer goods to makei secondly, tHe consumer, because he could not have bought so many at 9 higher price. Who would have been ben efited? The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled less goods, made dopble profit, and really have gained, as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit
 This bill will increase the manufac- turers profits cn the individual arti cles, but will lessen the power of the l people to buy or use his wares.
 ''It is the poverty of the buyer, moi the producer, thal lnast be relieved be- fore things will thrive.
 .'The manufacturer has every facility to produce, bat no facility to sell.
 ..It is the censnmntlan that must