Pike County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 24, Petersburg, Pike County, 4 November 1892 — Page 11

“PROTECTION IS ROBBERY.” TUB Declaration of tie Clap Mu Proven Beroi Cat PROTECTED MICRIHE-OWRERS WAITING UKE TWEED FOR TIE STORM TO RLOW OVER.

p Vainly Trying to Divert Publio Attention from the Fat They Got 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 Europe— Every Workman in a Protected Industry Supported at the Public Expense, but Compelled to Labor for a Master Who ■Receives the Larger Share of the Tax.

ETerT worker to m protected liinln ta a public pauper. soppsrted at the pah. Ue axpeaee by a tax ea the people, collerted by hie employer. The total ataka ef workers la the U sited States la 1880 was 17,898,090. The highest estimate ef theae la pretested ladaetrlee la 1880 wae 908.000. ar A per oeat. The 908,000 werkere la pretested la. daetrtee are maklag here what fereipa paa>ere make abroad, their laher eempetiac directly with teretga paaper labor, and their predaete eelltag la direct cempetltlea with the tsreiga paaper predaete. Their empleyere eay they eaaaet compete with fereipa empleyere aslap lorelpa paaper labor, beeaaee they maet pay the high wages la ear aapretected ladaetrlee. So they ask that the peeple shall hela support their worke^h, by paylBK the “differeace la wages.” Before the drst protected ladastry eeald be established It had to he protected agaiast ear high wages la aapretected ladastrtea by lerylag a tax apoa the people equal to the dlflereace betweea the wapes It eeald afford to pay aad what the werkmea It proposed to emploT were thea reeeWlug la ear aapretected tidaitrleio Ererj protected iadootry ta tke load has bees established for the parpese ef pattlap Americas labor la sharp compe. tittoa with feretpP Pauper labor, aad IU workers hare beea granted publle sap. pert eqaal to the “dlflereace la wages." so that their laher shall aot cost the Americas employer mere thao the forelpa paaper coots the fereipa employer. To compete with fere: pa paapers ear werkmea hare beea pat ea a lerel with fereipa paapers. Bat this la ealy the thla edge ef the

wedge* While there Is protected Industry Is the United States on which a daty of 10 per cent. Is not coo-1 to tho - difference In yfwges/» there Is not a protected to. dastry In the United States which does aot demand tied receive protection ranging lroiu 33 if 838 per cent. The employer not only tares the people the difference In wages, hat the whole amount of wages at least, and nsnally from two to ten times as mach as the lata. wanes he pays his workman. There la not In the United States one protected employer who pays one coat of wages out of his own pocket, or who even pays his workman the whole amoant he pledges himself to pay as merely the dlflerence In wages. There Is net In the United States one preteeted worker who Is aot a pupllo paaper, supported wholly hy a public tax. collected and disbursed by his employer, the latter stealing from the trust lhad (hr wages of which he Is the truetao from lOto 80 per cent. It Is In this collection of a tax averaging double the total amount aetaally paid for wages that the profit of protection Is found. It Is la this robbery hy tho trnstee of tho trust land of wages belonging to his workmen, contributed hy the people for thorn alone, that the protected employer ■ads his largest revenue. Protection Is for robbery and Is robbery. li| brief, the 14.300 employers of the 803,000 paupers In our pauper-houses, called protected industries, collected In 1880 over 9000,000,000 under pretense thnt It was to pav the difference la wages, and the total amount received by their workers was under 8300,000.OOO. The employers had absolute pauper labor, and robbed the'paupers of over half the public money cenu t juted for their support. Here are a.few spectffc Instance t

Tlio forty-nine refineries—the protected sugar trust—sold to the people in 1890 3,150,990,000 pounds. They collected 1| cents per pound “ Protection M to pay the difference in ■**ge*. or $47,354,940. The total wages paid for refining it $4,419,094, leaving to the sugar trust Uie sum of $43,935,848 profit, in addition to its pauper labor. This enormous profit from employing pauper labor was in addition to the ordinary and usual profits in the refining business, and between 1880 and 1891 amounted to $546,931,358, •eery 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 ot the protected sugar trust Is true ;or every other protected industry in the United States. It has absolute pauper labor, and It robs tne people not only ot the full amount ot wniea paid.

