CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - US Government ...

... < -• •• 1· ~; _; .. \,, • .. ,.- .~ -...

. ~ .

4382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY9,

ator from West Virginia. [Mr. FAULKNER]. lf he were present, he _:would vote "yea" and I should vote "nay."

Mr. VEST (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senato.r from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB]. I do not know how he· would vote. If he were present, I should vote "yea."

Mr. WALTHALL (when hisname was called). I am paired with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER].

The roll-call was concluded. Mr. BARBOUR. I am paired with the Senator from Connecticut

[Mr. PLATI']. I do not see him in his Reat, and I withhold my vote. lilr. REAGAN. My colleague [Mr. COKE] left the Senate unwell

this morning, and he is paired with the Bena.tor from Nevada [Mr. Jmrns].

Mr. SA WYER. I am paired with the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CoLQ.UITl']. I reserve the right to vote, if it be necessary to make a quorum.

Mr. QUAY. The announcement of the vote will probably disclose the absenoo of a quorum. I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce a bill. ·

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair cannot interrupt the proceeding of a mil-call.

The result was announced-yeas 12, nays 18; as follows:

Bate, Berry, Butler,

Allison, Blair, Chandler, Davis, Dawes,

Call, Cock.rel.I. George,

Dixon. Dolph, Frye, Ha.le, Hoa.r,

YEA.S-12. Gibson, Gorman, Hampton,

NAYS-18. Ingalls, Moody, Petti&-rew, Power, Stewart,

ABSE~-53. Aldrich, Evarts, Manderson, Allen, Farwell, Mitchell, Barbour, Faulkner, Morga~ Blackburn, Gray, l\Iorrill, Blodgett, Hanis. Paddock, Brown, .Hawley, Pasco, Oa.meron, Hearst, Pierce, Oasey, Higgins, Platt, Coke Hiscock, Plumb, Colq~itt, Jon.es of Arkansas, Pugh, Cullom, Jones of Nevada, Quay, Daniel, Kenna, Ra.usom, Edmunds, MM1illan, Sauders, Eustis, McPherson, Sawyer,

Payne, Rea.gan, Wilson or Md.

"Teller, Washburn, Wilson of Iowa,

Shennan, Spooner, Squire, Stanford, Stockbridge, Tur pie, Vance, Vest, Voorhees, Walthall, 'Volcott.

The PRESIDENT pro fem.pore. No quorum has voted. Mr. HALE. I move tha.t the Senate adjourn. Mr. ALLISON. I hope not. I want to have the roll called. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine moves that

the Senate adjourn. Mr. HALE. I withdraw the motion for the present. Let the roll

be called. The Secretary called the roll; and the following Senators answered

to their names: Aldrich,' Davis, Allison, Dawes, Barbour, Dixon, Bate, Dolph, Berry, Frye, Blair, George, Butler, Gibson, Call, Gorman, Ohaudler, Hale, Cockrell, Hampton,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. to their names.

Hoar, Ingalls, Moody, Paddock, Pasco, Payne, Pettigrew, Power, Quay, Ransom,

Reagan, Sawyer, Stewart, Teller, Turpie, Vest, Walthall, Wilson of Iowa, Wilson of Md.

Thirty-nine Senators hav~ answered

.Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. Mr. ALLISON. Before that motion is put, I wish t-0 give notice

tbat I shall call up this bill immediately after the morning business to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of tbe Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON].

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 2 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morr-ow, Saturday, .May 10, 1890, at 12 o'clock m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, May 9, 1890.

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Cha.plain, Rev. W. H. 1i-1ILBURN, D. D.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. LEAVE OF .ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. ROBERTSON, for three days. To Mr. ToWNsru-."'l>, of Pennsylvania., for two days, on account of im

portant business. To Mr. CANDLEB, of .Mas.~chusetts, for three days, on account of im

portant business.

PUBLIC IlUILDING AT HUDSON, N. Y.

The SPEAKER announced the appointment of .Mr. 1i1ILLIKEN, Mr. KERR of Iowa, and Mr. CLUNIE as conferees on the part of the House upon the bill (S. 1306) for the erection Qf a public building at Hudson, N. Y.

JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN MISSOURL

The amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7166) to a.mend section 3 of an act entitled ''An act to amend the act dividing the State of Missouri into two judicial dis-tricts and for other purposes" were read, ns follows:

In line 15, on page 1, afier the word" city," where it occurs the second time, insert "of."

In line 1. on page 2, after the word" of," where it occurs the second time, insert the word•· the."

Mr. CULBERSON, of Texas. I mov.e that the amendments of the Senate be concurred in.

The motion was agreed to. DELIA T. S. PARNELL.

Mr. HILL. I desire to call up a bill which was laid over from a former day, the bill (H. R. 6291) granting a pension to Delia. T. S. Par· nelL

The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Int-erior be, a.nd he is hereby, au

thorized o.nd directed to pl&oe on the pemlion-roll, subject to the provisioll8 and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Delia T. S. Parnell, daughter of the late Charles Stewart, an admiral of the United States, and engaged in its naval service in the war of 1812, the l'!:Ieiioan war, and in the late war for the Union. and pay her a pension from the passage of this act, at the rate of Sl,200 per annum.

The amendment of the committee was read, as follows: In lines 10 and 11, strike out "Sl,200 per a.nnum" and insert in lieu thereof

"$50 pe.r month."

The SPEAKER. A. point of order was pending in regard to this and several other bills occupying a similar position. The Chair, having examined the matter and found that there are many prior decisions against the point of order, <>verrules the point. .A.part from the decisions, it is difficnlt to understand how on principle the action of a full House can be set aside, even when it seems to have been taken in contravention of the rules, because the proper time to make objection that the proceeding is contrary to the rules is when the proceedin_g is attempted, not subsequently. The Chair also finds that, when former decisions were made, the rule in regard to the assignment of particular time for pension and other special business of Friday night was even stronger in its prohibition of other action than the present rule. The Chair is, therefore, constrained, both by precedent and principle, to overrule the point of order. The question is on agreeing to the amendment which has been read.

11-fr. CUMMINGS. I move to disagree to the amendment, and upon this motion I wish to be beard. Thi:s pension bill is for the benefit of the daughter of Admiral Charles Stewart, and the fact that she is tho mother of Charles Stewart Parnell has nothing to do with it. An objecti-0n was raised to it the other night because it was supposed that the pension was sou~ht solely because Mrs. Parnell was the mother of that great representative of Ireland in the British Parliament. Now, sir, very few here seem to be aware of the services rendered by Charles Stewart" to the United States. A. compilation of bis life from Cooper's Naval History and other works gives a. clear idea of his valuable services.

Born in Philadelphia, he entered the Navy as a lieutenant on Marclt 9, 179& He served in a frigate in the West Indies, operating against French privateers. On July 15, while in command of tbe Experience, he captured the French schooner Deux .A.mis. He was afterwards chased by two French vessels. By skillfully avoiding them be afterwards caught them separately and captured the schooner Diana before her sister vessel could assist her. On November 16, 1800, he took the privateer Louisa Bridger. In December he rescued sixty women and children who had been wrecked while flying from the revolution in Santo Domingo.

ln 1802 Stewart served as executive of the Constellation, blockading Tripoli. In 1803 he was placed in command of the brig Siren in Preble' s squadron off Tripoli. There he convoyed Deeatur in the Intrepid to destroy the Philadelphia. He participated in all the attacks on Tripoli, and was included in the vote of thanks in Congress on March 3, 1805, to Preble' s officers. He took command of the Essex, and went with the fleet to Tunis, where he convinced his commander-in-chief that it was illegal to make war except by declaration of Congress.

In 1806 he commanded the Constellation and was promoted to captain April 22, 1806. He superintended the construction of gnnboats at New York in 1806-107. With Bainbridge, at the outbreak of the war of 1812, he dissuaded the Cabinet from the proposed policy of not sending the Navy to sea a.:,"'Uinst the British. He was appointed to command the Constellation in that war. In going to Norfolk he met a British fleet, which he skillfully avoided. He afterwards participated in the defense of that city. ·

In the summer of 181a he took command of the Constitution. He destroyed the Picton, an armed ship, and the brigs Catherine and Phoonix. He chased several British ships of war and the frigate La Pique,

•

)

· .:..: ·~I"" - ,., •• ..; '~-"~

,...· ... r.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4383 a.nd narrowly escaped two British frigates near Boston. With new sails he left Boston in December, 1814. He captured the brig I..ord Nelson off Bermuda, December 24, 1814, and the ship Susan off Lisbon. On February 23, 1815, he took two British ships of war, the Cyane and Levant, after a spirited engagement of fifty minutes. While at anchor at St. Jago, Cape de Verde Islands, n. British fleet approaehed. He ran out of the harbor and adroitly escaped with the Constitution and Cyane. The Levant was recaptured by the fleet in the neutral harbor.

For this exploit Commodore Stewart received from Congress a \""Ote of thanks, a sword, and a gold medal. The Pennsylvania Legislature gave him a sword and he was presented with the freedom of the city of New York.

Like the famous frigate Constitution, Stewart received the appellation of" Old Ironsides." He commanded the Mediterranean squadron in the Franklin in 1816-1820, and the Pacific squadron in 1820-1824. On the Pacific coast he caused a paper blockade to be annulled and vindicated the rights of American commerce. He was Commissioner of the Navy 1830-1832, commanded the Philadelphia navy-yard in 1838-1841, and in 1841 was mentioned as a candidate for President, but was not nominated. He had charge of the home squadron in 1842-' 4..1, commanded the Philadelphia navy-yard again in 184G, and from 1854 till 1861. He was retired as senior commodore in 1856 and flag-officer in 1860, and on July 16, 1862, was commissioned rear-admiral, after which he was on waiting orders until his death. He was in t.he servioo seventy-one yea.rs and was senior officer in the American Navy for seventeen years.

