Working Men Speak

The following is a part of the petition sent to cóngress l)y the Kensington Reform clnb of Philadelphia, au organizatiou composed entirely of workmen in the highly proteeted textile industries: Wliile labor is the most directlyinterested in the arrangement of tariff schedules it ha Wen customary for those who have fuvoivd high proteetive duties to turn a deaf ear to ite appeals deepite tlu'ir proteatiaaj of soiicitnde for the welfare pftne fcoïlers. The clamora óf íhoteé who fiud a special interest in high duties, having the time and means to besiege tlio doora of congress, have not been unheeded. The fat tlicy fried out of the workingiaan enabled them to render special service to the partisan machine, and thus they conld make their weight feit far botter than the fleeced workinirman. Now, however, tliat there ia once more ati opportunity for labor to be heard npon an eqnal footing with the capitalists. we, the Kensington Reform club, as an organization coinposed of working inen in every branch of the textile industries, send greeting to the f riends of f airplay and honest and eqnal government, with a prayer for the immediate passage of a tree wool bill now under consideration in the house, which, while it niay not fully meet out desires, the whole people. The labor in the wooleu industries has never boon ia so depressed i condition as in the past yoar. The catpet industry was aeyer so deinoralized. Wages have been reduced botfc in a Oirect way and by the various suterfuges talled adjustments, readjushmnts mul fines; and vet the cost óf living lias been perceptibly increased until the condition of labor is well nigh uabearablè. Employment has grown more unsteady, many milis workiug but partial time, whüe in uthers the waiting for warp anfl filling amounts to a loss of from one-quarter to one-half time. ïhis is no idle talk, but the result of investigation, as it is one of the missions of our organization to intelligently watch the effects of legislaron upon labor, and we inay here add that there has never been an increase in tariff rates that was not almost naediately followed by reduction of wages. This is surely contrary to what was promised as the result of tlie tarifï law passed by the last eongress, aud is it surprising to find workingmen realizing that they have been fooled once too piten? If, as has been asserted in eongress recently, tbe manufactuters do not need or want a high tariff, and it is solely for the benefit of labor, then there is not the slightest inipediment to an agreeinont abont its abolition. But since the gentlemen who make this assertion still oppose a reduction, the WÓrkmen who don't want it eitlier are eertainly jiistified in praying that those f kind souls may stop their benevolent endeavors to raise wages by law, which tfiey can't do, and set about raising them in the milis, which they can do, and if ithey vvill only give to the workmen that which they otherwi.se give to the party machine the workers will be able to buy more clothes and rhus make more work for the milis. We here reitérate the fat-t that the gréater cause for the inability of the American manufacturera to compete with their foreign rivale is because of the uajuatifiable tas on the ruw niateriils, and not the differences in wages, and that this tax amounts to f rom three to fiye times more than the entire wages account in the product. It is needless for gentlemen to imagine that they can forever fooi the workiqginan by their expressions of solicitnde forwages'while yet willing and anxious to bear the enormoua burden of this unnecessary tariff tax on the raw materials. To the workingman of ordinary intelligence this looks like trying to find excuses for me iurrner reauction ot wages, for ko long as they can be made to believe that fcheir wages are princely as comparad with the wages of workmen on the other side of the water, fchey may be induced to subruit to raluctions without knowing that they are rapidly nearing the level ot' the "pauper labor of Europe." Workingmen are praying deeply just now that their protectionist friends may slop awhile hard labors to raisethe ' wind by tarifT laws, so as to take time to give their professions a practical turn by raising wages in fáct. But if we may judge men by their actions, we are juslified in asserting thatif these prof essional friends of labor thought that a tariff would raise wages, they would drup ii qnickly. In a recent uuniber of The Manufactnrer, the organ of the protectionist manufacturers, its editor, in a labored article, tried to show that the English manufacturers were selling their goods here as cheaply as they did before the MoKinley law went into effect, and deducing from that, that the foreign manufacturers were paying the tax for the privilege of selling inour market. In another ftrticle%of the same number the fact is stated that Botany tops have tlecliued in price in England sixteen mits pc-r pound, and this is given as a parcial reason for their ability to sell as chea-ply as before the mercase of the J