but ot much non under the Mm pretense tbet tt Is merely the difference to wages. When, in 1888, an enormous campaign contribution was levied upon the Sugar Trust it refused to pay it Senator Plumb advised Chairman Foam to “put it over the fire and try some of the fat out of it" This was done, and the McKinley bill reduced its protection from 1} cents to J a cent per pound. But plenty 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 wageB it pays is 14 cents per 100 pounds, or $5,040,000 leaving $18,960,000 which it pockets from the money collected to pay its workmen the “ difference in wages" after getting its labor free of cost. W hat Is true ot the protect ed Sugar Trust is true ot every other tariff trust. The protected employer always has absolute pauper labor, supported by public contributions, and his profit comes mainly trom what he abstracts trom the pauper dole belonging to his workmen. Even when put over the fire and his tat tried out, enough tat Is always left to give' him the pauper labor and plenty over tor a liberal contribution that will show repentance end secure a return ot the old amount the next tune the tariff is changed.

The 49 eager refineries reported to the Census Office In 1880 thet 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 1«,877,719 tons and wages paid #51,048,988, 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 hare received protection of 1} cents per pound, in addition to the compensatory protection of 8 to 8$ cents to recoup the duties on ran material. This protection for wages was #548,981,858. every cent of which the Trust promised to collect and pay the workmen in addition to foreign wages. The refiners collected it, hut the total the workmen got was #51,046,926 and the Trust had #495,884,432 to divide up as hoodie, and they had pauper labor that cost it not a cent This robbery In ten years Is tbe robbery ot one trust out or 450, or 49 men out or 14,500. Every Protected Tariff Trust Is tbe same. It bas pauper labor, and It can run at a normal loss on account ot the great profits trom tbe robbery ot tbe trust mod tor wages. The Tweed Ring took about #82,000,000 of the public money tor the improvement of the city of New York, paid about #28,000,000 in wages for honest work and stole #8,198,950 The Sugar Trust in 1890 took #47,850,940 of the public money, paid #4,419,094 in wages and ** lifted ” #42,935,846 The Sugar Trust will this year take from the people #18,000,000, pay *5,040,000 in wages and “lift” #12,960,000.

JNo one defended the thefts of the Tweed Ring on the ground that 80 per cent, was to pay wages, but every Republican in the land defends both the old and the new “ conversions ” of the Sugar Trust as proper and moral because a small percentage goes to the workman—and to the Republican campaign fund. Tbere are 450 publlo and private tarts trusts, rings and combinations, all modelled after the Tweed Mine, all organised for public plunder, but all protected by a Republican President and Senate from prosecution or even Investigation, because tpey supply the “ soap ’• or “ fat •• for buy. ing elections. Protection is tor Bobbery and is Bobbery. The Cyclopedia of Protection, ifsued by the New York Prut, junior counsel [or the tariff trusts, says: la Aasnst,188S,Eacllahateel rails wan quoted at S1T.14 per ton.and from liar to Ansest, 1888, tbaj were regularly quoted at #16.48. We do not aood protection against British atoel ralla at <89 par ton, bat acoloit aleel roile at SIS. 41 por ton. [t quotes the American price in 1888 it *39.83 and in 1886 at $34.SO, and (Ives this foreign cheapness as the ■eason why there should now be a duty j

of $18.44, and then of $17.93. Hero is Its object lesson for 1889: Cost to land (less freight) $84.84 The American Steel Rail Trust “bagged” the whole amount of its protection, including its freight The Steel Ball Trust collected more than the total foreign cost to par the difference ta wages, but Its workmen did not get aiir more wages than It It had not collected a cent. What It collected was ••tat",tor ltselt, some of which Mr MoKlnier fried out when he reduced the protection to *13.44, as a warning that If It did not contribute more liberally this year than In 1888 It would hare occasion tAsrrleiTA. English rails Duty $16.43 $17.93 American rails $34.90

