Pike County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 23, Petersburg, Pike County, 28 October 1892 — Page 7

"PROTECTION IS BOBBERY.” Beclaration of 1 Clap Plain Ptotm { fieronil Cat jlOTEGTEO MiGHIKE-QWNERS WAITING LIKE TWEED FOR THE STORM TO'RLOV OYER.

y&ly Trying to Divert Public Attention from the Fat They t/ Qet by Converting to Their Own Pockets the Trust Fund Taken from the People to Pay Their Workmen the “ Difference in Wages” Between This Country and EuropeEvery Workman in a Protected Industry Supported at the ®nblio Expense, but Compelled to Labor for a Master Who Reoeives the Larger Share of the Tax.

Every worker la a protected industry a publlo pauper, supported at tbe pub. ■ expense bp a tax ou tbo people, eoloted by Ms employer. ie we1 number of workers In tbe j. bted States In 1880 was 17,898,000. highest estimate of thoue In prolndnstrles la 1880 wan 908,000. . per seat. as 908,000 workers la protected laOstrles are making here what foreign tapers make abroad, their laker com. ■sting directly with foreign pauper her, and their predaete selling la rect competition with the toreign paor products. Phelr employers say they eaanet oomte with foreign employers using terta panper labor, becanso they mast ( the high wages la oar unprotected Lustrles. So they ask that the people ' ell hole support their workers by ylag the “ difference In wages.” lefore tbe dret protected industry could f established It had to he protected gainst high wages la unprotected [daatrlea hy levying a tax upon the Vaple equal to the difference between ie wages It could afford to pay and hat the workmen It proposed to emplov •ere then receiving la ear unprotected daatrles. Every protected Industry la the land he been established far the purpose of fitting American labor la sharp compsftten with foreign paaoer labor, and Its jerkers have been granted public sup. art equal to tbo “ difference la wages,” s that their labor shall not cost the merlcaa employer more thaa tho foreign pauper costs tho foreign employer. To eempeto with foreign paupers our vorkmen have been pul on a lovel with foreign paupers. » Bat this la only the thin edge ef the •radge.

naue mere u a* prviwira • A* United BlitH on which a duty of 10 Hr cent, la act equal to tho •* difference a wafet,” there la not a protected in. Juatry la tho United Statea which docs let demand aad receive protection rang* ns front 86 to B38 per coat. The eat. rloyer act oalj taxes the people the Uffereaee la wages, hat the whole uaeuat of wages at least, aad usually Vest two to tea times as much aa the Star wages he pays hie workman. There is not la the United Statea aae Protected employer who pays oae cent »f wages oat of hte own pocket, or who kvea pays his workman tho whole imount he pledgaa htmeelf to pay aa iserely tka difference la wages. There la not la the Called States one pretested worker whe la not a pnpllo pauper, supported wholly by a public tax. oe 11 acted aad disbursed by his employer, the latter stealing from the trust jihad far wages ef which he la the trasfrem 10 to 80 per seat. It la la this eeUecttoa of a tax averag. deuble ths total amount actually for wages that the proflt at protection la found. It la la this rebbery by tha trustee ef the trust land or wages belonging to his workmen, contributed by the people fbr them alone, that the protected employer tads his largest revenue. Protection la for robbery aad Is bery. In brief, the 14,500 employers ef the •06,000 paupers la our pauper-houses, j called protected Industries, collected lu I 1880 ever •600,000,000 under preI tense that it was to par the difference la wages, and the total amount received by tbeir workers was aader 8300,000.000. The employers had absolute pasi per labor, and robbed the paupers of ; over half the publlo money contributed for their support. Hero are a few spectffe lastaaesi The forty-nine refineries—the protected sugar trust—sold to the people in 1890 8,156,996,000 pounds. They collected 1} cents per pound “ Protection " to pay the difference in wage*, or $47,854,940. The total wages paid for refining it were $4,419,094, leaving to the sugar trust the sum of $48,980,846 profit, in addition to its pauper labor. This enormous proflt from employing V pauper labor was in addition to the ordinary and usual profits in the refill

