Democratic Sentinel, Volume 20, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 March 1896 — PLEA OF HYPOCRITES. [ARTICLE]

PLEA OF HYPOCRITES.

SPECIOUS LYING OF PROTECTIONISTS. They Want Iligh Tariff for Private Gain, and Never Voluntarily Increase Wastes—Wool Industry Shows Very Marked Increased Activity. Do They Want High Wages? Manufacturers who always hire the cheapest labor pretend that protection makes labor dear. For nearly four years after each presidential election the Republican manufacturers use every means in their power to reduce the wages of their employes, or to prevent an advance through a combination of the workers. That the employers as a class are opposed to Increasing wages is shown by the strikes against wage reductions, or for higher pay, which annually disturb the industrial world. The American workingmen know that their efforts to better their condition through increased wages are in all cases strongly resisted l»y the men to whom they sell their labor, and expect concessions to their demands only when their employers are unable to get cheaper workers to fill their places. While the manufacturers carry on their business on the principle that they should pay the lowest possible wages, they have an entirely different story to tell when they are trying to elect a President who will represent their selfish interests. All at once they forget that they have been cutting down wages or refusing to increase them, and appeal to the country to vote for their candidate because they want to pay higher wages. The same men wild in private lose no opportunity to hire the cheapest workers, in public pose as the champions of well paid labor. Thus the National Association of Manufacturers, composed of meu who never raise wages unless compelled to do so by trades-unions, through a threatened or actual strike, recently adopted resolutions declaring that Congress should give them more protection against foreign competition, so that they could increase the pay of their employes! What they really meant was that they wanted bigger profits. The higher-wages pretense was simply the bait with which they hoped to catch votes of gullible workingmen. Protection does and can do nothing to increase the prices paid for laltor. Wages arg fixed' by the competition of all workers seeking employment. There is no tariff on imported labor and manufacturers can litre the newly arrived immigrant as freely as the native-born citizen. The McKinley tariff did not prevent a general wage reduction in 1893, when at least a million workers had their pay cut down, nor the thousands of instances in 3890, 1891, and 1892, when even such professional friends of labor ns Andrew Carnegie and George M. Pullman reduced the wages of their employes. Instead of raising wages, higli protection decreased them. Intelligent workingmen will not be deceived by the hypocrisy of the men who have grown rich through liightariff laws. They know that if the Republican manufacturers were sincere many of them could now well afford to pay higher wages. They also know that the same men who promise that if the McKinley traiff is restored wages will advance, will lose no opportunity to employ cheaper labor or cut down their employes’ wages. For these reasons the humbug election cry, “Protection and Better Wages,” will not make Republican votes in the coming campaign.

What Was Done with the Wool? The New York Press thinks it has found an argument against the Wilson tariff in the statement of imports of wool for the last two years. The official returns show that in 1804 we imported 115,736,820 pounds of wool, and in 1805, 248,280,217 pounds. The Press considers this increase a great calamity, and weeps over the alleged loss to American tvool growers and woolen manufacturers. It claims that under free wool our woolen mills have shut down or run on short time, and denies that any one has been benefited by the increased imports of wool. If the Press is correct in saying that the woolen industry is doing less business than in 1894, when wool was heavily taxed, there must be a lot of stupid wool merchants in this country. For if two hundred and fortyeight million pounds of foreign wool has been brought here merely to be stored in warehouses, somebody must have lost a great deal of money. But the Press is wrong, as usual. The weekly Wool market reports show that the immense quantities of wool have practically all been bought for consumption by the woolen manufactuers, and that there is no more than the nver-. age stocks on hand. So that the mills which the Press falsely says were idle during the past year, were really busily engaged in converting much more wool mto cloth and other finished products than in 1894.

Protectionists have to swallow some pretty big yarns from their tariff organ?. But they surely cannot be expected to believe that an industry Width thus increases the amount of raw material used in One year, is in a worse condition because of such increase. Two hundred and forty-eight million pounds of (vool cannot get itself manufactured without giving employment to labor. And the thousands' of skilled woolen operatives who have had their wages increased during the past year are decklejdly of the opinion that more wool means more work, and, that more work means prosperity for both employers and.jemployed. The Greedy. Nail Ring:. The close combination of manufacturers of nails (both'wire and cut) has raised its prices again, this time adding 15 cents per keg. The wholesale price of wire nails at Pittsburg will be ?2,40 on and after March 1; nine months ago It was only 85 dents. The wholesale juried of cut uails on March 1 will be $2.15; nine months ago it was only 70 cents. Here is an incre'ase of 182 per cent. In one case and of 307 percent in the other. The price of the fundamental raw material, Bessemer pig iron, is now only 30 jjer cent higher than it was when, the nail ring began to put up its prices from the low level of 85 and 70 cents. But the combination absolutely controls the industry, hnd all those wh®