Cahoix D. Weight, Federal Commissioner of Labor, reports that 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 $3.78 To pay this difference in wages the Steel-Rnil Trust was authorized to tax the people $17.98 on each ton of steel rails made. Its product was 1,518,046 tons and its “ bounty ” was $37,118,786 to pay $6,719,810 The total cost for wages was only $17,586,189 So that the bounty not only^gald the difference in wages, but the total labor cost and left the Steel-Bail Trust $9,577,577 to pay it for furnishing employment to paupers supported by the people. Wbat is true ot the steel Ball Trust Is true ot every Protected Tariff Trust. Its protection collected to pay difference In wajjea not only amounts to tne entire labor cost, but to a large amount more. Protected Industries use only pauper labor, a workman becomes a public charge when he enters a protected mill— a ipubllo pauper. Bht bis employer Is actually paid a heavy bonus tor merely furnishing work for 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 fpt was fried out as a warning to others. The bot^y per ton was reduced by the MckinlePblll to $18.44, The labor cqgt wa^ J $11.59, leaving $1.59, per ton more than the whole labor cost This, on the production for 1890, was $3,769,133 more than the total labor cost The workmen were entitled'to it ail, and to the foreign wages in addition, hut they were robbed of both. Sven when a protected tariff trust is put over the Ue and tne lat fried out tne try•is ue careful to leave It absolute pauper labor and a margin tor political contributions sufficient lor It to show true repentance that will Insure a return to tne old rate. Protection Is robbery, much or untie, as the robber shares hts plunder with the party managers granting It.

The amount that the steel rail trust has had a right to collect, and that it eras its duty to collect to pay the difference in wages, during the past ten yeans, is given on page 74, Cyclopedia of Protection. Valemiur Ton* Tar vaIn* Frit)* Totaliu ..14,780,.?07 $297,476,907 The Trust broke in 1884, reformed, broke again in 1888, reformed, and is not yet perfect, the members quarrelling. When in 1883 the protection was reduced from $28 per ton to $17.93 the price dropped $11 as a matter of course. The Trust was then collecting its whole protection of $38. 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. We also know that the total wages its workmen received only amounted to while the actual difference in wages and that the Bteel Rail Trust was organised 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 $17.93 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. Kvery tariff trust Is the same. It is organised to rob the people, that lie members may divide the plunder. Workmen can get no higher wages trom a protected than trom an unprotected flrm, and the protected tariff trust, under a false pretense that It is needed to pay the difference in wages, takes trom the people trom two to ten tunes the whole amount ot wages paid. * The protected ironmaster of Pennsylvania asserts that to par the “ diff erence In wages " he must have tbe right to collect from the people $8.73 on every ton of pig iron made. Tire, total wages that he pays his workmen is under $3.46, and he steals from tbe “difference in wages” $4.33 per ton. He gets liis labor free of cost. Tbe furnaces of Pennsylvania produced in 1890 4.415,339 tons, literally stolen from the pauper dole $397,476,907 $171,808,494, was only $55,871,078, representing $18,809,439.34

the pauper workmen supported by public contribution. 1 * V What is true ot the protected Ironmaster of Pennsylvania Is true of every other really protected employer. He has absolute pauper labor, supported by pubuc contributions, and his prom comes mainly from what be steals from hla workmen. The ironmasters of the United States pledged their honor and their word that the #6.72 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 $13,680,708 for making 8,781,021 tons, or $8.85 per ton. Their protection was $35,408,461 Total wages paid $13,680,703 Leaving $18,787,768 in-addition to the profits of panper labor. The labor cost since 1880 has materially decreased and the production greatly increased. Leaving the labor cost ($3.35) what it was in 1880, here is the tax imposed upon the people between 1880 and 1890: Production, tons, Protection Total wages leaving as the tax paid by iron-masters for the porting the paupers 55,876,883 $871,457,287 $iaS43M7« $186,881,408 the public to the privilege of supworking in the furnaces by paying all their wages. There are 450 protected industries like this. Tbe yearly taxes they impose on the people tor “ protection " eieeefl the combined Federal^ State and local taxation. They are organ tied for robbery. Protection Is robbery.

On the $16,808,088 worth of brown and bleached linens imported in 1890 there was collected $5,601,061 duty in order that onr 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 $39,145 from the fund intrusted to him by the public to distribute among his workmen. What Is true or the protected linen industry Is true ot every protected Industry. The protected employer Is Invariably a trustee who converts trust rands to his own use. Bis labor costs him nothing. His workmen are supported by a tax on the public, and he “ converts ” a Urge share ot that tax lor his own behest. The manufacturing cost of the silk made In this country in 1880, without wages, was $31,8^6,300 The foreign cost of the silk Imported In 1889, including foreign wages, was $81,964,876. A duty of 60 per cent was levied on the foreign, making it cost to lamd,$46,896,414, so that our manufacturers could sell theirs for $47,899,450, and collect $15,938,160 under a pledge to pay it to their employees as the "difference in wages,” in addition to foreign wages. The total wages they paid their workers was $9,146,706, and the manufacturers pocketed

