The Forrest City times., 1897-06-18
LAB0R'S SHARE.
Protection Can Give Nothing with
 Labor on Free List.
Lowest Responsible Bidder of the worId-Low Prices Stimulate Both Consumption and Production-Ex- ample of steel Rail Pool.

house while the DlngleY Dlil was be- ing discussed was made by John C. Bell, of Colorado. With facts which arein- disprlab!e, and logic which is unan- swerable, he exposed many of the fal- 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-workers. l say to yoa that any tariff bill. l care not from whom it comes, that does not contain q i provision for prohibiting the free in i flow of immigration from foreign coun- tries is oblivious of the rights of labor and is opposed to the interest of all waae-workers. (Applause.)
 l "Protection is always asked in the i 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! i Who ever heard of the laboring man i getting rich manufacturing? The sta i tisticiuns clearly figured from the cen- sus of 1880 that about six per cent. on our dutiable list would cover the differ ence between the European wage sched- ule and ours. or that about IS per cent. i ad valorem 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.
 ''is there any reason why high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by enabling employers to build up vi- cious trust system for the manufactur- CT and against the laborer. The high tariff makes the manufacturer com l plete master of the wage-worker.
 In the review of k. c. Dun 6S Co.,. i in their weekly review of trade, dated February 12, it is stated:
 1 "'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 a greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the | entire production of the last year, re- ported at s00,000 tons. and instead of S2S in December and $25 in January, i S17 is now the price at which works east and west are seeking orders. And i further says the report, the Carnegie company has been selling at $17, Chi cago delivery. These sales will employ many thousand hands. with an impor- tant decrease ill 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, Mir. 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 differ ence in giving the manufacture a double profit through a high tariff or through pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? No. Will they ever share the profits of 8 tariff? Never.
 Tt takes no political economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice the profit under a 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, mall- ing them more than whole. while tho laborer tramps the country in search ot work just as he does under the trust system.
 Tt 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 a curse. Why did the breaking of the steel rail pool put sc 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 i and we would have beeal confined to the home market. Would the manufac- turers have made so miCly goods? No, but they would have doubled their profits on what they dI make. The 1 people could not have bought so many because of the increased price. Who would have suffered? First, the work | lhCi' pcCdusS ihey "oulu nave udu fewer goods to make; secondly. the consumer, because he could not have bought so many at q higher price. Who would have been benefited? The man. ufacturer, because he might have made and handled less goods, made 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 10 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 l to produce, but no facility to sell.
 Tt is the consumption that must first be stimulated, and that will stimulate | production.
 "There are but a few crumbs in this