Labor's Fair Share

One of the best speeches made in the house while the Dingley blll was being discussed was made by John C. Bell of Colorado. Wlth facts whieh are indisputable and logtc which is unanswerable he e:yosed many of the fallacies of protection. His exposure of the absurd claim that proteetlon helps the workingman is especially good. Here is a part of it: "But our friends upon the other side say thai they ievy a tariff for the benefit of the wageworkers. I say to you that any tariff blll , I care not from whom it romes, that does not contain a provisión for prohibiting the free inflow of immlgration from foreign countrles is oblivious of the rights of labor and 3 opposed tothe interests of all wageworkers. (Applause.) "ProtecÜón is always asked in the interest of othcrs. Now, observe how it it asked in behalf of the poor laboring man - just enough to cover the dlfferbetween the European scale of wages and our cwn. What hypocrisy! Who ever heard of the laboring man getting rich manufacturing? The statistieians clearly figm-ed from the census of 1880 that about 6 per cent on or.r dutiable list would cover the difference between the European wage scEeduln and cura, or that about 18 per cent ad valcem co'-erefl the entire lator rost of n;;r Hst of 18S0. While the manufacturer then asked for th'e poor laborer his C per cent he got for himsc-lf at the hanös of congress six times C per cent. "Is there any reason why a high tariff affects wages injuriously? Yes; by enabling employers to build up a vicious trust pystem for the 1 tnrer and agaiist the laborer. The high tariff makes the manufacturer complete maaier of thö wageworkei". "In the review of R. G. Dun & Co., in their Weekly Review of Tiv.cle. dated Feb. 12, it is stated: " 'No other event of the week approaohes in importance the disruption of the steel rail pool. In two days.' says the report, 'after it a greater tonnage of rails was probably purchased than the entire production of the last year, reponed at 800,000 tons. And instead of $28 in December and $25 in January. $17 is now the price at which works past and west are seeking orders. And further,' says the report, 'the Carnegie company has boen selling at $17, Chicago delivery. These sales will eniploy many thousand hands, with an important decrease in the cast of track laying on renewal of railrcads.' "Now, niy frier.ds, let me ask you, was it the rising or lowering price that employed these thonsands of men? Our friend Mr. Hopkins of Illinois tells of the benefits of a higher duty on iron and steel. Did the steel rail pool need more tariff? "What i? the difference in giving the manufacturer a doublé profit through a high tariff or through a pool? Do they ever share the profits of the pool with labor? No. Will they ever share the profits of a tariff? Never. "It takes no polu.cal economist to answer these questions. If the United States manufacturers can reap twice :he profit under a high tariff by limitmg them&elves to the home market and running half time, why should they Min full time and invade foreign markets? They never will. They will sit lown efmfortably and sell their limited supply of goods for increased proflts, making them more than whole, while the laborer tramps the country in seareh of work, just as he now does under the trust system. "It is unfortunate that the humdrum of the tariff has been sounded in the ears of the people until many of them really believe tbat foreign trade is unimportant, if not a curse. Why did the breaking of the steel rail pool put so many men to work? It was because the consequent lowered price for iron and steel brought most liberal orders made and handled less goods, mad a doublé profit. and really hqve gained, as he would have had fewer to handle for the same proflt. "This bill will increase the manufacturer's profits on the individual articles, but will lessen the power of the people to buy or use his wares. "It is the poverty of the buyer, not the producer, that must be reüeved before things will thrive. "The raanufacturer has every facllity to produce, but no facility to sell. "It is the consuraption that must first bt stimulated, and that will stimulate production. "There are but a few crumbs in the bill to aid the oppressed farmer of the interior or the laborer, but thousands of things to (urther oppress him. Highcr sugar, hipher salt, higher lumber, higher clothing, higher manufactured producís and absolutely nothlng to raise the price of labor - a high tariff on labor's products, limiting the demand for his labor by narrowing the market, but throwing the ports wide open for the free importation of other laborers from foreign countries to frecly compete wilh his work. " 'Consistenci', thou art a jeweU' " from abroad as wll as home. Stippose the tarift had been prohibitiva and we would have been confined to the home market. Would the manufacturers have made so many goods? No, but they would have doubled thoir profits on what they did make. The ! people could not have boiight so many because of the increased prioe. Who would have sufftred? First the woivmen, because they would have liad fewer goods to nake; secondly, thn consumer, becaus he could not báve bought so mc a higher price. Who would have beneflted? The manufacture!1, became he might have Dow ProteotlOD Help the Farmers.