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 bad 40 per cent, of the money contributed by the people for their support Kept by their trustees. What la trueof the protected silk mil! is true ot every protected Industry. The protected employer’s mala profit comes from what he abstract^ from the truBt fund he collects tor his workmen. The Cyclopedia of Protection says that thl manufacturing cost of the silk made in this country, 1883 to 1889, was ♦870,983,156. 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 ♦SS,766,158, and the trust had ♦103,739,843 as its eight years’ proSt for using pauper labor that did not cost it one cent. That it collected every oent is proved by the fact that it failed to prevent importations. In the same period the silk imported cost to land ♦874,808,888,: ot which ♦134,984,611 j was the line 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 tine added to the price of the one was no more than the “ protection ” added to the price of the other. ■■■.. Tbla robbery by the silk trust la a small matter, but there are 4&0 or these trusts banded together tor mutual protection, which are authorised hr the McKinley bill to rob the peopleot 11,630,000,000 yearly, and are sufficiently well organized now to steal over *680,000,000 yearly. Tney have pauper labor, and tuts end ut their profits oomes from the payment they get lor using lu Our twenty screw factories have a bunkum trust collecting the foil amount of Protection, which is 8 cents per { ound (58 per cent.) on thoto between one and two inches, and ranging between 14 and 5 cents according to length. The value of the output in 1889, without wages, was ♦1,737,990.

The trust collected to pay difference in j wages over ISO per cent. 9863,905 Paying total wages 9436.543. Getting absolute pauper labor, and pocketing one-half, or 9407,453. Paid by the people in trust for wori^ men. What la true of this protected Industry Is true of all. The workman in any protected industry la a pauper, supported by the public, who gets only a portion ot the public 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 ISO per cent. In 1890 to 132 per cent The price per half-box of 18x24 in this country was In 1860 93,60 In 1890 93.13 The price abroad per 100 pounds of 16x34 to 24x30 was In 1867 94.50 In 1890 91.80 We imported in 1890 of this sixe 19,097,057 pounds, for which we paid in our labor products the foreign cost 9348,540 and McKinley fine (duty) 9452,605 so that while the .cost abroad per 100 pounds was 91-80 it should be here 94.18 In 1880 the total wages paid here for making $1.80 worth was 90.75 and the manufacturer received to pay the difference in wages 92-38 leaving him 91-53 net “ profit” for using pauper labor supported by a tax on the public. What Is true ot the Window Glass trust Is true ot every other protected tariff trust. It uses only pauper labor, supported by a tax on the people, and its main profits come from what it can abstract tromlts workmen. Protection In every tUrm ana shape is robbery.

The Window Glass Trust is protected by a duty of 189 per cent, on the common size, 16x94, 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 surrey: Raw material... 947.58 * Labor coat. 19.06 967.49 Take cost of melting in Beglum, from Repulican consular reports: Raw material...-.948.44 Labor cost... 14.53 Add 10 per eent duty 6.29 969.26 A tariff duty of 10 per cent more than compensates for this difference in wages of 40 per cent The additional 129 per cent, duty, equal to • $76.82 is “ fat ” levied solely for the 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 trne ot this protected tariff trust Is true or every one at the 450 others. Under a plea of collecting $6.89 this trust collects S8S.ll; but U the proportions are smaller In some they are still larger In others. Protection Is Robbery.

The Window-Glass Trust was protected in 1881 by a duty of $2.3% on $2.20 worth of foreign glass 16x24. The cost of raw material for a muting was in 1884 In the United States $47.53 In Belgium $48.44 Wages paid, 10-pot furnace per 'month, was in the United States $2,241.00 in Belgium $1,584.00 The duty levied on the month’s product of a Belgian furnace was $2,987.00 or $796.00 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 <706 out ot every* 8,937 It receives as its remuneration for permitting the paupers to wort la Its furnaces. Protection furnishes work lor paupers, but It never jet paid one eent for their labor, and it forces the public 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 $20.16. It has certified to Congress that it wants and will collect the protection of $20.16 and pay it to its workmen, in addition to paying them foreign wages. But it actually hands them only $1.95, retains $18.21, pays no foreign wages, and gets its labor free of cost. The object of protection Is pauper labor to make the people pay oil wages and very much more. Under pretense ot a claim for difference In wages It collects from 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 for labor out of the profits of hla business and who Is paid liberally for providing work for the paupers. One man in Maryland makes steel blooms. He employs sixty-six men and a boy, and made 3,661 tons of blooms in 1880, at a cost without wages of . $201,522 or an average per ton of $55. He was then collecting from the people to pay |