Such, Mr. Speaker, is the r"'cord of this admirable officer. The retired-list of the Navy to-day costs the Government $1,650,000 yearly. Since this list was established the total aggregate cost has been $16,-331,000. The records, Mr. Speaker, of all of the naval officers on the retired-list to-day-and I do not say it in the way of disparagementwill not compare with the record of this one American admiral They were educated at the expense of the Government and were retired on three-quarters pay when sixty-two years old. He was actively on duty over seventy~ne years. Many of them received prize-money; he got not a cent for the Levant, although cut out of a neutral port. His patriotism was so great that he neYer claimed prize money. If the cot:mtry had returned him his due his daughter to-day would not be suffering for the necessaries of life. She is seventy-four years old-, sick, infirm, and destitute. Not two weeks ago you passed a pension bill here grantin~ to the widow of Admiral Nicholson $100 a month. It was money well bestowed. How, in view of yom action then, you can cut the proposed pension of the daughter of '' Old Ironsides" down to $50 a month surpasses my comprehension. I appeal to your manhood and patriotism to restore this pension to what was proposed in the original bill.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but a few moments in the discussion of this matter. I was not able to bear all that was said by the gentleman from New York who has just taken his seat, but from what I did hear I think be has stated the facts of the case clearly. All of these facts were considered, however, by the Committee on Pensions of this House, and after carefully considering the matter they cut the bill down to $50 a month; and I understand that is satisfactory to the gentleman who introduced the bill and substantially so to Mrs. Parnell. I see no reason therefore for disagreeing to the report of the committee, and I hope it will be sustained.

Mr. BROSIUS.. Let me ask the gentleman if this is a unanimous report from the committee?

Mr. HILL. It is unanimously reported from the committee. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment re

ported from the committee. The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 35, noes

26. So the amendment was adopted. The bill as amenrled was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time;

and being engrossed, it was accordingly rea-d the third time, and passed. JULIET OPIE H • .AYERS.

Mr. HILL. I now call up the next bill coming over under the same order tS. 2451), granting a pension to .Juliet Opie H. Ayers.

The bill is as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Inte-rior be, and be is hereby, au

thorized and directed to pn.y.JulietH . .Ayers, widow of Romeyn Beck.Ayers, lat-e colonel of the Second Regiment .Artillery, United States Army, a pension, subject lo the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, at the rate of $75 per month.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Has that bill been referred to a committee of the House?

The SPEAKER. This bill, the Chair will state, comes over from last Friday night under the operation of the previ-Ous question.

Mr. CffEA.DLE. Mr. Speaker, this is subject to debate, I believe? The SPEAKER. It is open to debate and amendment, the Chair is

informed. Mr. McKINLEY. If this is going to lead to debate, I hope it will

be withdrawn at this time, as the time is limited for debate on the tariff bill.

Mr. CHEADLE. I have this simply to say, 1r!r. Speaker, and I do not wish to repeat myself, but I do think, and reiterate the statement I have made on this floor before, that this whole theory of special legislation is wrong in principle and ought not to be tolerated by this House. The idea of giving to the. widow of one man who served his country $8 a month and to the widow of another $50, to the widow of another $75 and another $100 a month, is the most un-American legislation that it is possible to enact and write upon our statute-books. I protest against it.

Mr. FLOWER. J\Ir. Speaker, I hope this bill will pass. My colleague [Mr. LANSL.~G] is not here, but he has informed me of the circumstances connected with the case, and it presenb:> a pitiable conditi<m, which deserves our favorable consideration.

The question being taken, the bill was ordered to a third re.a.ding; and being read the third tim-e, was passed.

Mr. FLOWER. I move to reconsider--Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I move.to reconsider the vote by which

this bill. and the one j ast preceding it were passed; and also move to lay that motion upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

WAGES GOVERNl\IENT PRINTING OFFICE.

Mr. CUM.MINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent in bave printed in the RECORD and a'ppropriately referred a petition oft.he employes of the Government Printing Office for the restoration of wages to the same rate as prevailed in the office prior to March 3, 1877.

There was no obj echlon. The memorial, which was referred to the Committee on Printing, is

as follows: FACTS AND FIGURES 0:-1' THE RESTORATION OF WAGES IN THE GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE.

To tlie honorable members of the SenaU and House of Representatives: GE?>.7LEMEN: The employes of tbe Government Printing Office have pre

sented to your honorable bodies a hill having for its object the restoration of wages of the mechanics employed in the Government Printing Office to the rate prevailing prior to March 3, 1877, 1. e., $i per working day of eight hours.

On the 3d day of March, 1877, Congress by a "rider" on an appropriation bill, reduced the wages of the employes of the Government Printing Office 20 per cent., or from $i to $3.20 per day. The authors of this reduction made the plea. of economy; but, if economy was really desired, do you not think that the chiefs of division and the higher-grade clerks in the classified service wonld hM·e been better able to stand this reduction than the Government's skilled artisans, whose wages at that time were only on a plane of decency?

For thirteen years these employes have been trying to have justice done, their wages restored. ·

Favorable reports have been rendered, as follows: The H0use Committee on Printing, second session, Forty-fifth Congress, in

favorably reporting the Goode bill for the restoration of wages in the Government Printing Office, says: "Temporary and especially night work ought to rereive a somewhat higner compensation than the men engaged thereon a.re now paid."

The !louse Committee on Printing, first session, Forty-seventh Congress, favorably reported thls substitute, equivalent to the restoration: ••Thai the Public Priuter shall pay no greater price for composition than 60centsperthousancl ems and 5J cents per hour for time-work to printers, pressmen, bookbinders, and stereotypers."

The House Committee on Labor, first session, Forty-ninth Congress, favorably reporting the Foran restoration bill, said: "In the Go-vernment Printing.Office a very superior order of skilled labor is required, and, as a general rul such labor only is employed; yet the most skilled wor.knlan in this office hardly averages l;OOO per annum, while in the other departments of the Government service those employed as routine clerks or copyists. performing labor which requires but little skill or experience, receive $1,2l0 per annum. Besides, the latter lll.bor but six and oue-half hours per day, while those employed in tho Printing Office labor eight hours per day. It is very manifest that this is an unjust. and unfair discrimination against the ernployes of the Public Printing Office, as well as an nnwarrantaLle reflection upon mechanical and skilled labor generally."

'.fhe House Committee on Labor, second session, Forty-ninth Congress, recommending the passage of the Cullom-Farquhar bill--provi<ting for an inc1eased compensation for night work, said: "The same rate, 50 cents per thouitn.nd, is allowed for both day and night work, while in nearly every city in the Union an increase of 5 cents and upward per thousand ems is paid f.or night work."

That this measureof justice is not indorsed by the cmployes alone will be shown by the following extracts from the official reports of the last three Public Print-ers, l\Iessrs. Defrees, Ronnds, and Ben.edict: -

Hon . .J. D. Defrees, 1879: "J\Iany of these men have large and interesting fami· lies to feed, clothe, and school; many of them do not make sufficient when employed to support their families when out of employment. No one except in my position can know the distress among these people."

Hon. S. P. Rounds, 1884: "They work more hours for less pay than any other class of Government employcs. When stricken down by sickness their pay at once ceases, while in almost every other branch of the Government under such circumstances employes continue to draw their pay."

Hon. S. P. Rounds, ·18&): "The prompt, efficient, and faithful work of this office advances legislation in a very gratifying degree, and those who during thesession work extra hours, at the risk of health and a. sacrifice of hours that belong to home duties, should receive some recognition that would at least be .a. step in the direction of justice."

Hon. T. E. Benedict, 1886: "They are the hardest worked and poorest paid employ es of the Government, and are jusUy entitled to Congressional .consideration."

Hon. T. E. Benedict, 18S7: "The attention of Congniss will undoubtedly be called, by committees representing the employes of this office, to certain facts upon which is based a cl.aim thnt the wages now fixed by law are insufficient. Belie,·ing, as I do personally, thuL just compensation is necessary to faithful service, I am prepared to fully indorse any such claim. It is just and proper that Congress should make some provision for extra pay for night labor. The rule allowing such pay is now universal in the printing trade. Much night work is required to be done during the sessions of Congress, and those assigned to such work. at the same pay us for day work justly feel that they suffer hardship."

In soliciting your support for this 1'.lleasure we appeal to you as servants of ihe Government who perform. work which is both intellectual and arduous.

• r ~ .,..; '

r

. .. :,

·.·

-.

...... ·1 ··~ ..... ' 7' .. , ._

. ,.

r/· ·ov· ...• . '·-, -. I ,·

I •

J ·,.:. ~- -~~» .. ~ .... : .:;i: .... j.,,. •'\~··~

~ <

4384 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. MAY 9,

and for which we do not receive sufficient compensation to live upon, as the following statement, we think, will conclusively demonstrate: Wages received per month of twenty-six working days, at S3.20 per da.y .... $83. 20

Expenses of a family of five (thea.verageemploye'sfamily) for one month: Meat, butter, sugar, coffee, and eggs, etc ....................... ........................ 32.00 Rent (averaged from rent paid by 100 employes) ..... ,., .......................... 22.00 Vegetables, etc .................................................................................. ..... 10. 00 Bread................................................... ........ ... ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... ... 6. 20 Fuelandlight ...................... ................................................................. 8.00

78.20 This is a. fraction over 12 cents per meal. Were it not for the extra work, in

cidental to the session of Congress, the married element in the Government Printing Office would be absolutely unable to make "both ends meet."

