Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-09-08
LABORsS SHARE.
PROTECTION CAN GIVE NOTHING TO WoRKiNGMEN WHILE LABOR
 IS ON THE FREE LIST.

Responsible Bidder of the World-LeEs
 Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and
 Production n-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 fallaeies ot 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. say to you that any tariff bill, care not from whom it comes, that does not contain a provision for prohibiting the free ln- 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 ill tht interest of others. Now, observe how il is asked in behalf of the poor laboring man-just enough to cover the differ ence between the European scale ot wages and our own. What hypocrisy Who ever heard of the laboTing man getting rich manufacturing? The sta tistioians clearly figured from the cen sus of 1880 that about 6 per cent OF our dutiahle list would cover the differ ence between the European wage scbed- ule and ouIs, CT that about 18 per cent ad valorem covered the entire labor cost of our list of 1880. While the mannfao turer then asked for the poor laborei his per cent he got for himself at tbs hands of congress six times per cent
 Is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by ell abling employers to build up vicious trust system for 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 85 Go, i'll their weekly review of trade, dated Feb 12, 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 greater tonnage ot rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year, re- ported at 80G, 900 tons. And instead of $28 in December and $25 i'll January, ST 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 eago delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands, with all impor- tant decrease i'll the cost of track laying on renewal Of railroads
 Now, ny friends, let me ask you, was 1t the rising or lowering price that employed these thousands of men? Our friend MT. 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 high tariff or through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor9 No Will they ever share the profits of a tariff? Never.
 It takes no political economist tc answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under q high tariff by limiting themselves to the home market and running half time, why sheald 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.
 It is unfortunate that the humdruin of tho tariff has been sounded in tie ears of the people until many of them really believe that foreign trade is ull- important, if not a curse Why did tht break ing of the steel rail pool put ac many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price for iron and steel brought most liberal orders from abroad as well as at home. Suppose the tariff bad ,een prohibitive and we would have been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they would hava doubled their profits on what they did make. The people could not have bought so many because of the increased price. Who would have sui fered? First, the workmen, because they would have had fewer goods to make; secondly, the consumer, because hs could not have bought so many at higher price. Who would have been ben efited? The manufacturer, because he might have made and handled les goods, made double profit. aud really have gained. as he would have had few CT to handle for the samesprofit.
 This bill will increase the manufac turer's profits on the individual arti cles, bnt will lessen the 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 thugs will thrive.
 "The manufacturer has every facility to produce, but l. facility to sell
 "It Is the consumption that must