bis workmen the “ difference in1 wages" *90,884.90 Hi« report to the census shows that he paid them only 918,138 and that he “ converted " 973,546.90 of the trust fund, of which he was trustee, to his own use and benefit, be-j sides having the labor of these public paupers without charge. He contributed liberally from this trust fund to the Republican campaign fund, and the McKinley bill raised his protection to 998,407.68, in the face of decreased labor cost, so that he might keep 980,969.68 from the tax paid'by the people to aid his pauper workmen. What Is true of this Maryland forgemaster is true of every protected employer In the land. Bis workmen are! paupers, supported by a tax on the people, and the master not only gets their labor without oost, but alsp appropriates to bis own use from one-quarter to threequarters of the money given by the people for their support. Here is the advertisement of one of the makers of gaskete.protected by a duty of 45 per cent., which has been printed monthly for three years past in

toe export edition ” of the Engineering and Mining Journal With brutal cynicism this protecied manufacturer flaunts in the teeth of the American people his willingness to sell to foreigners at 80 per cent, below the price to Americans: Discount for home trade 30 per 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 eoout It ?” ashed Tweed, when oontronted with like proofs ot then; and he found out in a few months when he bad to put on a convict’s uniform. But the KepuMlcan thief is safe from conviction. The Kepubllcah voter believes that robbery is right, and he “protects" the thief from prosecution If the thief pays tor his “protection” by liberal contributions to the campaign fund. [Our 185 carpet mills In 1880 required 116,134,300 pounds of carpet wool, which is not raised in tnis country. They Imported 30 per cent, and added 70 per cent, domestic shoddy. They had to pay from 3 to 6 cents per pound revenue duty on the wool they used, and they were given a “ compensatory duty ” ot 131 to 70 cents per square yard. Then, to unite their interests with the others, they were given a “ protective duty * lor themselves ot 36 to 60 per cent, to pay the difference In wages. To collect both duties, or either duty, they had to form a trust, and agree on a selling price. Without this trust they could not collect even l per cent, at the tax they paid on their imported wool.] Our carpet mills produced/in 1880 product valued without wages at 634,057,584 To pay the '* difference in wages11 they were authorised to collect from the people, through a tariff trust controlling prices, not less than ♦8,735,154 They actually paid a total of ♦6,885,218 getting their labor for nothing and defaulting on the truBt funds ♦1,889,936. 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 operatives in our carpet mills were all public paupers, 'supported by a tax on the public. TOls tax was levied to pay toe difference in wages, but it was more then the whole amount paid tor wages. What is true ol one protected industry is true ot all. Every workman is a public pauper, and tne object ot Pro, tection 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 "8 to 6 cents paid, authorized it to collect 18 cents. The value of only a small part of this compensatory duty to the trust

4.077.190 yudc >144 cants. 91.986,434 jsrds st 19 cud. 009,394 ni« at 17 ocnts. 1.984.901 yards at 12 cents. 9.441.193 yards st 40 cents. *0,000 yards st 70 cent*. 137.029 yards st 70 ocnts. 40,000 yards at 95 cents. was $8,755,868 The total duties paid were $8,077,950 Leaving fat from shoddy for contributions worth at least $6,667,904 The members or the trust have continually quarrelled, violating their selling agreements, and some of the members aro In lavor ot tree raw material and or abandoning their attempt to farm the revenues. They cannot get bach a cent unless the trust collects It. What Is true ot the carpet trust is true ol every trust sad every protected Industry, it has pauper labor, from which It steals a part ot the pauper dole. When It pays duty on raw material tt la merely an excuse to rob the people ot lour times the amount tt pays at the Custom-House. Missouri has one maker of stee!. He reported to the census of 1880 that he had made 5,100 tons of steel rails, costing $357,000, or $70 per ton, and 5,100 tons of steel blooms worth $550,000 or $108 per ton. His product was worth, less wages, $849,883. His protection in 1880 to pay difference in wages was $383,231. The total wages he paid then $57,018. On the same quantity and quality made this year his protection will be $27^,544

