Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-07-01
LABOR.S SHARE.
PROTECTION GAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRklNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS OH THE FREE LIST


 Responsible Hidder 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 C. Bell of Colorado. With facts which are indis- putable and logic which is unanswer- 1 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 q part of it.
 But our friends upon the other side say that they levy a tariff for the bene- fit of the wageworkers. I say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom 1t comes, that does not contain a provision for prohibiting the free in flow of immigration from foreign coun. tries is obliyious 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 laboying man-just enough to cover the differ ence between the European scale of wages and our own. What hypocrisy !! Who ever heard of the laboriHg man getting rich manufacturing? The sta tistioians clearly figured from the cen sus of 1880 that about 6 per cent on our dutiable list would cover the differ ence between the European wage sched- ule and ou1s, or that about IS per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the manufac. turer then asked for the poor laborel his 6 per cent he got fer himself at tbe hands of congress six tines 6 per cent.
 Is there afy reason why q high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by en. abling employers to build up vicious trust system for the manufacturer and against the 1aborer. The high tariff makes the manufacturer complete mas ter of the waeeworker.
 In the review of R. C. Dun 6 Go, in their weekly review of trade, dated Feb }, 1t Is stated;
 Ne other event of the week ap- brooches ill importance the disruption of tie steel rail pool. In two days, says the report, after it q greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production of tEe last year, re- ported at S0o,0o tons. And instead of $28 in December and $25 ip 1anuaIy, ST is now the price at which works 1 east ard west are seeking orders. And l further says tie report, the Carnegie 1 i.s cago delivery. These sales will employ [ many thousand hands, with an impor- tant decrease i'll the cost of tIaek laying E on renewal ef railroads.
 NOW, lily friends, let me asE you, was it tie rising CT lowering pric4 t5at employed these thousands of men? Oir friend Mr. Hopkins of Illinois tells f the benefits of a higher duty on iros and steel. Did the steel rail pool need more tariff?
 What is the difference in giving thc' manufacturer q double profit through q high tariff CT through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? No Will they ever share the profits of d tariff? Never
 It takes 10 political economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under high tariff hy limiting themselves to the home market and running half time, why sbe9ld they run full time ;.nd invade foreign mar kets? They never will They will sit down comfortably and sell their limited supply of goods fer increased profits making them more than whole, while the laborer tralnps the country i'll search of work just as he now does under the trust system.
 "It is unfortunate that the humdrum 1 of the tariff has been sounded i'll tie ears of the people until many of them i really believe that foreign trade is un- important, if noi curse. Why did the breaking cf tho steel railpool put SC many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price fer iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as well as at home. Suppose the tariff had Teen prohibitiya and we would nave been confined to the ] home market Would the manufacturers 1 have made so many goods? No, but they would have doubled their profits on what they did mako, The people could not have bought so many because of the increased price Who would have sui fered3 First, the worllmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make, secondly. tne oonAumer, because lit could not have bought so many at q higher price Who would have been ben. cited? The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled less goods, made a double profit, and really have gained. as he would have had few CT to handle for the same profit.
 This bill will increase the manufac- turer's profits on the individual arti cles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use his wares.
 1t is the poverty of the buyer, not the producer, thal nust be relieved be-