ing business, and between 1880 and 1891 amounted to $546,931,808, every cent of which was taken from the people by forty-nine refineries under the false pretense that it was to pay the difference in wages between this country and abroad. What is true of the protected sugar trust is true ot every other protected industry in the United States. It has absolute pauper labor, and It robs the people not only ot the full amount of wages paid, but ot much more under the false pretense that it is merely the difference in wages. When, in 1888, an enormous campaign contribution was levied-: pon the Sugar Trust it refused to pay it Senator Plumb advised Chairman Fostbb to 11 put it over the fire and fry some of the fat out of it” This was done, and the McKinley bill reduced its protection from 1£ cents to & a cent per pound. But planty of fat was left The protected Sugar Trust will collect from the people this year its protection of half a cent per pound on 8,600,000,000 pounds of sugar, or #18,000,000 to pay the “ difference in wages." The total wages it pays Is 14 cents per 100 pounds, or #5,040,000 leaving $13,060,000 which it pockets from the money collected to pay its workmen the “ difference in wages” after getting its labor free of cost i What la true of the protected Sugar Trust Is true of every other tariff trust The protected employer always has absolute pauper labor, supported by public contributions, and his pront comes mainly irom what he abstracts from the pauper dole belonging to bis workmen, liven when put over the lire end his fat fried out enough fat la always left to give him the pauper labor and plenty over tor a liberal contribution that will show repentance and aecure a return ot the old amount the next; lime the tariff Is changed.

The 49 sugar refineries reported to the Census Office in 1880 that the total wages paid for refining was 14 cents per 100 pounds. This included all wages paid. The Bureau of Statistics reports that, 1880 to 1891, there were refined 16,277,719 tons and wages paid $51,046,996, if the labor cost of refining remained the same as in 1880. It has been greatly reduced. To pay the difference in wages these 49 refiners have received protection of 1$ cents per pound, in addition to the compensatory protection of 2 to 8$ cent* to recoup the dutiee on rate material This protection for wages was $546,981,858. every cent of which the Trust promised to collect and pay the workmen in addition to foreign wages. The refiners collected it, but the total the workmen'got was $51,046,926 and the Trust had $496,884,4S2 to divide up as boodle, and they had pauper labor that cost it not a cent. •nils robbery in ten years is tbs robbery ot one trust ont ot 460, or 40 men out ot 14,600. Every Protected Tariff Trust Is the same. It has pauper labor, and it can run at a normal loss on account ot tbe great profits trom the robbery ot tbe trust lund lor wages. The Tweed Ring took about $82,' 000,000 ot the public money for the improvement of the city of New Tork, paid about $96,000,000 in wages for honest work and stole $6,198,950 The Sugar Trust in 1890 took $47,860,940 ot the public money, paid $4,419,094 in wages and “ lifted ” $49,980,846 The Sugar Trust will this year take front the people $18,000,000, pay $5,040,000 in wages and “lift" $12,960,000. Ho one defended the thefts of the Tweed Ring on the ground that 80 per oent was to pay wages, but every Republican in the land defends both the old and the now “conversions” of the