but instead of paying $5.67 per ton wages he ■will pay less than $3. The edict amount he pays, Mr. Frick says, is jtone of the business of Congress, lle'may give his emplqyees what he likes and steal what he likes from the money granted by Congress as the difference in wages. • one protected milMwser la the same as another. The} *U use pauper labor, supported by a-pu blic tax. and the employer pockets trom oce-<iu*rter to threequarters ot the pauper dote. Protection Is the robbery or the paupers employed and the swindling or the public. There were in 1S80 seven chemical manufacturers in Nevada and the total cost of their output, less wages, was $349,863. They were then protected to pay “ difference ia wages ” by a duty worth to them: On borax. tDi<MO(i On M$p.... > 11,569 On soda.... 4.500 On sulphur. 6x000 On sulphuric acid,.. 14,400 $363,f69 —or more than the total cost of theit output Their reports to the census show that the workmen received only $33,676, the employers “keeping '* $339,799 of the trust fund collected by them under promise to pay it all to their workmen in addition to foreign wages. Some of this fat has been fried out oi those not contributing freely enough to the Republican campaign fund. The value bnder the McKinley bill of the protection on the same amount of production: On borax.*113.500 On soap.. 5,938 On soda. 18.060 On sulphur. 6,000 On sulphuric aoid....... 3.600 $147,038.

It is easy to see]which of the seven manufacturers had\ contributed and which did not. Wbat Is true ot these sevea protectee Arms In Nevada la true ot all protected firms everywhere. They get their lahoi , lor nothing and convert to their own use the larger spare ot the money contributed by tbe people tor the support ot their pauper lahoi-. Protection Is robbery. Missouri has one maker of steel. He reported to the census of 1880 that he had made 5,100 tons of steel rails, costing $857,000, or $70 per ton, and 5,100 tons of step] blooms, worth $550,0w or $1.08 per ton. His product was worth, less wages $849,888 His protection in 1880 to pay difference in wages was $883,921, The total wages he paid then $57,618. On the same quantity and quality made this year his protection will be $973544, hut instead of paying $5.67 pel1 lot wages be will pay less than $2. The exact amount he pays, Mr. Frick says, is none of the business of Congress. He may give his employees what hr likes and steal what he likes from the money granted by Congress as the difference in wages. one protected mU'.-owner is the same as another. They all uae pauper labor, sup ported by a public tax, and the employer pockets from one-quarter to three-quar-ters ot the nuper dole. Protection is the robbery ot tbe paupers employed and tbe swindling at 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 Congress that they must have 85 to 50 pez cent, protection to pay the ** difference in wages,” and they promise to collect it. The value of their product in 1880 without wages was $184,770,830 The lowest addition they ask on this amount “ for the difference in wages alone ” is $47,169,610 The total amount they pay their workmen is $35,836,390 They ask for $31,838,230 more than the totai wages they pay. And they want pauper labor that will not cost them a penny. They do nol collect the $47,169,61f They have not yet formed a terfect trust, and without a perfect trust there cannot be perfect protection where ,the market price here is made by domestic competition. Competition kills protection, and the competition of the 1,990 firms prevents them from stealing the full amount they are permitted to Bteal —if they can squeeae it out of the iiionlfe.

Whit is tree of the protected woollen mills, whose prelection la not worth SO per cent, of Its par Time, Is tree of every protected Industry. The really protected employer gets his labor for nothing and retains from the trust fund all he can collect over the small dole to the pauper workers. But what hoodie the employer cannot collect he must lose. When a despot wanted money be said to a favorite : “ Take that prov. ince, pay me so much yearly and tax the people what yon like. All that yon get in addition yon may have.” This is called “farming the revenues.” Civilized countries bad abandoned this form of taxation when the United States took it up in 188S and developed it under the name of Protection. The Congress said to forty-nine refiners : “ Pay into the treasury a taj of two cents per pound on your sugai and you may collect from the peoplt three and a half by forming a trust ani fixing the selling price. That is wort! $46,000,000 yearly to you over whs you pay into the treasury.” Thetrus was formed nearly thirty years ago It hts farmed the revenues on sugar a a profit of $600,000,000 in Uxea takei from the people. When the revenuei were no longer wanted it was givei ... U • • - v.

