Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1897-05-28
-TABOR's SHARE.
Protection Dan Give Nothing with
Labor on Free List
The Laborer Now Completes with
Lowest Responsible bidder of tho
World-Low Prices Stimulate Both
Consumption and Production--Ex-
ample OF Steel Rail Pool.


One of the best speeches made in the
house while the Dingley bill was be-
ing discussed was made by John C. Bell,
of Colorado. With facts which are in
disputable, and logic which is unan-
swerable, he exposed many of the fall
lacies of protection. His exposure of
the absurd claim that protection helps
the workingman 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 wage-worlsers. 1 say to you
that any tariff bill, care not from
whom 1t comes, that does not contain n
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
wage-workers. (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 laboring man
getting rich manufacturing? The sta
tisticians clearly figured from the CEN
sus of 1880 that about six per cent. on
our dutiablc list would cover the differ
ence between the European wage sched-
ule and ours, or that about is per cent.
ad vulorem covered the entire labor cost
of our list of 1880. While the manufac-
turer then asked for the poor laborer his
six per cent. he got for himself at the
hand of congress six times six per cent.
as there any reason why n high tariff
affects wages injuriously? Yes; by
enabling employers to build up vi
cious trust system for the manufacture
er and against the laborcr. The high
tariff makes the manufacturer COM
Plete master of the wage-wor1ler.
an the review of II. G. Dun & Co.,
in their weekly review of trade, dated
February 10, 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 of
Fails was probably purchased than the
entire production of the last year, re-
ported at 100000 tons, and instead of
SOS in December and $25 in January,
SIT is now the price ut which works
cast 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 the cost of track laying
on renewal of railroads.
Now, my friends, let me asl; 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 differ
ence In giving the manufacture a
double profit through high tariff or
through pool? Do they ever share
the profits of the pool with labor? No.
Will they ever share the profits of q
tariff? Never.
1T takes no political economist to
answer these questions. If the United
States manufacturers can reap twice
the profit under high tariff by limit
ing themselves to the home market and
running half time, why should they run
full time and invade foreign markets?
They never will. They will sit down
comfortably and sell their limited sup
ply of goods for increased profits MAX
Ing them more than whole, while the
laborcr tramps the country in search of
work just as he does under the trust
system.
1T Is unfortunate that the hum
drum of the tariff has been sounded in
the ears of the people until many of
them really believe that foreign trade
is unimportant, if not n curse. Why
did the breaking of the steel rail pool
put so many men to work? It was be-
cause the consequent lower price for
iron and steel brought most liberal or
ders 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 mannfac-
turers 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 the increased price. Who
would have suffered? First, the work
men, because they would have had
fewer goods to make; secondly, the
consumer, because he could not have
bought so many ut higher price. Who
would have been benefited? The man.
ufacturer, because he might have made
and handled less goods, made a double
profit, and really have gained, as he
would have had fewer 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.
ut is the poverty of the buyer, not
the producer, that must be relieved be-
fore things will thrive.
"The manufacturer has every facility
to produce, but no facility to sell.
ut is the consumption that must first
be stimulated, and that will stimulate
production.
"There are but few crumbs in this
bill to aid the oppressed farmer of the
interior or the laborer, but thousands
Of things to further Cypress him.
Higher sugar, higher salt, higher lum-
her hipher c1ofhinU biOber rponufoc