The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-04-26
VOA0O Of
tho P00pS0
FOR FREE TRADE

Editor Providencs Nsws
The man who advocates . protActivs
tarin or ship subsidies or the taxaflon
of labor products msy honestiy Imagine
himself 10 be = friend ~ the wags Garner.
but he u most wosfuliy mistaken. and
the wage esrners who imagine such al
voeste 10 be their friend are most woe
fully deluded.
The tsrin ON imports IL levied solely
IN the interest OF the manufacturers ~
the articles on which the duties are
levied These manufacturers m these
duties 20 suit themselves. II U alleged
that they were permitted 10 write the
schedules In the Dingisy law in order
that they might be Reimbursed for the
extra cost OF the American labor enterips 8
into their product They asserted that
the production they sought was solely for
this purpose: that they only asked for
enough protection 10 enable them TO pay
the American workingman the difference
between foreign and American wages
There never was a more bare-f faced
swindie. Take the case OF Knit goods"
OF wool The duty on such goodr Of
valne not over - cents per pound IL "A
cents per pound -specinc and 30 per cent
advalorem. Thus one pound of such
goods costing 30 cents pays a duty Of 80
cents. or slightly less than iT per cent.
ployees OF these manufacturers. congress
permits these manufacturers to collect 50
cents for each pound of wooien knit
goods costing 20 cents per pound from the
American consumer 10 pay TO his en-
pioyes. The coneress did not vote this
largess To the employer for his own
benent. IL simply made him its agent
to collect 50 cents per pound from the
American consumer OF WOODEN knit goods
for the benent OF the American empioye
of the concern manufacturing such goods
OF the value OF 80 cents per pound
Now every cent OF ruch duty that has
been collected under the Dingdey law and
has not been paid over to the employees
OF the concerns producing them is with
held from them uniawfully. II In simply
theft II IL true that. owing TO an over
sight on the part OF congress. this obliea-
ton on the manufacturers TO pay the in
creased price which the law authorized
them TO exact was not made a part OF
the bill but the obligation exists none the
less. The privilege was granted for this
reason and no other, either this or these
tar1r beneficiaries are guilty OF OBJ
tanning money under false pretences.
You may pick out any schedule in the
law and the same effect will appear. But
let us look for a minute at this particular
knit goods industry and try to find out
how much per year the employees en-
gagged In that industry are being robbed
OF According 10 the census OF 1900 there
were s2l knit goods establishments usdng
material valued At 35l.0,i.S5a
Ii we shall assume that all of the xoods
turned out were OF the class which cost
10 cents per pound 10 import. and this
In not an unfair assumption as this class
OF knit goods enjoys the lowest duty. and
II we allow % cents per pound "a the cost
Of the raw material which In also a
liberal allowance We hud that these es-
Establishments ussd In round numbers 10
600 900 pounds of wool. II they turned out
400 pounds OF goods and collected
80 cents per pound. they collected 50 000,- :
ooo for the wage esrners.
But they only paid In wages ga. ass. SO,
retaining uDlawfully sA,sil. 80, a palpable
steal
And this il what they have been doins
every year since 1897 and what they will
continue TO do as long as the Dinsley
abomination is permitted to disgrace the
statutes.
Perhaps this will do for this time. shin
subsidies and the taxation OF labor
products may receive attention later.
] w