The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-04
PROTECTION AND THE WAGE
STANDARD.

Vic VI III qutctiOuo put ~ ~aA'
by the Central Labor Union reads thus:
You say that you believe workmen should
have the unrestricted right to find employ
ment wherever they please, at whatever
wages they please; in other words would
you believe in absolute unrestricted COM
petition in the Industrial world, that en-
ployraent should be subject only to the
natural law Do you and your business
associates apply this rule 10 your w
business? Do you and the association you
represent believe in conducting your en-
terprises I'm harmony with natural avs!
Do you believe in unrestricted free trade or
are you a protectionist believing IN an
artificial restriction of trade? III you are a
protectionist how do you harmonic the
application of the natural law in employ
ing laborers and the ignoring OF this law
in conducting a manufacturing enterprise!
The question of wages is. perhaps, the
most important one in the entire range of
Industrial problems. 1t is. of course, of prime
Importance to those who pay and those
who receive wages. and IL is important to all
other classes because high wages conduce
to general prosperity. Secretary Shaw said
in his address at Chicago: I'VE are the most
prosperous people in the world because
we both produce and consume more than
! others If we consume more than any
other people IL Is because the mass of our
people are better able to buy. and this abil-
Everybody is interested in all wage earn
ers being paid as much as business con-
ditions will permi,.
The connection between protection and
high wages has been a subject of much
discussion. the consensus of opinion being
.ba% AZ hos haor and fG tho main panca
| and chief support of American high wages.
If protection cannot be defended on that
| ground it loses it's chief support. That it
benefits American manufacturers is un-
doubtedly true, but it could not be de-
Tended on this ground alone If it did not
men by enabling manufacturers to pay a
rate of wages far above that Of any other
| country. General Benjamin Harrison, one
of the ablest advocates of protection the
| country has ever had, based his strongest
argument on the ground that it insured
of his speeches he said: Strike down this
protective system, bring our workingmen in
equal competition in the products of their
toll with those who labor abroad, and
nothing is clearer than that these mills
and factories must reduce wages here to
shut down." In speaking for protection he
never failed to make this idea prominent.
There is no doubt but protection does in
sure high wages to American workmen
| and is mainly defensible on the ground
| that it enables American manufacturers
to pay such wages and still compete with
| foreign competitors who pay half or less
than half as much.
The fallacy in the question put to Mr..
Parry is i'm confounding the principle of
protection with coercion, strikes and boy
colts as a means of securing higher wages.
Mr.. Parry and many other manufacturers
object to these practices on the ground
that they tend to establish a standard of
wages by artificial or even by violent
means. often compelling employers to pay
more than they can afford to at the risk
of having their factories closed by a strike
which. perhaps, will be enforced by vio-
lent means. They regard this as a species
VI aho Will Tie
right to hire whomsoever they please at
the current wage rate In protection there
Is no element of coercion, no interference
with personal right. no threat of violence.
1t simply says to foreign manufacturers
that they shall not send their cheap la
bor products for sale in this country with
out paying a duty that will put them on a
par as TO cost with the products of highly
paid American labor. This law applies to
every employer and every factory and shop
in the United States. Its benefits are as
free as air. So far from interfering with
for every part of the United States and
places all employers and all ~workingmen
on an equal footing. If it interferes with
natural laws in any way 1t is by enabling
employers to pay a much higher rate OF
wages than they would otherwise have to
do or could afford to do and still compete
with foreign manufacturers. Above all, IL
leaves every American free in the exercise
of his personal right to work or not tc
work, as he may choose, and for what.
ever wages he is willing to accept. Be-
tween such a law as this and the methods
OF organized labor which are now beine
criticised by employers there does not seem
to be any utilization or relation whatever