The Oskaloosa herald., 1903-10-01


mpon it a moment? Suppose that the
barriers erected at every port were
SWEPT away snd that our markets were
Inundated with the manufactures Of
foreign lands, what would the Millions
who have been working In protected
Industries do for a 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,
It 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 as much as possible the work to be
done in this country, so that the de-
mand for labor viii overrun the sup
ply. 1t is under these conditions that
the wageworkers win their enduring
victories. In the second place, il is for
the interest of the wageworkers that
the profits of industry be great, for in
such times the employer most readily
Yields the employee his fair share.
Without extending my view OF the
subject over other states than Iowa,
for what is true here is true elsewhere,
] comend to the free trader the cur
rent report of our labor commissioner,
Sn which he shows that in six years
wages in Iowa have increased an ay-
erage of 2146 per cent, and the in
crease in total wages paid has been
63.4S per cent.
understand perfectly that this in
crease In wages has not been the re-
suit of unselfishness Of employers.
know that it is largely due to the
struggle of labor unions for the bet
terment of their members. ! know,
also, that the classes of business from
which these conclusions are drawn are
not in the main the benefciaries of
direct 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
ness done.
Before the free trader can establish
his 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
be higher than it is now or that the
less for what he buys. He would, in
deed, be compelled to go further and
produce satisfactory evidence that
wages under free trade could be main
tanned at their present point. This is
an appalling task for any man who I'M
dertakes it, and venture to say that
throughout this entire campaign no
democratic speaker will attempt 1t.
No thoughtful man has ever declared,
OF 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.
II 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 il 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. 1t
has 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-
duce the cost of living. / will examine
this proposition, but / preface my ex-
animation by the suggestion that II
the claim were admitted, IL 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 agricultural
products do not help the farmer, and
therefore he could not say to the wage
worker that what he eats, insofar as
1t is produced in his own country,
costs him more by reason of the tariff
and it happens to be true that what is
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 IL we as
sumo that the price is increased by the
amount Of duty upon 1t, which Is not
true, the tariff costs the head of an
average family so Insignificant a sum
that | need not express it In figures.