buy or use nails must pay its price. The nail manufacturers export nails at the rate of 23,000.000 pounds a year. The enormous increase of the prices exacted by the combination from consumers in the United States lias not checked its export trade or reduced tha quantity shipped abroad. We notice that in November last, the high prices now demanded here having then been exacted in the home market for two months, the exports were 2,311,065 pounds, or a quantity considerably exceeding the average monthly shipments. These facts show, of course, that the industry does not need a particle of tariff protection and ought not to have any. The Republican party insists, in the Dingley-McKinley bill, upon increasing the present duty on nails of 15 per cent, partly ui>on the plea that the manufacture of nails is a “stricken and prostrate industry.” It also promises to restore in 1898 the McKinley duty, which was equivalent to from $2.50 to $4 per keg.—New York Times, February S, 1800.

Dingier Bill Taxes. The Republican papers which are clamoring for the passage of the Dingley bill, and demanding what Hiey call a free trade policy should be replaced by high protection, are careful not to tell their readers what the result of a 15 per cent, increase of duties would be. There are doubtless many persons who believe that the Wilson law reduced duties so low that with a trifling addition of 15 per cent, it would be only a moderate revenue tariff. Republicans who never read Democratic pr independent papers might naturally suppose that we are now living under free trade, and that the Dingley bill is wliat it pretends to be, a measure for increasing custom revenues. A brief statement of the present duties on some important articles, and their comparison with the duties which would be imposed by the bill passed by the Republican House, will show how utterly mistaken is such a belief. Prominent among the industries which hre claimed to be suffering from the Democratic low tariff is that of making window glass. Y’et the duty on most sizes of imported glass is now from 71 to 89 per cent. Under that duty the Imports of foreign glass has greatly fallen off, showing that the domestic producer can supply the market without further protection. An increase of 15 per cent, in duties would raise the price of glass to American consumers at least to the amount of the duty, and probably more, for taxes of 81 to 102 per cent, would totally prohibit foreign competition and enable the glass trust to entirely control prices. Do the people who buy glass want to enrich a powerful trust by giving them a close monopoly. Iron and steel beams, girders and all other forms of building material are protected by duties of 50 per cent. This tax is practically prohibitory, and a combination of steel manufacturers charges extortionate prices for tlxe immense quantities of their products which are used every year. With 15 per cent, more protection the combination would increase prices accordingly. Is it a wise policy which would make houses, factories and stores cost more to their builders? Are the interests of a few steel makers of more importance than those of the millions who would be compelled to pay higher rents on account of dear building materials? On cotton and woolen knitted goods, such as are used by every household in the country, there are now imposed duties of 50 per cent. This means that many poor people have to buy less of these goods than they would if the price was not made high enough through heavy custom taxes, and are. therefore, poorly clothed aud protected against the cold. Do the fairmimled American voters want the cost of these necessities of the masses increased by a 57 per cent, tariff duty? These are examples of the way in which Republican legislation is designed to help a few protected interests at the expense o the whole country. Do the people really want higher duties and dearer rods? If not, their only re-i.edy N 10 support the Democratic p,.ny and work for still lower prices aud taxes.

A Whopper. The Atlanta Constitution, which is ever on the lookout for anything that commands a protective tariff finds consolation in a long letter from a well known Republican correspondent in which it is contended that the prosperity of the South depends upon a high tariff. In this letter the following assertion is made: “Labor in the South at the looms approaches in cheapness that of Japan.” The Constitution ought to know that this is a great big falsehood, a libel on thOiSouth. It should have exposed its fallacy, but because the statement is made the basis of a plea for protection the Constitution adopts it and puts it forth. As a matter of fact the average wages of “labor at the looms” in the Soutli are at least five times as great as the average of labor at the looms in Japan. But if the wages were the same in botli countries how would protection increase the wages of the cotton factory operative in the South? Wages are. on an average, better under the Wilson low tariff than they were under the McKinley high tariff, and there are more employes in our industries. Wages are not increased by protective tariffs. There is free trade in labor all the while and no manufacturer pays for it more than the market rule. The Constitution is not much when it comes to argument, but even it might produce a better plea for a protective tariff than it presents in Townsend's letter this morning, and if we remember correctly, not long ago the Constitution pretended to be frightened at the prospect that we were about to be ruined by the competition of Japan because labor was so much cheaper there. Now it lugs in a fellow to tell us that the wages “at the loom” are about ;the same in both countries. What, then, do we want protection against? Does the Constitution believe that the Japanese are so superior to our people in industry and ingenuity that at the same wages our labor cannot compete with theirs? i The fellow who argues for protection weaves a tangled web from the moment he begins his game of deception.—Atlanta Journal. People are happy when yesterday seems twice as far away as to-morrow.