It is a very moderate estimate of the expenses of a mechanic's family, and leaves as a. balance to pay society dues, life insurance, fire insurance, enjoy current amusements, clothing, etc., the sum of $5 per month.

Can any one say this statement is overdrawn? The above does not allow for days lost by sickness and other ca.uses; it as

sumes that a Government printer loses no time. Should he be sick, his pay ceases, and he is left to depend upon the generosity

o! his fellow-workmen or the cold charity of the world. If he is fortunate he will be able to obtain credit at the "corner grocery," where he must pay exorbitant prices for everything. Need we say that when be "gets on his feet," it takes many months of self-denial, during which he deprives himself of actual necessities, before he is out of debt?

There is hardly a week in the year that the employee of the Government Printing Office are not asked to contribute their "mite" to help or to bury some indigent fellow-workman, whose indige~ce is not the result of thriftlessness, but rather or meager compensation.

It is a fact that many employes•(thrifty men with large families) upon being dismissed the Government service have been compelled to dispose of furniture, etc., in order to have means to leave the city.

The following table shows the rate of wages ps.id in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Brooklyn, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Boston:

Rate in 1880- Rate in 1889- Increase-

Cities. Per Per 1,000 Per Per 1,000 Per Per 1,000

week. ems. week. ems. week. ems.

------------ ----

Dollars. Cents. Dollars. Cents. Dollars. Cents. New York. .............. 14 40 18 55 4 15 Chica.go ................... 15 40 18 46 2 6 St. Louis .................. 17 40 18 43 1 3 Brooklyn ................ 14 35 18 50 4 15 Cincinnati.. ............. 16 38 18 45 2 7 New Orleans ........... 15 35 18 45 3 10 Boston ..................... ............... 40 ................. 4.5 . .............. 5

The table above shows conclusively that although the private employers of the country made reductions incidental to the panicky condition of affairs existing between the yea.rs 1875 and 1880, yet when business resumed its wonted course they restored the wages of their workmen to more than their former basis. The Government, however, has made no attempt to deal as justly by the employes of the Government Printing Office. It may be argued that the Government pays more than the cities enumerated above; but such is not the case. The figures in the foregoing table represent the minimum amount demanded by the printers of those cities, the men employed on newspapers receiving from !25 to $40 per week, whilst those possessing superiQr ability are pa.id at a higher rate than the minimum. It is sl\fe to say that fully 50 per cent. of the pressmen, bookbinders, and printers receh·e wages largely in excess of the rates shown in the table. Further, the purchasing power of the money paid in those cities is vastly greater than in Washington. 'Vith the single exception of New York, rents in Washington are 50 per cent. higher than in any other city named. l\Iembers of Congress who pay rent will appreciate this fact.

We submit these fll()ts for your consideration, and earnestly hope you will see the justice of our claim.

Very respectfully, H. Y. BROOKE, A. J'. ALDEN, P. S. STEELE,

Committee on Restoration of Wages. DEP.E...'fDENT AND SERVICE PENSIONS.

.Mr. KERR, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD and appropriately referred a communication and resolutions of the John W. Geary Post, Grand Army of the Republic, No. 90, in relation to the dependent-pension hill and also the per diem service-pension bill.

There was no objection. The resolutions, etc., which were referred to the Committee on In

valid P€nsions, are as follows: HEADQUARTERS JORN W. GEARY PosT, No. 90,

GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC, Philip&burgh, Pa., May 5, 1890.

DEAR SIR: The following communication, unanimously adopted by our post, was ordered forwarded to you without delay, for your especial information:

'Vith no little concern the comrades of the Grand Army or the Republic and soldiers of the late war, irrespective of political affiliations. are watching the laws you are enacting and failing to enact. \Vith pa.in we observe the great timidity shown when anything that 1elates to doing justice to those who served below the rank of general comes before your honorable body. We note that when those high in station come before you, you either place them upon the retired-list of the Army or pension them or their wives at n. sum per month which if given yearly to one of us would be but an act of justice long delayed. It might. shock the pure patriots of Wall street and the pseudo reformers in general, but justice nncl mercy would be done to the deserving by the nation .

"\Ve indorse the placing of officers, who by merit attained eminence in the Army, on the retired-list or themselves or tseir wives on the pension-roll; but many soldiers who served in the ranks a.re the peers of the general who led them to battle nud in their sphere did their duty quite as well. Their children are as dear to them, they sacrificed as much and even more in many cases, and in degree a.re entitled to equal recognition. They left home and friends in the :flower of youth to save the national unity, for a mere pittance of eleven, thirteen, and

sixteen dollars per month. They passed four years of trial such as God forbid coming generations from ever seeing. They surrendered every opportunity for advancement or self-elevation, while those who staid at home availed themselves of our lost opportunity for advancement, and when we returned with victory upon our banners, a. firmly united country, having made a. sta.blo financial system possible and established a. basis for such wealth a.a no govern· ment ever before saw, the great majority of us were left behind in the race, by disabled bodies, broken constitutions, or enfeebled wills. Many are in the poor• houses or begging_from door to door. Of what avail or what comfort will a. small pittance from the Government be to the few too old to enjoy it. Does it do us or our wives and children any good to have a. beautiful atone mark our graves when dead, when the lack of meat, clothes, and a home hurried us to the grave?

The nation exists to-day by our conduct on the battle-field. Our enfeeblement is the Government's stability. Therefore those who did not suffer have right, and just right, to bear part of our burdens. We. beg to inform you thattherank and tile of the old soldiers and comrades of the Grand Army of the Republic is not made up of General HAWLEYS, who with the advantages ofacoUegiate education is now pensioned by large salary and does not know what want means, and others who oppose our interest·s by misrepresenting the sentiment of the old soldier as did the pletboricjudge at the late Loyal Legion meeting in Phil· adelphia. The money interests control, a servile press obeys, but the time has come when the old soldier will vote for the man who dares to do justice to him, regardless of party, as he dared to do for his country on the battle-field.

Opponents of justice to us are fond of quoting this and that soldier's opinion against pensions, especially that of General Grant, our great captain. But when General Grant came near to death'sdoor, when he was likely to leave his loved ones to want, he did not refuse to accept the bounty of the Government, but accepted it gladly.and there is not an honorable soldier living but is glad that he got it. Suppose you that in our sphere our service was less honorable? Are our hearts less fond of our loved ones? Is there a monopoly of love among the great, that they only should be taken care of, when we are as much of the peopleas they, and this is a. goYernment of the people, by the people, and for the people?

l\lany of you will vote for the present tariff bill before the House, to pay 2 cents per pound for every pound of sugar manufactured in this country, 7 cents per pound for fresh cocoo~s, and Sl a pound for reeled silk, to encourage special industries in certain parts of the country and help cert~ain capitalists accumulate fortunes, while there is hardly I\ hamlet or township f·hroughout the land that does not contain some prematurely old comrade who lost his health and is now living a lingering death, fighting against disease within and adverse circumstances without, and mulit pass to his grave at an age when he should be in the prime of hie. He gave the best yea.rs ot his youth to make this a. coherent nation in fact, and made it possible for you gentlemen to legislate for us.

And now, aft.er distinct pledges for what should be done for us, you seem a.bout to offer us a homeopathic dose of soothing sirup out of the Peruiion Committee's bottle, known as the "Morrill bill." '\Ve urge you to consider well before you lend a.id to the passage of a. measure that makes such a wide difference between what you are and have been doing for the leaders and the rank and file. What will satisfy all classes and be the most worthy your efforts is-

First. The final passage of the dependent bill as proposed by the committee representing the Grand Army of the Republic.

Second. A per diem and sen-ice-pension bill that will do some good, and not one that will only apply to a. few who may happen to be living at the age of sixty-two years, when those are dead who for years fought a continual combat against starvation, while the country we saved has an overflowing Treasury.

By order of the post. C. T. FRYBERGER, Post Commander.

Attest: S. M. RHULE, .Adjutant.

Hon. J'AIIKS KERB, Member of Congress, Twenty-eighth district of Pennsyl1'ania.

NATIONAL-BANKING SYSTEM.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD and appropriately referred the body of a petition of citizens of Streator, Ill., for the perpetuation of the national-banking svstem. - There was no objection.

The memorial, which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, is as follows: Petition for the passage ot laws for the perpetuation of the national-banking

system, under which the interest of depositors is protected by Government supervision.

To the honorable the members of tlle Senate and House of .Representatives of tlte United St.ates in Congress assembled:

Your petitioners. citizens of your Congressional district, in whoS'e daily business dealings with banks are indispensable, respectfully represent:

That for the last twenty-seven yea.rs the national-banking system h:i.s been in operation and has furnished a safe and convenient currency and has been a. 2·eliable and secure custodian of the money deposited with it.

That the confidence of the people is shown by the followini: facts, reported by the Comptroller of the Currency:

Tle~l~~;!~f~~~~~i=·dt~.~~ ~&~t~i:r~ ~~~~l~~!h~~~j~g~~t~kh~d~ owned stock in amounts of SI,000 and less, and more than three-quarters in amounts less than 85,000, indicating the wide distribution of the share"'. The loans of the system to the ueople and the Government were more than $2,000,000,000. Deposits in national banks on the same date were SL,947,000,000; deposits of all other banks in the United States, exclusive of deposits in savings-banks, amounted to $963,000,000 only, showing conclnsively the confidenoe of the people in the national system.