permission to tax the people ehslfcent per pound for itself— $18,000,000 for the year 1892. What tbfjc'ou stress said to the sugar trust It said towrer two bundled other rings or trusts. What the sugar ring did two hundred others have done. Protection “(arms the revenues," and when the revenues are not needed the trust is a:, lowed to continue the taxing ol the people for tta private benefit. Protection ts robbery, it is Intended for robbery, and the rings are protected In thetr robbery by the Federal Government. 'When raw material costs nothing, a then labor represents 100 per cent. If the foreigner gets both raw material and labor without cost, and the American gets his row material free and pays all to labor, we should levy only 100 per cent, duty for the difference in wages. Yet thirty-two tariff trusts are protected by duties ranging front 101 to 238 per cent, to pay the “ differences in wages,” and in no one of them does the total cost of wages in this country reach 43 per cent In no one of them Is the difference in wages equal to 15 per cent of the foreign cost of the product The people pay all the cost of labor for the tariff barons and enough more for the latter to “ make enormous fortunes when times are good” by converting the larger part of the pauper tax to their own use. ) The sole object of protection Is robbery. ? It takes from the people by false pretense (which Is larceny under the statute) and cor verts to Its own use the trust fond It collects for the benefit of its employees (which Is also larceny/^ The “ protection ’> comes In when an attempt ts made to prosecute for the larceny, and the prosecutor finds the robber protected from punishment.

The object of the McKinley bill is to drive 2,000,000 farmers from the land they till because what they raise is in excess of our needs, and when their surplus is exchanged for European mill products the latter enter into competition with our own mill products Our exports of the products of surplus farm labor in 1SS1 were $730,394,043 In 1891 they were $642,751,343 Showing that our surplus farm labor had lost a large portion of its foreign employment. But our exports of manufactures in 1881 were $89,219,880 . and in 1891 were $168,927,815 / Showing that what employment farm labor lost, mili-machinC labor had gained by force and fraud through the protection of the mill-owner. Ono object ot Protection is to prevent tne surplus labor on our (arms from competing Here (through foreign exchange of products) with our mill machine, end another is to steal the farmer’s home market 'or farm products hr an exchange ot surplus American machine products tor South American farm products. Take 1850 and 1860. Our exports of domestic merchandise were In 1850 $124,900,233 In 1860 316,242,423 Showing an increase of 135 per cent. Take the. “ protection era ” between 1888 and 1890. Our exports of domestic merchandise were In 1880 In 1890 Showing an increase ot Or if we take 1881, and 1891, $823,946,854 845,293,828 2 per cent. $888,925,947 872,270,283 We have a decrease of 1 per cent.. And the McKinley bill was Intended to knock them down still more. But a famine la Europe prevented It this year, sad mar prevent It even next year, from getting In Us line work. But It will win m the end. Protection la for the millowner to plunder the farmer. Our exports of breadstuffs were valued For 1860 $24,422i»0L For 1870 72,250;933O~ For 1680 288,036,835 For 1891 they were only 138,121,653 A loss to the American farmer of $159,915,179 Under the increased Protection of 1883. The McKinley bill was passed tocijkpur exports of breadstuffs down still further by imposing heavier fines upon machine products received in exchange, that 2,000,000 surplus farmers might ba driven from the land they tilled. The protection of the Ame'ican mill, owner Is protection from the surplus labor ot our farum, producing that tor which there la no demand here, which must ba exchanged for some thing our people waau It Is robbefer of the farmer to prevent his compeUUiifi with the mlllowacr.

For the nineteen years ending 1391 our exports of merchandise exceeded our imports by *r $1,580,886,743. Our exports of gold exceeded our imports by * $33,462,083. Our exports of silver exceeded our imports by $338,880,111, a total loss of wealth of $1,845,178,888 driven out of the country to protect 14,500 mili-owners. Is it any wonder that our total wealth per capita, which in 1860 was $998, in 1890 was only $999 Protection teaches, and its deluded victims believe that the more wealth wa export and the^Itss wealth we import the richer we are as a nation. The “ balance ot t rude ” buuc > is the old “conttdenco game" applied to economics, to swindle voters. To “check Imports," to drive wealth out ot the country, hut not let wealth come Into the country, M the declared object ot Protection and th« Republican party. Its object istho rob. bcryot cbe workmen, tne robbery ot the people, and the robbery ot tae nation. Protection is all robbery—nothing hut robbery. It is from these taxes—the taxes ira posed upon the people by the protected industries—that the people want relief. It is not the Federai, Stale or local taxation that burdens the people. It is this private taxation lor private purposes, far greater ttian all>ther taxation of every kind, th%t taakea the _ pitizen the heaviest-taxedjadn in th* world. „ . _ 1 ,t>