Sugtr Trust m proper and moral because a small percentage goes to the workman—and to the Republican campaign fund. There are 4SO potato and private tariff trusts, rings and combinations, all modelled after the Tweed Bine, all organized lor pubuo plunder, but all proteeted br a Republican President and Senate trom prosecution or even investigation, because they supply the «soap" or “ (at’ tor buying elections. Protection Is lor Bobbery and is Bobbery. The Cyclopedia of Protection, issued by Use New York Pret*, junior counsel for the tariff trusts, says: In Angus 1,1888, English steal rails wm quoted atglT.tS psrton.aadfroaMar toAasaat,lS8e, thsj wars rs«ularlj quoted St SIC. 43. Wo do not nsnil protection against British ststl rails at *35 par ton. hot against stool mils at *18.81 por ton. It quotes the American price in 1888 at 4:39.83 and in 1886 at *34.50, and gives this foreign cheapness as the reason why there should now be a duty of $13.44, and then of $17.03. Here is Its object lesson for 1880 -. English rails $16.43 Duty $17.92 Cost to land (less freight) $34.84 American rails $84.50 The American Steel Rail Trust “ bagged ” the whole amount of its protection, including its freight. The Steel Rail Trust collected more than the total foreign coat to pay the difference in wages, but Its workmen did not get any more wages than it It had not collected a cent. What it collected waa “tat” for Itself, some of which Mr McKinley fried out when he reduced the protection to *13.48, as a warning that It Hi did not contribute more liberally this year than in 1888 it would have occasion to grieve. Carboix D. Weight,federal Commissioner of Labor, report^hat In 1890 the labor cost of a ton of steel rails was in the United States $11.59 in England $7.81 difference in wages $8.78 To pay this difference in wages the Steel-Rail Trust was authorized to tax the people $17.93 on each ton of steel rails made. Its product was 1,518,045 tons and its “ bounty " was $37,118,786 to pay $5,719,810 The total cost for wages was only $17,586,189 So that the bounty not only paid the difference in wages, but the total labor coal; and left the Steel-Rail Trust $9,577,677 to pay itfor furnishing employment to paupers supported by the people. What la true of the Steel Bail Trust is . lane of every Protected Tariff Trust. Its protection collected to pay difference In wages not only amounts to the entire labor cost, but to a large amount more. : Pro tec ted industries use only pauper labor. A workman becomes a public charge when he enters a protected mill— a publlo pauper. But his employer is actually paid a heavy bonus for merely furnishing work lor him.

The Steel Rail Trust having In 1888 failed to contribute freely enough to the Republican campaign fund, it was “ put over the fire ” and some of the fat was fried out as a warning to others. The bounty per ton wia reduced by the Moklnley bill to $13.44, The labor cost was $11.60, leaving $1.69, pe r ton more than the whole labor cost This, on the production for 1890, was more than the total labor cost The workmen were entitled to it all, and to the foreign wages in addition, but they were robbed of both. Even when a protected tariff trust is put over the Are and the tat tried out the fryers are careful to leave it absolute pauper labor and a margin tor political contributions sufficient tor It to show true repentance that will Insure a return to the old rate. Protection Is robbery, much or little, as the robber Shares his plunder with the party managers granting It. The amount that the steel rail trust has had a right to collect, and that it was its duty to collect to pay the difference in wages, during the past ten yesrs, is given on page 74, Cyclopedia of Protection. Totals...M.T80..70T eSST.STS.MT The Trust broke in 1884, reformed, b roke again in 1888, reformed, and is not yet perfect, the members quarrelling. When in 1888 the protection was reduced from $28 per ton to $17.98 the price dropped $11 as a matter of course. The Trust wss then collecting its whole protection of $28. How much it does collect, It says, is none of our business. All we know is that it was its sworn duty during these years to collect and pay every cent to its workmen in addition to regular wages. Wo $2,799,188 $297,478,907