That the high price of Government bonds, together with the tax on circulation, has rendered the circulation privilege a burden to the national banks, and that the restrictions on their business enforced by Government supervision tend to the withdrawal of capital from the system and its investment where it can be used free from the restrictions imposed by the nationnl-banking law,

That the system has since 1868 been a most important factor in strengtheninii the Government credit, and that, with an average circulation of a.bout $270,-000,000, it has returned to the Government of the United States over one-half of the amount (3137,664,13<&) in taxes, in addition to the ta:xes paid to State and municipal governments.

Your petitioners therefore pray your honorable body will amend the national-banking laws in the following particulars:

First. That the minimum of bonds required to be deposited before a national bank can commence business (whether circulation be issued or not) be reduced to $5,000 for banks with a capital of $200,000 or less and to $10,000 for banks with a capital in excess of 5200,000.

Second. That the circulation issued shall be 100 per cent. of the par value of tho bonds deposited, instead of90 per cent. as at present.

.. ~~·r~O> ·r:~: ···"~? ..... ~- ~. ~4' ~·:~-·;r.~.. ~-:,-: ~: ::·. '···

-..

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4385 Third. That the semi-annual tax on circulating notes,ofone-halfoflper cent.,

be repealed, or at least reduced to the a.mount necessary to pay the expenses of enforcing the restrictions and provisions of the national-banking laws, namely, the expenses of the office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the cost of issue and redemption of notes, and the ~xpenses of the Government supervision of the banking business.

Fourth. That the present laws n.s to Government supervision or national banks be strengthened by providing for the payment of a fixed salary to examiners appointed by the Comptroller, the amount necessary to be appropriated from the proceeds of the tax on circulation.

Fifth. '£hat the limit on loans, imposed in section 5200, United States Revised Statutes, be extended to one-tenth of capital and surplus, instead of one-tenth of capital.

Sixth. That you will secure the passage of all bills calculated to strengthen and encourage the extension of the national-banking system.

TARIFF BILL.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move thatthe Honse resolveihielf into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 9416.

The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union, Mr. PAYSON in the chair. Mr. FLOWER. Mr. Chairman, I had eighteen minutes of my time

remaining yesterday, which I yield to my colleague from New York [Mr. FITCH].

Mr. FITCH. Mr. Chairman, when, day before y~terday, in that clear, forcible, and eloquent language of which he is master, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of this Honse opened the debate upon this bill and explained the reason why the internal-revenue taxes, and in particular the tobacco tax, had not been repealed by the committee of which he was the head and in a House which he could absolutely command, the following words of his came to my recollection:

In considering the situation that thus confronts us and the bill that is presented here as intended to relieve it, it is well that we should understand at the beginning the things upon which all are agreed.

They are, first, that we are collecting more money than is required for the cnrrent needs of the Government and, second, lhat the excess, whatever it may be, beyond the wants of the Government should be left with the people. Our con· tention, therefore, is upon the manner of reduction, and not upon the reduction itself; not that no reduction shall or ought to be made, but how and npon what principle can it best be accomplished? We agree further that the tax upon tobacco shall be removed, and thus leave with the people $30,000,000 which they annually pay upon this domestic product. \Vere we men of business, governed by the principles which guide practical men of affairs, this burden would have been and could have been removed any time within the past two years, and if removed two years ago no surplus would now vex the Administration oralarm the business of the country. · In passing it is suitable that I should say that within the period named no hinderance from this side of the House would have been interposed to the abolition of this tax.

These words, Mr. Chairman, were spoken at the beginning of the great speech of the gentleman from Ohio on May 18, 1888, in which can be found most of the material which was used by the advocates of the present tariff in the campaign of that year.

I have not read them because I agree with him about these taxes. I have read them to show that at the very beginning of his oration, in which he claims that all the questions are settled for us, he demonstrates that they were not settled for him or his friends.

It was on this speech of his mainly that the campaign of 1888 was fought. It is claimed here that that campaign determined the issue of tariff reform forever in this country.

Mr. Chairman, this is a country where one election settles nothing. In this ca3e it did not even settle that the greatest orator of the Republican party, when he came into power, would do what his party platform promised and what he himself said every sensible man of business would do.

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio made in the Fiftieth Congress, on which the campaign was won which our Republican friends say closed this question, fills about twenty-seven columns of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. It touches every phase of the protective theory, and is full of statisbics and of humor, of fact and of fancy; but I search through it in vain foranysnggestion that at that time, when the Republicans say we settled this question, his present plan for reducing the surplus by repealing the sugar tax had occurred to him at all. There is in his protective programme of that day no mention of such a repeal, nor does the bounty to the sugar-grower anywhere appear. These main features of the present plan of his tariff revision, for which he explained to us he had his instructions from the country, were evidently not in his mind at all when he made up the case for the jury whose verdict we are told shut our mouths forever. And now, having failed to do what he said he would do about tobacco and having done what he did not intend to do or suggest should be done about sugar, he goes one step further and repudiates in effect all the arguments which he used in that debate.

He says be proposes to repeal the sugar taxes because they have become direct taxes and he explains that the reasons why they are direct taxes is that we do not raise enough sugar in this country for our own consumption. Well, how much tin-plate do we make? If you are ready to admit that the tariff is a tax whenever we do not supply our whole consumption by production in this country, you will have admitted all that we have ever said against the present tariff. It you are ready now to repeal every duty to which the argument which you use

XXI-275

in regard to sugar will fairly apply, you will go quite as far as most of us care to go. Is that the question that was settled in 1888?

The fact is, gentlemen, that your bill, paraded as founded on principle, is merely a. makeshift to meet a political situation. You said nothing in 1888 about a repeal of the sugar tax, because you wanted votes in Louisiana and California. You sai~ nothing of a bounty because you feared being beaten at the polls on that issue at that time. You propose them now because every alternative seems even more dan-gerous. _

Now, having gone to the country on one issae and having raised here another, you say to us that all the questions between us have been decided by the people. Perhaps you have started in this bill and in this debate a few new questions. One of them that bas occurred to many of us is the question why the sugar trust's certificates were put up $7,000,000 in value by the introduction of your bill in the House.

No one can mor~ logically and emphatically show your inconsistency than your own Republican colleague, an honored member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKENNA], bas done. Listen to what he says in his minority report in regard to the questions which you say are decided forever:

The bill in its sugar schedule makes an arbitrary and invidious distinction between the sugar indnstry and other industries, a distinction inconsistent with the principles upon which the bill is framed and upon which it can only bejustified. A bounty is as useless as it is burdensome and as odious as it is useless. It is not republican. It ha.s no jnstification in either the practice, the .principles, or the professions of the Republican party. The platform of the party, and which it was e.Iected to execute, proclaimed that before protection-ta.rift protection-should be sacrificed the internal-revenue system should be de· stroyed.

Must an industry be able to supply the home consumption before it is en· titled to protection? The sugar industry, it is asserted, has not done this. Other industries have not done this; industries which have been protected in every tariff measure which has been enacted and which are protected in the present bill; industries which, iustead of increasing, have decreased and a.re decreasing, and have received additional protection from the bill presented by the majority of the committee because such industries have decreased and are decreasing.

It would seem, Mr. Chairman, as if the issue which we are told here was closed forever in 1888 was still wide enough open in the California delegation on this floor in 1890. .

Now, having deceived the advocates of a repeal of the internal-revenue taxes, by failing to do what you promised, and having astonished and disheartened the sugar-grower by doing what you never intimated an intention to do, you turn to the farmer. Youareparticularly anxious about that mortgage on bis farm. In 1888 most of you denied that mortgage altogether. Now it .seems to be in evidence, and you are in hysterics over it. It is not for a city member to predict how far you can deceive the farmer. Perhaps you can make him believe that his indebtedness, which grew up under your system, is our fault. The elections in Ohio and Iowa and Rhode Island indicate that you can not.

But, gentlemen, whatever you can make the farmer believe, the time has gone by when we iu New York City can be deceived. Your plans are openly hostile to us. The metropolis is largely a commercial city. To you commerce is a crime and importation an impertinence. New York is largely, too, a city of consumers, who exchange long hours of unprotected labor for money with which to buy the supply of foodoften scanty enough-which you wish to make more expensive, and the clothing and tools, household wares and medicines, which your friends and some of you yourselves are interested in selling. You have no sympathy with these consumers. They have demonstrated that they can not be voted in blocks. They believe with their neighbors and fellow workingmen in the great manufacturing States of New Jersey and Connecticut in a reform of the tariff, and you have therefore no use for them. In all your legislation in this session you have shown your dislike for New York, and your disregard of her interests.

Now, gentlemen of the Republican party, you seem to mean in saying that this question was settled in 1888 that you then received a. license from the people of the United States to fetter and endanger the commerce of New York City, to insult our merchants, to take employment from a large part of our people, to saddle our working men and women with new taxes on their food and necessary supplies, in order to pay the mortgages on your farms and to raise the dividends from your factories. We in New York will dispute such a settlement as that by ~very means in our power.

There has always been a love of liberty in the cities by the sea. There is in the salt air a breath of defiance of wrong and injustice. We in the city of New York are of different blood and of many races, but we have in us, above all, the American love for "fair play," and we will try to convince you that the questions which are raised by this bill of yours can not be settled adverse1y to us and to all the interests of our city until the tide ceases to come up to the Battery and the Hudson to go down to the Hook. [Applause.]

Mr. GEAR. Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the remarks of the gentlemanfrom Texas [Mr. MILLS] on this bill. I admire his frankness and courage in that he declared boldly for free trade. We, on this side of the Chamber have al ways claimed that the Democratic party was in favor of free trade. We based this beliefon tberesolations which that party declared in national convention in 1848, that they congratulated the country '' in the no bl~ impulse given to the cause of freE? trad~ by the repeal of the tariff of 1842 1' and the enactment of the tariff of 1846,

' -

, .