tariff. When we consider that tliis i uline of prices of wool is equivalent to a '■ Baving of upward of" thirty-two cents in i evory pound of mamifactiired cloth we i raay ñnd it to bethe whole reason. Here is a pretty mixture of facts and fan Dut Uien U every tanit advocate wonld stick to facts their cause would suffer badly. Onaparwith this is their averment that the materials of manufacture are not deteriorating. Tliey dare not put their workinginen on the stand to testify to this u'nder oath, f or they would fully corrobórate Üie statements made I to your honorable cominittee of ways and means by the wool consumere' coinmitteo (theraselves manufacturera) that the McKinley law has promoted largeJy I the adulteration of woolen manufac tures. It is only necéssary to state one fact to show the falsity of their claim. If all the wool in the country, domestic nd iinported, outside of that used for rarpets, were made up into pure woolens, there wonld be only abont 80,000000 pounds of cloths, dress goods, blankets, hats and numerous other articles for onr 01,000,000 people, or a little over V,{ pounds for each individual. What sano man believes that 80,000,000 pounds will cover all the goods that are sofd to the public as all wool American manufactures in a yeair? üut we must not forget that they have learned to manufacture wool by putting cast off clothing through a chemical process which eats np all but the wool, and this residue is recarderi and used to mix with other wool, but as the ehemicaLs have eaten the lifa out of it, there is no practical uiueience netween ït and cotton. With reference to the diiference between American and i'oreign wages we are prepaml to prove that in many branches our rates are even below English ralés, and the sanie is true even of actual earñings. The rate paid now for woolen veaving in the Huddersfield (England) district varíes from 1 cent for 8 picks for plain work to 1 cent for 6 picks for fine work, with extra pay for extra heddles, extra colors, extra beams, while the highest rate paid in this country is 1 cent for 5 picks, but no extras, which levéis it down to the highest English rate; bnt there are very many milis in this country, in fact most of them, that pay ouly 1 cent for 8 Diclrs fmd Ipss Tlim: fm. í:n níáu i. the English ra-te is froia (i}4 cente per yard to 10 cents per yard, extras to be added, whilo the American rate is 6 to 13 cents wjth no extras. íf the American weaver earna more money than the Bnglish in a week it ia siïaply bei ho wörks taster tuii turas out more product The stiibbom perversity and disimiles! y of the protec-tionist is nowhf . ter Been than in their steady correct the most glátidg inconsistencies and misciiievous discriminations of theü tariff laws, even after their attention has been repeatedly drawn to them, and they dared not deny them. One is the discrimination against American manufacturéis involved in the adjustment of the duties between the raw materiais and the fbaished producís, and the other is the placing of a heavier tax upon the 'poor man's necessities than upon the rich man's luxuries. We called their attention to these points as far back as the spring of 1886, and the protectionist National Woolen Manufacturers' association pointed out substantially the sanie eirors in their letter to the tary of the treasnry in the fall of 1885, .lüd yet in the makenp of the McKiuley lawthis infernal piece of injustice was n t only retained, but made worse than ever. Tliis shows that they had no idea erfecting an act of jttstice in a viuiously determined ptJirpQsë to serve a few masters. ín fact. it appears to tliem fco bea pleasm-o to shift the burdens of taxation off the slioulders of the rich to those of the poor- to inakd labor the pack mule of the ricli. The cry of protectionist mantifacturers now is that the McKinley law be let alone because it is doing the manufaetm-ers a great deal of good, yet in the fac-t of this there has yet to be rëcorded one important instance of adrancing Wfl.2"PS. lint l Vip irícfnrií'nc -■' Tirnr. u„:„„ pared down are nr.niCTous. This is another cvidence of their false pretensos, and such indisputable i'acte ought to surely be sufBcient to cause labor to open its evcs to tbei-eal purpose of its protcctionist friendt.- a purpose to serve the rich at the expense of the toilers of the country and to impel the toilers to rifle in their manhood to throw off the Bhakles that bind tlieia to their insidious eneinies. We now declare, without fear of confcradiction, that there is not a woolen manufacturer in Philadelphia who does not privately long for free wool, and those who openly advocate taxed wool are actoated by partiean rancor, and we are still more einphatic in the declaration that there is not in Philadelphia one woolen worker out of a hundred who would not opeuly ask for free wool were they all free froin the sinister influences of the bosses. As we prefer our own prOBperity and bread and bntter to party success we nk for free wool first without referecce to itseffects upon parties.