The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-25

duties shall be 80 levied as TO AFFORD Sc
ouritv 10 our diversified Industries and
protection 10 tie rights and wages OF the
laboror. 20 tho end that active and intel
lIeent labor. ~ well as capital. may have
its lust reward and the laboriug man his
fun share in the national prosperity
And the platform OF 1872 this item. 1--WE
believe that all articles which cannot
be produced in tn United States. except
Injuries. should he admitted free Of duty.
and that on All imports coming into com
petition with tho products OF American
labor there should be levied duties equal
10 the difference between wages abroad
and az home"
Mr.. Dingley has said, which everybody
knows TO be q fact. that the tariff was
not intended 90 protect one section OF the
country against another section, but only
to protect. American Industries against
foreign competition. lie had also said
that there was little or no competition
between the cotton factories Of New Eng
lang and the factories Of Europe. because
the imported goods were all fine goods,
but that New England was now suffering
from competition with the South, which
the tariff could not regulate.
Mr.. Dingley was then asked II the
protective tariff increased the price of
labor IL cotton factories which had no
foreign competition. and he replied: In
the factories Of the South? Eventually
1t must"
This question was then put to him:
"How does the tariff affect labor in those
factories which have no competition with
foreign factcries?' And Mr. Dingley re-
piled:
.Because the basis Of competition in
this country under protection is newt
ably the basis OF cur standard Of wages
and not the STANDARD OF wages abroad.
That is the object of the protective sys-
TEN. The object is TO prevent tho de-
cline Of wages here by the bringing in of
foreign goods that come in competition
with our own and which. under free
trade. would be sold at a price which
compols tho reduction of wages. That
is Just what is taking place in a lesser
degree now in New England with the
competition of the South
Further en- in the discussion. Mr.. Ding
ley again said. Il will simply say that our
theory is tina when we develop an Indus
! try in this country by means of protec-
! ton, we tend to increase wages
If that is not a plain declaration from
the leader Of the protectionists that the
purpose and erect Of tariff is TO increase
wages. then we do not understand the
English language.
But let us call our esteemed contemTor-
ary's attention 10 another proposition OF
Mr.. Dingley's. TO which we alluded in
Sundays paper. Mr.. Dingley said that
the chiefcst reason why Southern compe-
titlon was hurting the New England cot
ton mills was that wages were lower in
| the South and working hours LONGER.
The protective system, he said, could
not not apply in a case Of this oharac-
ter. and added:
But there are other methods Of ad-
vancing the protection Of labor beside
that of protective duties. one is, by Ia
Lor laws. reducing the hours Of labor.
That is one direction in which a labor
protective system may act. When there
IS one portion of our country that Is pro-
ducing cotton goods. running its machin-
cry eleven or twelve hours per day, and
especially when it IS doing this for less
wages than another part Of the country.
which can run it's machinery only ten
hours a day. the erect Of such competition
is either TO destroy the industry in the
| communities having the ten-hour day or
to compel a reduction of wages; and we
do not want anything OF that kind. We
want to avoid it,"
But how is this TO be done? BY an
amendment to the constitution says Mr..
Dingley. giving Congress the power to
fix the hours Of labor in the factories Of
this country.
There is the protection principle carried
TO its logical conclusion. Prevent for
eign competition by n high protective tar
! iM. Then protect the labor o. che sec
ton against competition with labor in
another section by fixing the hours Of
labor.
Why not go one step farther and fix
the compensation that laborers shall re-