also know that the total wages its workmen received only amounted to •171,808,494, while the actual difference in wages was only •55,871,078, and that the Steel Rail Trust was organ, ized and the protection ..given It in order that it might rob the people of. the total cost of labor and as much more as it could—up to •17.99 per ton. There is no other reason for the Trust and no other reason for the protection. The law does not require it to pay its workmen one cent more than their labor is worth without protection. Every tariff trust Is the same. It Is or. canned to rob the people, that Its members may divide the plunder. Workmen can get no higher wages from a protected than Irom an unprotected Arm, and the protected tariff trust, under a raise pretense that it la needed to pay the differ, ence in wages, takes tram the people tram two to ten times the whole amount or wages paid. The protected ironmaster of Pennsylvania asserts that to pay the “difference in wages” he must have the right to collect from the people •S.TS on every ton of pig iron made. The total wages that he pays his workmen is under and he steals from the “ difference In wages ” •4.26 per ton. He gets his labor free of cost. The furnaces of Pennsylvania produced in 1890 4,415,889 tons, representing •18,809,489.84 literally stolen from the pauper dole to the pauper workmen supported by public contribution. What is true of the protected ironmaster ot Pennsylvania is true ot every other really protected employer. He has absolute pauper labor, supported by publlo contributions, and bisprodt comes mainly trom what he steals from his workmen. The ironmasters of the United Btates pledged their honor and their word that the •6.73 protection they receive on every.ton of pig iron made is absolutely necessary to pay their workmen the difference in wages, and that for every cent taken off there will be a reduction of one cent in the market price here, and this reduction must be taken from wages. In 1880 they reported to the census that they paid in wages •18,680,708 for making 8,781,021 tons, or •S.SS per ton. Their protection was •25,408,461 Total wages paid •12,680,703 Leaving \ •18,727,758 in addition to the profits of pauper labor. The labor cost since 1880 has materially decreased and the production greatly increased. Leaving the labor cost (•8.85) what it was in 1880, here is the tax imposed upon the people between 1880 and 1890: Production, tons, Protection Total wages leaving 1 as the tax paid by the public to the iron-masters for the privilege of supporting the paupers working in the furnaces by paying all their wages. There are 460 protected industries like this. The yearly taxes they Impose on the people tor ••protection'' exceed the combined Federal, state and local taxation. They are organised tor robbery. Protection la robbery. 65,276,883 •871,457,287 •185,176,879 •186,281,408

On the $16,806,088 worth of brown and bleached Unena imported In 1890 there was collected $8,601,061 duty in order that our five little linen mills could sell their output at an advance of 85 per cent The product of the mills in 1880 cost, without wages, $478,405. The protection added to pay “ the difference in wages,” $156,191. Of this the 484 workmen received only $194,046, and not one cent of wages. The employer not only had their labor free of cost, but he abstracted $82,145 from the fund intrusted to him by the public to distribute among his workmen. What is trusot the protected linen Industry is true or every protected industry. The protected employer la Invariably a trustee who converts trust rands to his own use. His labor costs him nothing. Bis workmen are supported by a taxon the public,and he "converts" a large share at that tax tor his own benefit. The manufacturing cost of the silk made in this country in 1880, without wages, was $81,888,800 The foreign cost of the silk imported in 1889, including foreign wagea, was $81,264,279. A duty of 60 par cent, was levied on the foreign, making it coat to land, $46,896,414, so that our manufacturers could sell theirs for $47,829,450, and collect ' ' $15,988,150 under a pledge to pay it to their employees as the “ difference inwsges,” in addition to foreign wages. The total wagea they paid their workers was V $9,146,705, and the manufacturers pocketed $6,796,445, getting their labor free of coat. The public paupers in our pauper silk mills, supported by public charity, were compelled to labor without pay, and had 40 per cent of the money contributed by