I

"

.. ·, ..

•,

...:..

!, " .- > ........ ' ..... "" .. ,

' .. ... -

4386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - ~Y9,

The Democratic party has always denied that they favored free trade, but, sir, we are now assured by their chosen leader that be, in common with his party, makes the open declaration for free trade. The first Napoleon said, '' Scratch a Russian and you find a. Tartar underneath. '' So, Mr. Chairman, when you scratch a Democratic ''tariff reformer" or a Democrat who wants "a tariff for revenue only," you find a freetrader underneath.

Sir, the policy declared by Mr. Mills, if put into operation, will prod ace the same result that it <lid when his party enacted the tariff legislation of 1833, which resulted in financial disaster to the country and drove his party from power. And again the same results will follow as did when that party r.ame into power in 1842 with a false promise on its lips that it would retain on the statute books the tariff of 1842, a promise which it violated by enacting the tariff of 1846, which again brought financial ruin and a wrecking of the manufacturing interests of the United States and again drove that party from power.

The policy in the bill under discussion and the Mills bill were fu11y discussed two years ago, not only in this Chamber, but before the American people, and the American people gave their deliberate judglllent

• by no uncertain sound on the relative me1its of free trade and protf'ction. The popular judgment was expressed by the election of a Republican President and a Republican majority in this House.

Mr. MILLS said in this connection that Mr. Cleveland had a popular majority of 100,000 votes in the election of 1888; that is true, and, sir, we ull know that that majority was acquired by a system of suppression of votes which is practiced in some of the Southern Stat.es. Tho suppression of votes in the South is a vital question. On its proper solution rests the prosperity, ay, the very perpetuity of our Government, in that every man, black or white, Democrat or Republican, shall have the right to cast his vote in peace and to have that vote honestly counted, and I trust this system of Southern suppression will be put an end to by proper legislation before this session shall end. And, sir, let me say in my deliberate judgment that if we shall not app1y the proper remedy in this regard we shall be recreant to our duty to our country.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has been framed in harmony with the verdict of the people in 1888. The Committee on Ways and Means bas held no secret session, the doors of the committee-room have not been closed to the public. It has heard for nearly fifteen months, day and night, the farmer, the labore:, the mechanic, the manufacturer, the protectioni.'1t, and the free-trader.

The man who employs labor by the thousand and the one who em ploys but two or three had the same patient hearing and consideration. This bill has been draughted in the broad sunlight of public opinion. A distinguished Senator once said in 1828, on the tariff bill then pending in Congress, that ''the American system should work alike in all parts of our America." It has been the earnest desire of the majority of the Ways and Means Committee to draught this bill in harmony with the sentiment I have quoted. It is the only bill in my judgment which has ever been presented to Congress which proposes a thorough and careful revision of all our schedules. Not only the interests of the laborer and manufacturer, but al5o those of the farmer have been carefully looked after and protected in so far as the tariff can protect an agricultural industry.

Gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber say that the tariff on wheat and corn is a delusion and is of no benefit to the agricultural interest. Sir, if it were not for the rate of protection given to the farmers we would be flooded with the wheat of the Red River of the North, as we are to-day by Canadian products, which would be brought into direct competition with the Minnesota and Iowa farmer. "We are to-day at the danger-line of importation of wheat and corn from the great grain fields of the Argentine Republic, the only country under the sun which has climatic conditions resembling our own closely and whose productions to-day menace the wheat and corn grower of the Northwest.

The gentleman from Texas said in reoo-ard to this bill that if it shall pass we shall hM.r from the farmers of the Northwest and be rebuked bythemforouractiou. I shall take pleasure inhaving those gentlemen from Texas [Mr. MILLS] and from Tennessee [Mr. MCMILLIN], who are solicitous about my political welfare, come to the Northwest and talk their free-trade doctrine to our farmers.

We ask and challenge the fullest discussion on this question, for, sir, the farmers of the Northwest and this country are a reading and int.elligent people. Sir, in a contest before the people between free trade and protection the result will be as it always has been. Freetrade cohorts will go down before the protection phalanx as ripened grain goes down before the sickle; and, sir, no Democratic political Gabriel can be found who can blow his trumpet loud enough to resurrect the party which indorses that pernicious doctrine. [Applause on the Republican side.]

I do not propose to discuss the schedules, as we shall all have ample opportunity to do later.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Committee on Ways and Means has made recommendation in regard to the sugar duties which changes the policy of the Government which has been in operation for a century. I wish briefly to call the attention of the Honse and country

to the history of these duties and their operation on the people and what will be the result to our people if this bill shall be enacted into law.

The second act of the First Congress, which was enacted J nly 4, 1789, imposed a duty of 1 cent a. pound on raw sugar, and a cent and a half on clayed (which is partially refined), and 5 cents a pound on loaf or fully refined. The object of this act was undoubtedly of a twofold character; the duty on raw sugar was purely a revenue duty, for at that time there was not a pound of cane sugar, or any other than maple sugar, produced in the United States. The duty on refined sugar was imposed, it is said, for the purpose of establishing the refining business in the United 8tates as an industry, in order to give employment to American labor.

As the necessities of the infant Republic increased, in order to raise revenue to meet the expenses incident to the war of the Revolution, these duties were increased in 1790-'91to11 cents on raw and 2! cents on clayed and to 9 cents on loaf or refined. Under numerous acts of Congress, from 1797 to 180!, the duty was made 2~- cents on raw and 9 cents per pound on loaf and refined. All this was prior to the purchase of Louisiana or Florida.

When Mr. J e:lferson purchased Louisiana in 1804, Congress at once, presumably in the interests of protection, advanced the duties on raw sugar to 2} cents per pound and kept the duty on loaf and refined at 9 cents.

The duty remained at these rates until the war with Great Britain in 1812. Under the financial necessities of the Government, resulting from that war1 the duty wa.s advanced in 1814 to 5 cents perpoundon raw and to 6 cents per pound on clayed and to 18 cents on loaf and refined. '.fhese. rates remained in operation until the enactment of the tariff act of April 18, 1816; under that act the duty was made 3 cents on raw sugar, 12 cents on loaf or candy, 1(1 cents on lump, and 4 cents on white clayed or refined. These rates were maintainedsnbstantia11y as quoted until the act of 1832, when they were reduced to 2~ cents on raw, 3~- cents per pound on refined, and the acts of subsequent Congresses practically maintained these rates until August 30, 1842.

Ry the act of that date the duty on raw sugar was kept at 2} cents per pound, the same as it had been for ten years, but the duty on refined was reduced to 6 cents per pound on all grades which were "re.fined or advanced beyond the raw state." Under the provisions of the act of 1846, known in our political history as the "Walker tariff," the duty was placed on sugars of all kinds at 30 per cent. ad valorem, and by act of 1857 it was reduced to 24 per cent. ad valorem.

Among the many ills perpetrated on the people by the Democratic party by the enactment of the" Walker tariff" which brought financial disaster to the country, the facb should be credited to the Democratic majority in Congress that for the first and only time in the history of our country it gave cheap sugar to our people, for under that act good sugar, adapted both for culinary and table uses, was retailed throughout the West at 5 and 6 cents per pound.

In 1861 the civil war was inaugurated, and under the pressing and imperative necessities of the Government to raise money to arm and equip our armies which had been brought into the field all duties were increased. Sugar was placed in the tariff act of 1861 at the rate of three-fourths of a cent per pound on raw, not above No. 12, and on the higher grades ihe rate was made 2! cents per pound. By the acts of 1862and1863 the duty was raised to 2:i cents on raw, 3! and 4 cents on -the higher grades. The acts of 1864 up to 1869, inclusive, placed the rate.3 on raw at 3 cents and maintained the rates on refined at 3~ and 4 cents. In the act of 1861, for the first time in our history, we find that Congress applied the Dutch standard, which relates to color (and it should be borne in mind that No. 13 and all below this are dark, black sugars, and only fit for refining).

The Dutch standard was adopted presumably to make our descriptive classification correspond wl th the standard of the commercial world, but the result of that act and all subsequent legislation on sugar has been to absolutely prohibit the importation of what is known to the trade as grocer's sugar, which is adapted to both culinary and table uses, and would be used by far the largest proportion of oar people if they had _tbe opportunity. From the passage of that act to this day hardly a hogshead of grocer's sugar bas been imported into this country, and in addition it has resulted in placing the sugar trade of tho United States in the hands of a few refiners, who in recent yea.rs have by combinations and trusts levied toll on the people by increasing the prices of refined sugar to an amount which is to be gauged only by their avarice. This was, it really seems to me, to ba.>e been the true result of the act. But I have digressed.

Underthe acts of 1870-1872 the dnty was placed on No. 7 up to No. 10 at 1{ cents; on Nos. 10 to 13, 2 cents; Nos. 13 to 16, 2:} cents; Nos. 16 to 20, 3} cents; and above No. 20 at 4 cents per pound. Wl10n this tariff act of 1883 was enacted it was found that under the classification of former acts the refiners could and did import vast quantities of darkcoloredsuga.r of great strength, well adapted for re.fining purposes, which came in under the ''Dutch standard'' of color and at much lower rates than lighter-colored sugar. (It is claimed, and not disputed, that these sugars were discolored on the plantations where they were manufactured, and were thus imported by the refiners for the purpose of defrauding the Government of revenue.)

