The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1903-09-30
Will you reason

barriers erected at every port We're
swept away and that our markets were
inundated with the manufactures of
foreign lands, what would the millions
who have been working in protected
industries do for living? Where
would they turn for employment?
Who would pay them high wages, low
wages, or any wages? The profits
made by some of our manufacturers
are too great, but would like the ex-
ponent of free trade to explain to the
workingmen of this state, or any other
state, how reduction Of these profits
would tend to an increase in wages.
From the standpoint of a workingman,
1t is hard enough to get fair wages
when the profits are large, and want
the advocate OF a change to explain
how the struggle would become easier
II the profits were lessened or should
wholly disappear. The true analysis
of the whole subject is that the work
ingman is interested, first, in enlarg-
Ing rs much as possible the work to be
done in this country, so that the de-
mand for labor will overrun the sup
ply. 1t Is under these conditions that
the wageworkers win their enduring
victories. In the second place, it is for
the interest of the wageworkers that
the profits of industry be great, for in
such times the employer most readily
yields the employe his fair share.
Without extending my view Of the
subject over other states than Iowa,
tor what is true here is true elsewhere,
comend to the free trader the cur
rent report of our labor commissioner,
In which he shows that in six years
wages in Iowa have increased an av-
brage of 21.46 per cent, and the in
crease in total wages paid has been
s3.48 per cent.
understand perfectly that this in
crease in wages has not been the re-
suit Of unselfshness of employers. I
know that it is largely due to the
struggle Of labor unions for the bet
torment Of their members. I know,
also, that the classes of business from
which these conclusions are drawn are
not In the main the beneficiaries of
airect protection, but it is neverthe-
less clear that these men could not
have enforced their just demands had
there not been work to do. They
could not have made these strides if
there had not been profit in the bust
ness done.
Before the free trader can establish
Ills title as the friend of the wage
worker, he must be very much more
specific than Mr.. Sullivan has been.
He must show, first, that under free
trade there would be more work than
there now is. Second, that labor would
oe higher than it is now or. that the
wageworker would be required to pay
yuho no h,y1y 10 in
deed, be compelled to go further and
wages under free trade could be main
Iained at their present point. This is
IN appalling task for any man who I'M
dertakes it, and venture to say that
throughout this entire campaign no
democratic speaker will attempt it.
No thoughtful man has ever declared,
DR. will ever declare, that with free
competition in our own markets in
everything, that we would produce
more than we do now, and / therefore
lay aside that part of the task as one
which will never be entered upon.
Likewise it never has been claimed,
and the defender of free trade dares
not pretend to any intelligent audience
that his doctrine will increase wages.
If understand Mr.. Sullivan's position,
he insists that the law Of supply and
demand must fix the. prices and value
Of everything, and he will not be SO
Inconsistent as to argue that an in
crease In the supply of labor, without
affecting the demand, could by any
possibility enhance the compensation
Of labor. Free trade means the free
competition of the world in our mar
kets; that is, free competition of all
the labor of the world through the
commodities they produce, and this
could not operate otherwise than to
reduce wages if the workers of other
countries receive lessthan those of
our own. This, then, is another
branch of the proposition over which
the free trader will never successfully
pass.
There remains but one other. II
nas been claimed for free trade, and
probably will be again, that it will re
duce the cost of the things the wage
worker must buy; that is to say, re-
auce the cost of living. l will examine
this proposition, but preface my ex.
animation by the suggestion that il
the claim were admitted, it would still
be incumbent upon the free trader to
show that his theory of government
would maintain the present rate OF
wages, while lowering the necessary
expenses of life. This he cannot do
He has made the experiment in times
past, and with one invariable result
the reduction of wages and of men EN-
ployed. Let us, however, see what the
probable effect upon the cost of living
would be. The free trader is vocifer
GUS and vehement, and Mr.. Sullivan is
no exception to the rule, in asserting
that the duties laid on agriculture
products do not help the farmer, anC
therefore he could not say to the wage
worker that what he eats, insofar az
it is produced in his. own country
costs him more by reason of the tariff
and it happens to be true that what i.
imported for the table of the working
man is substantially all upon the free
list. The only exception of the slight
est Importance is sugar, and if we as
sumo that the price is increased by the
amount of duty upon it, which is no
true, the tariff costs the head of al
average family SO insignificant a sun
that need not express it in figures
IngOf9r qS ha iS a IISar Of tho prdino ~