the people for their support kept by their trustees. trust is true of tbe protected silk mill is true ol every protected industry. The protected employer’s main profit comes from what he abstracts tram the trust land he collects lor his workmen. The Cyclopedia of Protection says that the manufacturing cost of the silk made in this country, 1883 to 1889, was ♦870,983,155. The silk trust had the power granted it to add ♦185,496,000 to the regular market selling price, as its “protection" to pay difference in wages, although the total wages paid were only $83,766,158, and the trust had ♦103,739,843 as its eight years’ profit for UBlng pauper labor that did not cost it one ce^t That it collected every cent is proved by the fact that it failed to prevent importations. In the same period the silk imported cost to land ♦874,808,883, of which $134,934,611 was the fine imposed to protect the trust, But the people bought as freely of the foreign as of the domestic, not knowing or caring for the difference, for the fine added to the price of the one was no more than the “ protection ” added to the price of the other. This robbery by the silk trust is a small matter, but there are 450 of these trusts banded together for mutual pr<* tectlou, which are authorized by the McKinley bill to rob the peopleot si,830,000,000 yearly, and are sufficiently well organized now to steal over 0080,000,000 yearly. Tney have pauper labor, and this end of their profits comes from the payment they get tor using tu Our twenty screw factories have a bunkum trust collecting the full amount of Protection, which is 8 cents per pound (58 per cent.) on those between one and two inohes, and ranging between 14 and 6 cents according to length. The value of the output in 1880, without wages, was $1,737,990. The trust collected to pay difference in wages over 50 per cent. $868,995 Paying total wages $456,543. Getting absolute pauper labor, and pocketing one-half, or $407,458. Paid by the people in trust for workmen. What is true of this protected industry Is true of all. The workman In any protected industry is a pauper, supported by the public, who gets only a portion of the pubuc dole, and must work like a slave lor that portion. We can pension every workman In every protected Industry at double wages and save money by it. The fifty-eight members of the American Window Glass trust were protected in 1860 by a duty of 15 per cent In 1861 it was raised to * 80 per cent In 1884 to 130 per cent In 1890 to 133 per cent. The price per half-box of 18x34 in this country was In 1860 $3.60 In 1890 $3.13 The price abroad per 100 pounds of 16x24 to 34x80 was In 1867 $4-60 In 1890 $1.80

We imported in 1880 oi this size lv,097,057 pounds, for which we paid in our labor products the foreign cost $843,540 and McKinley line (duty) $453,605 eo that while the cost abroad per 100 pounds was $1.80 it should be here * $4.18 In 1880 the total wages paid here for making $1.80 worth was $0.75 and the ir iufacturer received to pay the difference in wages $2.38 leaving him $1.53 net “ profit" for using pauper labor supported by a tax on the public. What Is true ot tne Window Glass trust is true ot every other protected tariff trust. It uses only pauper labor, supported by a taxon the people, and Its maip profits come from what It can abatraot from its workmen. Protection in'every torn ana shape is robbery. The Window Glass Trust is protected by a duty of 138 per cent on the common size, 16x24, to pay the “ difference in wages ” between this country and Belgium. That “ difference ” is not equal to a duty of 10 percent Here is the proof. Take cost of melting in the United States from Republican reports, geological survey: Raw material... $47.53 Labor cost. 19.96 $67.49 Take cost of melting in Begium, from Repulican consular reports: Raw material.. $48.44 Labor cost. 14.53 Add 10 per cent duty 6.99 $69.26 A tariff duty of 10 per cent more than compensates for this difference in wages of 40 per cent The additional 123 per cent, duty, equal to $76.89 is “ fat” levied solely tortile benefit of the Window Glass trust, that its members may contribute liberally to the Republican Campaign Fund. They do. It Is not necessary to “ fry the fat” out of them. What is true ot this protected tariff trust is true at every one ot the 460 others.