1890 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4387 For the purpose of putting a stop to these fraudulent importations

the polariscope, to test for strength, was adopted, and the tariff was framed on the basis of both _saccharine strength and color of the sugar, thus combining both polariscope and the Dutch standard for this pur· pose.

The act of 1883 placed a duty on sugar ranging from 1.4 cents per pound on raw sugar below No. 13, adding four-one-hundredths of a cent per pound for .each degree of strength; on sugar above No. 13 up to 16 at 2.75 cents; above 16 up to 20 at 3 cents, andaU above No. 20 at 4 cents per pound.

So much for the schedules of tariff rates which we have had on our statute-books for a century.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee for a few minutes to the history of the cultivation of the sugar-cane in this country. Its native home is in Asia and it flourishes and gives its best returns in tropical and subtropical climates. " It is in latitudes where the mercury averages 75° t;o 77° Fahr. that the cane grows in its greatest luxuriance and yields its best and most profitable returns to the grower," such a climate as Cuba and the Westlndia Islands, where the cane was introduced in 1518 and where it has been and is as yet a profitable industry.

Many have thought that, while not indigenous in the United States, it was of that character of plants which, like many others that have been transplanted to this country, would become domesticated and flourish and produce as well as it does in its native country; tliisisnot true of the sugar-cane in America; it was introduced into the territory of Louisiana in 1751 by the French .Jesuits, and since that time has been in cultivation with precarious results; sometimes with a fair degree of success, but more frequently with slight returns t;o the grower thereof.

The history of its cultivation in Louisiana during a hundred and forty years proves clearly to my mind that with us it is in a large degree by nature of the climate of Louisiana, an exotic, or at least partially so, for it is only occasionally that the grower of the cane in that State is rewarded by a full crop, or what is called a full crop in that locality. Bear in mind that what is called a full crop in Louisian:.i. is not much more than half a crop in those countries where the climatic conditions favor the growth of the cane and where it gives its largest yield of sugar. Your attention is called to the fact that sugar-cane is "'propagated from cuts called 'rattoons,' as the plant rarely ripens its seed in the most favored localities.'' So says the most noted aut.hor on sugargrowing in the United States, Professor Chandler, of Columbia College. In the tropics one planting of cane lasts from ten to twenty years, giving a good yield of sugar annually.

In the West Indies the rattoons are planted about once in seven or eight years, which requires one-seventh or one-eighth of the crop annually for seed and reproduction. In Southern Louisiana the rattoons require, by virtue of the climate, to be replanted once in three years, and in the northern parts of that State it lasts buttwoyeru;s; consequently, in the southern portion one-third of the crop of cane is required annually for seed and reproduction and in the northern part a lart:?;er share of the crop is required for this purpose. This fact alone justifies fairly the conclusion that sugar-cane is to a large degree an exotic in the United States. Another reason is that the climate is not warm enough, as is shown by the reports of General Greely, of the Signal Service, which I will read:

SIGNAL OFFICE, 'VAR DEPARTMENT, Washingt-On Oily, January 20, 1890.

Sm: Replying to your favor of the 18th instant, I beg leave to inform you that the mean. annual temperature for the northern portion of Louisiana. is 65.60; for the southern portion, 69°; mean for the State, 67.3°.

Very respectfully, A. W. GREELY, Chief Signal Officer.

Hon. JoHN H. GEAR, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

It will also be readily seen that the mean temperature of Cuba, San Domingo, and Hayti is the natural climate for sugar-cane, as is shown by the following letter in regard t-0 that climate:

SIGNAL OFFICE, Janum·v 27, 1890. Hon. J. H. GEAR:

The mean annual temperature of Cuba varies from 75° in some localities to 7So, and possibly 7\l°. In other localities the averages for Hayti and San Domingo a.re not so well established1 but may be safely put at figures ranging from 760 to 790, and possibly SOo, accoraing to localities. _

A. W. GREELY.

In addition and a, more convincing proof is the fact tha.t the grinding and boiling season begins in Louisiana in November and lasts only seventy to seventy-five days, while in Cuba it begins in October and la.sts four to :five months.

Season of 1869-'70: Crop hurt from rains, affecting standing cane; hence large quantities of molasses.

It should be borne in mind that wet weather makes the cane yield a small quantity of sugar, which is generally of inferior quality and a large per cent. of molasses.

Season of lsn-'72: Bad weather; cane small and green when cut for mill; severe frost in November, grinding season bad and nnfa.vorable.

Season of 1872-'73: The intensely cold weather of 1871-'72 caused the seed cane to rot in the winrow and mats. Freezing weather on 14th, 15th, and 16th of November proved a. death-blow to the crop and almost ruinea many a. planter.

Season of 1873-'74: Killing frosts 28th and 29th of October. Season 1874-'75: November 1 and2 dry freezing cold, which proved a. death

blow to the cane; loss estimated at 50,000 hogsheads. Sea.son 1875-'76: Good year. Season 1876-'77: Freeze November 30, December 1, 2, 3, and 4; crop badly in·

jured both as to quantity and quality of both sugar and molasses; loss esti· mated at 15,000 hogsheads.

Season 1877-'78: Frosts; half of crop lost. Season 1878-'79: The weather reports indicate that this was n. fairly good

year. Season 1879-'80: July-The planters jubilant over prospects of good crop and

good times . .August-Theprospects this month were overshadowed by the coming event in the last hours of the great gale which ushered in September; from the effects of this storm it was expected the crop would fall short, perhaps 25 per cent. Year closed with more favorable prospects and favorable results than was supposed after the great storm. . Season 1880-'81: Frost and rain in November; many houses stopped grinding.

Season 1881-'82: Frost November 2-5, and the cane in some sections of the sugar district was frozen to the ground. Very few planters did well, the ma· jority not maklnit half.

Season 1882-'83: Good year. Season 1883-'84: Good year. Sea.son 1884-'85: Too much rain and too dry. Season 1885-'86: Bad weather at the beginning of the grinding season; the

cane in many localities was too green to make sugar, until about the middle of October, when a decided change for the better took place.

Season 1886-'87: Bad on account of frosts in January and rainy spells from May to August.

Season 1887-'88: Cane injured by frosts and re.in. Sea.son 1888-'89: Report not published, but the crop was what is called a.

"good year."

I am, Mr. Chairman, in favor of protection. I believe in protecting the products of our looms, mills, mines, farms, and also our wage-workers, so that our people may have the benefit of our own home market in preference to giving it to people in other countries. I favor protP~tion on each and every article that we can produce in this country in amounts sufficient for our own use, so as to give employment to our own labor in order that they may live in the comfort that they have been accustomed to, and I am frank to say that if we could produce a large portion of the sugar we use I should earnestly desire to foster it by a fair protection; but, sir, I believe it to be an impossibility, for I for one am satisfied, after a careful investigation of the fads, that the Ameri· can people must look to othe!' sources than Louisiana for their supply of sugar. I say Louisiana, for out.aide of that State the cane-sugar product of the linited States is less than half of 1 per cent. of the sugar raised in this country.

That cane-sugar should not come within the list of protected articles is clearly shown by the following table, which shows the production and imports for twenty-one years. It shows that in twenty-one years they have only produced about 10 per cent of what we consume:

Years.

1859 ......................................................... . 1870 ...................•...•........•.•.•.................... 1871 ......................................................... . 1872 .......................................................•.. 1873 .......................... .. ....... ...................... . 1874 .................................. ....................... . 1875 ............................ ······· ······················ 1876 .........................•.•.......•.•....••......•...... . 1877 .............•...•........................................ 1878 ................................•......................... 1879 ......•....•......... _ •............................••.... 1880 ...••.....•.••..•.•..•....•...•.......•.•....•.....•...... 1881 .......................................•...... ............ 1882 ......................................................... . 1883 ....•..........•..........................•.•.......•..... 1884 ...................................... .................... . 1885 .......................................................... . 1885 .••.••.••••••••••••.••.•.•...•........•••••••.••.•••...•• 1887 ......................................................... . 1888 .......................................................... . 1889 ........... ............ ...... ........... ................. .

Sugar imported.

Pounds. 1, 247, 833, 430 1, 196, 773, 569 1, 277, 479, ~ 1, 509, 185, 674 l, 568, 304, 592 1, 701, 297, 809 1, 797, 509, 990 1, 493, 977' 442 1, 654, 556, 83( 1, 537' 451, 834 1, 834, 365, &'36 1, 829, 291, 684 1, 946, 745, 2().') 1, 990, 152, 31{ 2, 137, 667, 865 2, 756, 416, 230 2, 717, 88(, 663 2,639,881, 765 3, 136, 443, 240 2, 700, 284, 282 2, 692, 502, 670

Percent. Growth of of home Louisiana.. growth to

imports.

Pounds. 95,051,223 99,452, 9'0

168, 878, 952 146, 906, 125 125, 146, 3t3 103, 241, llO 134, 504, 691 163,418,670 190, 672, 570 147, 101, 941 239, 478, 753 198, 932, 27!J 272, 982, 899 159, 874, 950 303, 060, 258 287, 712, 230 2ll, 402, 963 286, 626, 486 181, 123, 872 353, 855, 877 350, 000, 000

07.617+ 08.3lo+ 13.220+ 09.733+ f!l. 980+ 06.068 f!l. 482+ 10. 938-f-11.524 09.568+ 13.05.5+ 10.875 14.023 08.033 U.177 10.438 rn.11s+ 10.656 05.775-13.105+ 12.9'.YT-

Average per centum ....... ....... .......... ....................... , ..•.................. 10.160 Another proof bearing on the question will be found by reference to Messrs. Bouchereaus' reports, who have published annual reports for many years on the climatic effects on the sugar-cane and its production in Louisiana. I may add, I think without fear of contradiction, It also proves conclusively to my mind that the duty on sugar is not a that these reports are considered by the cane-growers of that State ab- protective duty, but that it is a purely revenue duty to the extent of 90 solutely accurate and reliable. per cent. of every dollar collected from the people. Sir, this duty in the

Let me call the attention of the committee t;o the quotations I have place of being protective is a bastard revenue duty which has crept in made from these reports in regard to the climate of Louisiana: I under the wing of protection and bas held a place in our tariff sched •

Season of 1868-'69: The crop was severely hurt by the wet weather and frost ules to which it is not entitled by reason of the fact that we can only in November. produce 10 per ce~t. of our consumption, and that all probability of

....

