Because it is susceptible of convincing proof that the high-paid labor of America,—­where it is high paid,—­is cheaper than the low-paid labor of the continent of Europe.  Do you know that about ninety per cent. of those who are employed in labor in this country are not employed in the “protected” industries, and that their wages are almost without exception higher than the wages of those who are employed in the “protected” industries?  There is no corner on carpenters, there is no corner on bricklayers, there is no corner on scores of individual classes of skilled laborers; but there is a corner on the poolers in the furnaces, there is a corner on the men who dive down into the mines; they are in the grip of a controlling power which determines the market rates of wages in the United States.  Only where labor is free is labor highly paid in America.

When I am fighting monopolistic control, therefore, I am fighting for the liberty of every man in America, and I am fighting for the liberty of American industry.

It is significant that the spokesman for the plan of adopting monopoly declares his devoted adherence to the principle of “protection.”  Only those duties which are manifestly too high even to serve the interests of those who are directly “protected” ought in his view to be lowered.  He declares that he is not troubled by the fact that a very large amount of money is taken out of the pocket of the general taxpayer and put into the pocket of particular classes of “protected” manufacturers, but that his concern is that so little of this money gets into the pocket of the laboring man and so large a proportion of it into the pockets of the employers.  I have searched his program very thoroughly for an indication of what he expects to do in order to see to it that a larger proportion of this “prize” money gets into the pay envelope, and have found none.  Mr. Roosevelt, in one of his speeches, proposed that manufacturers who did not share their profits liberally enough with their workmen should be penalized by a sharp cut in the “protection” afforded them; but the platform, so far as I could see, proposed nothing.

Moreover, under the system proposed, most employers,—­at any rate, practically all of the most powerful of them,—­would be, to all intents and purposes, wards and proteges of the government which is the master of us all; for no part of this program can be discussed intelligently without remembering that monopoly, as handled by it, is not to be prevented, but accepted.  It is to be accepted and regulated.  All attempt to resist it is to be given up.  It is to be accepted as inevitable.  The government is to set up a commission whose duty it will be, not to check or defeat it, but merely to regulate it under rules which it is itself to frame and develop.  So that the chief employers will have this tremendous authority behind them:  what they do, they will have the license of the federal government to do.