under & pien or collecting se.29 nos won oollecta $88.11; but It tire proportions are smaller in some tbey are still larger In outers. Protection la Bobber/. The Window-Glass Trait was protected in 1891 by a duty of 99.871 on $3.90 worth of foreign glass 10x94. The coat of raw material for a melting was in 1884 In the United States $47.63 In Belgium $48.44 Wages paid. 10-pot furnace per month, was in the United States $9,341.00 in Belgium $1,684.00 The duty levied on the month’s product of a Belgian furnace was $3,937.00 or $790.00 more than the total wages paid in this country. The Window-Glass trust not only has pauper labor supported by the public, but It retains 1796 out ot every* 8,837 It receives as Its remuneration lor permitting the paupers to wort In Its furnaces. Protection furnishes work for paupers, but It never yet paid one cent for their labor, and it forces the pubUo to support both the paupers and their employers. The Carnegie Company to pay its workmen “the difference in wages” is protected from $8.83 to $156.80 per ton on steel billets. The actual price it pays its workmen ranges from. $1.65 to $1.95 per ton, on billets protected by a duty of $30.10. It has certified to Congress that it wants and will collect the protection of $30.10 and pay it to its workmen, in addition to paying them foreign wages. But It actually hands them only $1.95, retains $18.31, pays no foreign wages, and gets its labor free of cost. The object ot protection is pauper labor to make Che people pay au wages and very much more. Under pretense of a claim tor difference In wages It collects trom two to ten times the whole amount. Every protected Industry Is the same— a pauper house where paupers work. Every protected employer is the same -a man who has nothing to pay tor labor out ot the profits ot his business and who la paid liberally tor providing work tor the paupers. One m&h in Maryland makes steel blooms. He employs sixty-six men and a boy, and made 3,601 tons of blooms in 1880, at a cost without wages of $.3)1,533 or an average per ton of $55. He was then collecting from the people to pay his workmen the “ difference in wages ” $90,684.90 His report to the census shows that he paid them only $18138 and that he “ converted ” $72,5*8.90 of the trust fund, of which he was trustee, to Iris own use a*' benefit, besides having the labor of these public paupers without charge. He contributed liberally from this trust ^ d to the Republican campaign fund, and the McKinley bill raised bis protection to $98,407.68, in the face of decreased labor cost, so , that he might keep $80,369.68 from the tax paid by the people to aid his pauper workmen. What la true ot this Jfaryland forgemaster is true ot every protected employer In the land. Bis workmen are paupers, supported by a tax on the peo-. pie, and the master not only gets their labor without cost, hut also appropriates to his own use trom one-quarter to threequarters of the money given by the people tor tbelr support. Here is the advertisement of one of the makers of gaskets, protected by a duty of 45 per cent., which has been i prk Ad monthly for three years past in

'the " export edition - oi ice Mingtneering and Mining Journal With brutal cynicism this protected manufacturer flaunts in thq teeth dd the American people his willingness Tp bell to foreigners at SO per cent below the price to Americans: Discount for homo trade 30 ptr cent. Discount for foreign trade 60 per cent Congress has given him the right to rob the American people Of 30 per cent, but it cannot authorize him to rob a foreigner. He has pauper labor and is paid for employing it ** What are you going to do aDout It?” asked Tweed, when confronted with like proofs ot then; and he toond oat In a lew months when he had to pat bn a eon. vtot's uniform. Bat the Republican thlet Is sale from conviction. The Republican voter believe* that robbery la right and ha *Lprotects” the thief from prosecution U the thlet pars lor his •* protection" by liberal contributions to the campaign land. [Our IBS carpet mtlla in 1880 required 118,134,200 pound* at carpet wool, which Is not raised in this oountry. They Imported 30 per cent and added 70 per oent domestic shoddy. They had to pay from 8 to 6 oents per pound revenue duty on the wool they used, end they ware given a •* compensatory duty ” ot 18 to 70 oenta per square yard. Then, to unite their Interest# with the others, they were given a 11 protective duty ” tor themaelvea of