·.

,.

'!'.: ... · •. -; ... ·'"·· ,·

lo "''"f ·'f•, ;..; .,, .-~- --:_-.~;; .-,

4388 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. MAY9,

producing sugar equal to our annual increased consumption is an impos.sibility for the cane-growers of this country to accomplish.

I consider the production of sugar-cane in the United States to be an experiment as yet; and yet, after nearly ninety years' trial, how much do yon suppose this experiment bas cost the American people? These statistics, carefully made year by year from 1790to1889 (with the exception of 1820, for which year there are no returns, the amount being estimated from the books of the Treasury Department), show that there bas been paid in duties the immense sum of $1,400,412,727. Of this amount 89.14 per cent. is a revenue and consequently a direct tax.

The duty on raw sugar has ranged all these years on an ad valorem basis from 24 per cent., the lowest rate, in 1857-1861, to 86.97 per cent. in 1887. High as these duties are on raw sugar, they are exceeded on refined, which have ranged variously from 313.21 per cent. in 1823 to 24 per cent. in 1857 and 89.55 per cent. in 1886, all of which are the highest rates of duty in our tariff schP.:d ules ever levied, not even excepting those in time of war. This large amount of duty is as direct a tax on every man, woman, and child in the country as if it had been imposed by a.ct of Congress. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a civilized people on the earth, outside of thjs nation (except in times of war or under great and pr~ing necessities of government), who would submit to this excessive taxation on an article which is absolutely indispensable, not only for their daily use, but also for their health.

I imagine, Mr. Chairman, that it has been submitted to for the reason that probably attention has not been called to this gross imposition until within a short time; but, sir, to-day, from east to west, from north to sou th, the imperative demand is made for free sugar, w bich is as pronounced as was the demand for free tea in colonial days. We have tested the problem of producing cane-sugar for nearly a. century and at an enormous expense to our people and with but barren results, and the time has c6me, in my humble judgment, to call a halt, to stop taxing our breakfast tables, and to give the people free sugar.

We are told by our Louisiana friends that, if we would only wait, in time they will be able to supply our people with their sugar. Is it true? It may be. But I for one do not see it. In fact I fail to see any tangible evidence of this fact. While it is true that the number of pounds of yield per acre of sugar-cane has increased during the past few years (a fact that has been due to and has been accomplished by better methods of extracting the juice from the cane), but it is also true, absolutely true, that the acreage has been largely reduced since 1880, when it was 227,776acres, while 'inl887-'88it was177,000, andinl889 it was less than 190,000 aeres, being a f~lling off of nearly25 percent. in acreage. Why, sir, there is, year by year, in each and every county of my own State of Iowa as many acres of corn as there are in sugarcane in all this country. Does anybody believe, on a candid investigation of the facts, that the time when Louisiana cane will produce sugar equal to the needs of our people is in the near future or is it a possibility that she can ever do it? I think not.

We were told by a prominent gentleman who came before the Committee of Ways and Means that the capital engaged in the production of sugar was over one hundred millions of dollars in Louisiana. There must be some mistake about this matter, for I find by an examination of the census of 1880 that the whole value of real property in that State was $122,362,297, and that of personal property was but $37,-800,142, aggregating $160,162,439. I also find by the census of 1880 that the value of real estate in the twenty-two parishes which produce sugar was but $30,973,809, and that the value of personal property in the parishes amounted to $7,466,174, amounting all told to but $38,-439,983. If the statement is true that the valuation of the property engaged in the production of sugar is now one hundred millions of dollars. then all I have to bay is that the figures of tbe census do not warrant the statement.

Why, sir, if you put the value of all the sugar raised in Louisiana at the market price since lS-23, which is shown by our statistics, you will find that we have paid in direct taxes for the value of those sugar plantations nearly three hundred and seventy times their value, and you will find also that the duties on foreign eugar for the same time have exceeded the valne of the products of Louisiana by nearly one thousand millions of dolJars. Again. Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention to the small value of the production of sugar of Louisiana, sixtyseven years, with the duties paid on foreign sugar since 1869. According to Spofford'sAlmanactherehas been produced in the United States from 1823 to 1886, inclusive, 9,385,956 hogsheads of sugar; this, at 5 cents per poundi which is about the average price of the duty-paid raw sugar imported for the past twenty-one years, amoun~ to $538, 284,576. Why, sir, we have paid in duties on sugar, as is shown by the statistics of~he Government, for the past twenty.one years alone, $862,245,593, which is $323,961,027 more than the whole value of all the products of that State. Why, sir, the statement of this fact alone should convface any fair-minded man of the absolute necesfilty of putting sugar on the free-list.

Mr. Chairman, there is another phase of this question that I call the attention of the committee to, and that is the differential or discriminating duty which has been on our statute-books for over a century in favor of the refining industry. This duty, I imagine, was levied in

the first place as a revenue meaoure, but later it was continued as a protective measure for the purpose of establishing · the refining in-:. dustry in this country.

As I have said before, duties on refined sugar have ranged from 313. 21 per cent. in 1838 to 24 per cent. in 1857, closing at 89.55 per cent. in 1886. This amounra to prohibition of imports of any sugar above No. 13Dutchstandardof color tests. No. 13isdark, thoughitmaybe96or 98 puresugar. On all above thisupto16, underthestandardofcolor, the duty is2.75 cents per hundred pounds; on all above itis 3.50 cents per hundred pounds. This arrangement of the tariff schedules has placed the American consumer of sugar absolutely at the mercy of the refiners by reason of the fact, as I have stated it, that sugar above 13 can not be imported at all. For many years of my life I was a merchant, and during a portion of that time, from 1846 to 1861, under the 30 and 24 per cent. duty on all sugar imported, we could and did import large amounts of good li~ht-eolored raw and refined sugar which went into daily consumption 'by the plain people" of this country.

Sir, since 1861 hardly a hogshead of that kind of sugar, No. 14 and above, has been imported, and if we do not revise our schedules in this regard we shall commit a grave wrong on an oppressed and tax-ridden people. We are absolutely, as I have said, at the mercy of the refiners, and bow much mercy can the people expect of that patriotic institution called the" sugar trust?" We can from our past experience readily; imagine. Why, sir, within a short space of time the sugar refiners, not content with the measure of protection given them by the tariff schedules, have organized a "trust" which embraces within its limits about 70 per cent. of all the sugar refiners in the United States.

It is not generally known, Mr. Chairman, how this trust was formed. Let me give you the facts as I have them from a prominent refiner who is not in this great "combine." The trust was formed in this wise: There are but sixteen sugar refineries in the Unit~d States; in a-0.dition there is one being built in Baltimore, whbh will be in operation early in October. Of these, ten refineries were put into the combine on the basis of valuation of $16,000,000. They were conveyed to one person in trust; certificates of stock were issued to the amount of$50,000,000 to the owners of these plants. In other words, certificates were issued at the rate of $3.33 for every dollar of the property put into the "combine." Fifteen per cent. of this amount, or, in other words, seven and one-half millions of dollars, was reserved to meet contingencie~.

During the past two years the sugar trust has divided quarterly dividends of 21 per cent., or at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum; this, Mr. Chairman, is at the rate of over 30 per cent. on the original and real value of the $16,000,000 of the property and plants as they were put into it at the start. I should say, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that the operating capital of the respective refiners who went into this "combine" is not included in the amount stated. Surely the dividends paid by this trust, in these days of low rates of interest, may be considered fairly remunerative returns on the capital invested, but in addition, during the time to which I have called attention, the "combine" bas made an extra dividend on the 15 per cent. reserved for contingencies, thus giving the owners for the time the ''combine '' bas been in existence a return of 360 per cent. in two years on the original valuation of $16,000,000.

The sugar certificates have been sold at prices as high as 120 per cent., and a day or two ago were quoted at 74, which is at the rate of $4.66 for every dollar's worth of property originally put into the combine. And I was told within a few days that if I had any money to invest the certificates of the sugar trust were considered a '' good thing. 17

But, sir, if by any arrangement of our tariff schedules this Congress should perpetuate the opportunity for this trust to continue, we shall, in my judgment, commit a great wrong on the people of this country, a wrong that they will be quick to resent, and in doing so they will be right. [Applause on the Republican side.]

I have said that I am in favor of protection of American labor; I am in favor of retaining the refining industry in this country, which employs a large number of men and a large amount of capital. I am willing to give them a. fair degree of protection that will enable them to refine all the sugar that the American people shall consume, but beyond this I will not go.

