Chairman. I wish to say I favor the proposition contained in this bill to prohibit the importation of foreign convictmade goods in anyway that will make effectual such prohibition. While I have taken no stock in opposition or favor of the bill. it seems to me that that part of the bill prohibiting the import of the products of pauper labor and section 9. defining the term "pauper" as one held or confined In eleemosynary institutions at public expense. in whole or in part. brings into our councils a Trojan horse. I think that it is hardly humane when we have in our country an asylum for the blind. for instance. taken care of by the charity of our peoplethat is. at public expensean eleemosynary institute whose industry is sought to be utilized by the manufacture of certain products. that any country should say that the goods made by them should be prohibited from being introduced into such country. And yet in this bill we are doing that very thing. We propose to say to the unfortunates. not because you are a criminal but because you are poor. because you are old or blind or halt. and are in part taken care of by your Government. we will restrict the market of the products of the labor of your hands and cut down the price of your industry by such restriction as far as it is within our power. We will not let what you make be imported into our country. Now. it seems to me that that Is bringing in the doctrine of protection. and protection gone to seed. and this is the old cry of protection against the pauper labor of Europe. and it seems to me the question of pauper labor is amply taken care of by our tariff duties. which impose upon the products of Europe a pretty thoroughgoing tariff tax. But to single out the products of the poor and exclude them. is it right? Is it just?
Keywords matched
pauper labor