36 to 6U per cent, to pay tna ainereace in wages. To oollect both duties, or either duty, they bad to form a trust, and agree on* selling price. Without this trust they could not collect even 1 per cent, ol the tax they paid, on their Imported wool.] Our carpet mills produced it 1880 product valued without wages at “*34,967,584 To pay the ** difference in wages ” they were authorized to collect from the people, through a tariff trust controlling prices, not less than *8,786,154 They aetuallypald a total of *8,885,318 getting their labor for nothing and defaulting on the trust funds *1,889,986. This was only their protection to pay the difference in wages—the ad valorem duty given them for this purpose. They had a compensatory specific duty besides. The oper a^usin our carpet mills were all public pawT’^-supported by a tax on the public. This tax was levied to pay the difference lc wages, but It was more than the whole amount paid tor wages. What Is true ol one protected industry is true ot an Every workman is a public pauper, and tne object ct Protection is to pauperize labor. But the protection of the carpet trust was not confined to a tax for the difference in wages. Is paid a duty on its raw material, and this duty it had a right to collect again from the people. For every pound of imported wool used it should have the power to charge up the duty of 3 to 6 cents. But the Congress, instead of authorizing it to collect the 3 to 6 cents paid, authorized it to collect 18 cents. The value of only a small part of this compensatory duty to the trust *8,765,863 The total duties paid were $2,077,959 Leaving fat from shoddy for contributions worth at least $6,667,904 The members of the trust have continually quarrelled, violating their selling agreements, and some ot the members are In favor ot tree raw material and ot abandoning their attempt to farm the revenues. They cannot, get back a cent unless the trust collects it. What is true ot the carpet trust Is trua of every trust and every protected Industry. It has pauper labor, from whicb it steals a part of the pauper dole. When It payrduty on raw material it is merely an excuse to rob the people ot tour times the amount It pays at the Custom-House. Missouri has one maker of steel. He reported to the census of 1880 that he had made 5,100 tons of steel rails, costing $367,000, or $70 per ton, and 5,100 tons of steel blooms worth $550,000 or $108 per ton. His product was worth, less wages, $849,382. His protection in 1880 to pay difference in wages was *382,221. The total wages he paid then $57,618. On the same quantity and quality made this year his protection will be *277,544 but instead of paying $5.67 per ton wages be will pay less than $2. Tbe exact amount he pays, Mr, Frick says, is none of the business of Congress. He may give his employees what be likes and steal wbat be likes from the money granted by Congress as tbe difference in wages. One protected mill-owner Is the same as another. They all use pauper labor, supported by a public tax, and the employer pockets from one-quarter to threequarters of tbe pauper dole. Protection is the robbery ot the paupers employed and the swindling ol the public. 4.077, ISO yards at 44 cants. 21,986,434 yards at 1*2 coats. 862,894 yards st 17 corns. 1.984,901 yards at 12 oanta. 9.411.195 yards at SO cants. 60.000 yards at 70 osnts. 157.629 yards at 70 osnts, 40.000 yards at 25 cents.

There were in 1830 seven chemical manufacturers in Nevada and the total cost of their output, leas wages, was $249,862. They were then protected to pay “ difference in wages ” by a duty worth to them s 1 • On borax. *327.000 On soap.. 11,569 On tod*..,... .. 4,feOO On tulphur..6% 000 On •ulpJaorio »ci<£...... 14,400 ■ $268,*69 —or more than the total cost of their output. Their reports to the census show that the workmen received only $33,670, the employers “ keeping ” $229,799 of the trust fund collected by them under promise to nay it all to- theif workmen in addition to foreign wages. Some of this fat has been fried out of those not contributing freely enough to the Bepublic&n campaign fund. The value bnder the McKinley bill of the protection on the same amount of production: Onborw....*113.500 Ob MSP.4 5,353 Ob sod.. • IS, 090 On sulphur... 6,000 OatulpfcurlOMid....... 9,600 ^ $147,058. It is easy to see which of the seven manufacturers had contributed and which did not. What Is true of these seven protected firms in Nevada is true of all protected arms everywhere. They get their labor lor nothing and convert to than- own use the larger share of the money contributed fay the people for the support of their pauper labor, froteoslna Is robbery. Missouri ha* one maker of ateel. He K1

reported to toe census of 1880 that he had made 6,100 tons of steel rails, cost, tng $357,000, or $70 per ton, and 5,100 tons of steel blooms, worth $550,000 or $1.08 per ton. His product was worth, less wages $849,883 His protection in 1880 to pay difference in wages was $382,321, The total wages he paid then $57,61$. On the same quantity and quality made this year his protection will be $272544, but instead of paying $5-67 per ton wages he will pay less than $3. The exact amount he pays, Mr. Frick says, is none of the business of Congress. He may give his employees what he likes and steal what he likes from the money granted by Congress as the dit> ference in wages. One protected mill-owner Is the same as another. They all use pauper labor, supported by a public tax, and the employer pockets from one-qnarter to three-quar.-ten of the pauper dole. Protection Is the^3* robbery of the paupers employed and the swindling'of the public. The total wages paid In our 1,990 woollen mills in 1880 was 19 per cent, of the value of the product. The woollen manufacturers certify to Con. gross that they must hare 35 to 50 per cent protection to pay the “ difference in wages,” and they promise to collect it. The value of their product in 1880 without wages was $134,770,829 The lowest addition they ask on this amount “ for the difference in wages alone ” is $47,169,613 The total amount they pay their work, men is $35,336,393 They ask for $21,833,323 more than the total wages they pay. And they want pauper labor that will not cost them a penny. They do not Collect the . $47,169,615 They have not yet formed a perfect trust, and without a perfect trust there cannot be perfect protection where the market price here Is made by domestio competition. Competition kills protection, and the competition the 1,990 firms prevents them from stealing the foil amount they are permitted to steal —if they can squeeze it out of the peoples.. What is true of the protected woollen mills, whose protection la sot worth SO per cent, of its par value, is true of every protected Industry. The really protected employer gets his labor for nothing and retains from tbs trust fund all be can collect over the small dole to the pauper workers. But what boodle the employer cannot collect he must lose. .When a despot wanted money he said to a favorite t “ Take that province, pay me so muoh yearly and tax the people what you like. All that you get in Addition you may have." This is called “farming the revenues." Civilized countries had abandoned this form of taxation when the United States took it up in 1863 and developed it under the name of Protection. The Congress said to forty-nine refiners s “ Fay into the treasury a tax of two cents per pound on your sugar and you may collect from the people three and a half by forming a trust and fixing the selling price. That is worth $45,000,000 yearly to you over what you pay into the treasury.” The trust was formed nearly thirty years ago. It has farmed the revenues on sugar at a profit of $600,000,000 in taxes taken from the people. When the revenues were no longer wanted it was given permission to tax the people a halfcent per pound for Uself—$18,000,000 for the year 1893.

wuacma congress aaia to tne sugar truss * It said to o?er two hundred other rings or trusts. What the sugar ring did two hundred others have done. Protection “farms the revenues," and when the revenues are not needed the trust Is allowed to continue the taxing of the people for Its private benefit. Protection Is rob, berg, ft la intended tor robbery, and tha rings are protected In their robbery by the Federal Government. The Protection organs tell the people that if wages in this country are 100 per cent, higher the protected em.. ployer must be protected by 100 per cent. duty. The American labor cost in woollen cloth is 19 per cent. If the foreign labor cost is 10 per cent, and in *11,000 ^vorth of cloth imported $1,000 repre. sents foreign wages, while to make the same cloth here would cost $2,000 in wages, they say we must levy a duty of - $11,000 to double its cost because we pay 100 per cent more wages. But if the foreign labor cost is $1,000 and the domestic ^pbor cost is $2,000, then a duty of 10 per cent more than equalizes wages. Foreign cost, Including wages $11,000 Add 10 per cent Protection $1,100 Total cost of foreign $12,100 Total cost of domestic $12,000 When the protected employer as.ua for 100 per cent protection because he pays 100 per cent more wages, It is because h? wishes to pay his workman' 110 per cent of it and steal 90 per cent for himself. What is true of < is true of alt The I