Again, I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this combine, not satisfied with the results I haYe called your attention to, are to-day trying to unite the wholesale grocers of the Northwest, including my own State, in a supplemental combine to enhance the duty on sugar by calling to their aid these merchants. I ask the Clerk to read the following letter:

The Clerk read as follows: WHOLESALE GROCERS' NATIONAL A.s50CIATION,

Mercantile Exchange, NruJ York, ..4pril 7, 1890. DEAR SIR: We have to·day seen the sugar-trust people. They are very

friendly and will do all they can to secure grocers a. rea:ionable profit for distributing sugar as long as they have any profit them.selves, but they are despondent on the tariff question; say that If the McKinley bill J{Oes through, with only ~ per cent. ditference between hi~h and low grades, they ~n not live under it, owing to the higher coet of le.bor and other ~xpenees in J,'efining here as compared with Europe,· that European refined will l;>e dumped on this market a.nd there ca.n be no r~gul11.tion of prices In the interest of the groeers, a.a contemple.ted, and that everybody will be forced to work for nothing.

">.

''.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4389

F. W. I:1muscH, Esq., Milwaukee, Wi.!.

F. B. THURBER. J. E. NICHOLS.

Whereas the present tariff on sugar affords protection to American sugar i·efiners of more than 1 cent per pound between the rate of duty on raw and refined grades; and

'Vhereas the tariff bill, as proposed by the present Committee on Ways and Means destroys nearly the whole of this protection, changing the duty. from a specific to an ad valorem basis at the rate of35 per cent. on raw sugar up to No. 16 Dutch standard, and onl~ 40 per cent. on higher grades; and

Whereas this margin of 5 per cent. is insufficient and would break down our en lire refining industry, including the refiners outside of the sugar trust, as well as those which are in the trust :

Resolved, '.rhat in the opinion of the wholesale grocers of-- it would be unjust and unn.dvisable to thus cripple a leading industry, and that, while the margin afforded by the present ta.riff is too large, the one proposed is too small, a.nd that in order to equalize the ditference in the cost of labor and materials between American and foreign refineries the rate of duty on sugar above No.16, Dutch standard, should be at least.50 per cent. instead of 40 per cent., as proposed in the McKinley bill.

Mr. GEAR. These resolutions which the Clerk has read, 1\fr. Chairman, were sent to all the wholesale grocery trade in the Northwest, including my own State. The resolution was sent in blank, so that the wholesale grocers' associations of the respective towns might fill them in and sign them.

Mr. McMILLIN. Will the gentleman allow me a question right there?

.Mr. GEAR. Oh, yes. Mr. McMJLLIN. Is it not a fact that since this bill has been re

ported there has been a. rise in the sugar-trust securities to an amount that in the aggregate is between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000?

Mr. GEAR. That maybe true and it may not be. Ido not know, but I will take the gentleman's word for it.

Mr. McMILLIN. I do not know the exact amount, but there has been an enormous rise since this committee reported their bill.

Mr. GEAR. That is probably owing to the fact that they expected a reflex action from the Northwest, by trying to bring outside pressure upon Congress.

Ur. McMILLIN. They had a hope that they would be able to con-trol you. •

Mr. GEAR. It seems they have not succeeded. Let me ask, Did not the sugar-refining people come over to see you gentlemen last Congress?

Mr. McMILLIN. Will the gentleman permit me to make another inquiry?

}.fr. GEAR. Why, of course. Mr. McMILLIN. I see this in the commercial headings of the New

York Herald of to-day: A rise of nearly 4 per cent. in sugar-trust certificates to-day paralyzed traders

who went short yesterday on the belief that after such a phenomenal advance the stock "must" have a reaction.

Four cents yesterday, which means millions. They are not afraid of you, it seems.

l\Ir. GEAR. Will the gentleman tell me how much protection there is in four-sixteenths given in this bill as compared with 1 cent that the Mill-s bill gave to them?

Mr. McMILLIN. But you give them free raw material, and it bas evidently made a rise in the price of the securities, as the trust seems to feel that it is not to be hurt. ·

Mr. GEAR. The difference between this side of the Chamber and that side--

Mr. McMILLIN. I do not care anything about the difference. The increase in the price of the securities of the trust shows what the opinion of the trust is.

Mr. GEAR. A.s suggested by my friend here, it may be that those inside of this combine sold their certificates to let it go down, and are now working it the other way.

Ur. McMILLIN. But if you were going to knock the bottom out of the trust could they do so ?

Mr. GEAR. You will have a chance to reply in your own time. Mr. McMILLIN. Ob, yes. Mr. CANNON. They are banking on that side. l\Ir. McMILLIN. Ob, but we are in the minority. Ur. GEAR. I know but one of the gentlemen by repute who signed

that letter which I had read at the desk. One of them is ~fr, F. B. Thurber, a man of reputation, who is one of the leading wholesale grocery merchants of this country. Gentlemen here will remember that be was a very great anti-monopolist a year or two ago. He came down to Washington to importune the Interstate-Commerce Com· mission to control all the railroads of the country. He was a Yery great anti-monopolist at that time, when it was in his interest to be such, and now he is trying to effect a combine among the people in the Northwest and trying to affect the action by Congress, for the purpose of increasing the duties that are brought in in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I am not unfriendly to the sugar-re.fining interest or any other interest, but I am deliberately and absolutely opposed to any trust or any combine which forms itself for the purpose of enforcing enhanced values on the necessaries of life. In dealing with trusts I believe fully in the advice that the Irishman gave his boy when he was going to Donnybrook fair: "Wherever you see a head, bit it," and I say that it is the duty of Congress either by direct or indirect means whenever they can see the head of a trust to smite it down.

Mr. STEW ART, of Vermont. The country is full of them. Mr. GEAR. Now I want to explain what was done in the commit

tee as to the rate on sugar. It was understood some four or five weeks ago that the majority of the Ways and Means Committee were con· sidering thequestionofthe dntythatshould be applied to sugar. !twas thought that 35per cent. would be a fair rate on sugar up to 16 grade and 40 per cent. above. It was thought that that would be fair to the refiner. The planters of Louisiana. came here to be heard before the <'.Ommittee, and they said that 35 per cent. was absolute ruin to them. The refining industry came here by scores and said that 40 per cent. and 5 per cent. differential was ruin to them.

Now, the majority of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Chairman, had no desire to injure either the planting interest of Louisiana or the incipient industries of beet and sorghum sugar in this country, nor were they inclined to injure or obstruct the refining interest; so that as a result of their deliberations they concluded to put sugar up to 16 on the free list and put on a duty of 40 cents per hundred pounds to protect the refining interest of this country. The question came up at once: Is 40 cents a hundred pounds enough? I think it is enough; and why? Why, it is shown that the world is full of sugar that is 90 per cent. saccharine test, and this sugar would be worth $2.81 per hundred pounds free of duty in bond in New York. The committee took that as a basis and run it out at 40 cents per hundred. Now, as any school-boy understands, 15 per cent. of $2.81 is just 42 cents. So that the gentlemen sending these circulars out are trying to raise the rate from 40 to 50 cents, where the Committee on Ways and Means have adjusted it, giving a fair measure of protection to the sugar-refin· ing industry. -

But, sir, the merchants of my State and of the Northwest did not fall info the trap. Of a large correspondence that I have with merchants in my own State and all over the country west of the :Mississippi, I have had but three letters from wholesale grocery merchants indorsing that idea. I will read the letters, but I will not rend the names of my correspondents for a reason which I will state later:

Sm : We, the undersigned wholesale grocers, understand that efforts are being made to change the rate of duty proposed in the bill now pending in Congres!I as recommended by the Ways and l\leans Committee, namely, to increase the duty on sugars above No. 16, Dutch standard, from 40 per cent., as has been fixed by the committee, to 50 per cent.

Now, we respectfully protest against such change, representing that 40 per cent. duty is ample and affords protection to all parties, yet does not in effect prohibit the importation of sugars of high grade, as would be tlle case with the duty fixed at 50 per cent.

1Ve respect fully ask you to oppose such change as inimical to the best interests of both consumer and dealer.

Hon. J. H. GEAR, Washington Oity.

DEAR SIR: We inclose you a correspondence which indicates something of the work that is trying to be done among the wholesale grocers in this State. We wish you to know what the secretary of the Wholesale Grocers' Association is trying to accomplish in the interest of high-priced sugar, especially as they are trying to make an impression on you and so induce you to lessen your efforts to give the country cheap sugar. We wish to express our conviction that sugar should go on the free-list, and we are glad,'indeed, to eee that you are putting forth such vigorous efforts to accomplish so desirous a result. 'Ve are con· fident our grocers who are working against you in this matter are making a mistake, both in their own interests and the interest of the consumers who are scattered all over this country. We would very much like to see sugar on the free-list; and if necessary pay those who raise sugar in this country o. small royalty, so as to sustain their enterprise.

Yours, truly. Governor.JOHN H. GEAR, Washington,D. a. I do not read the names of my brother merchants for the reason that

the sugar trust is autocratic and despotic. There is not a wholesale grocer in this broad land who dares to raise his voice in favor of the revision of the duty on sugar, so as to permit the free importation of sugar above number 13, snch as I hold here in my hand, for the reason that if he does the trust will ''boycott'' him, and thus he will be com-

, .

·~.

. ... !

.... ., .. I" .....

4390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 9,

pelled to rely, for the sugar needed in his trade, on the sma.11 number of refiners who are out:Bide of the "combine" and who have not the capacity to supply his wants. This is a fact that can be proved by any gentleman on the floor of .this House who has a constituent who is a wholesale grocer. The sugar trust is like the "devil-fish" of Vidor Hugo: it kills all who are embraced within its deadly folds.

Sin, the time has come for the American Congress to call a halt, to put an end to this ''combine" by passing the bill of the Committee on Ways and l\Ieans, which makes sugar up to No. 16 free, so that sixtyfive millions of consumers may ha>e the proper remedy within their reach; so that the consumer may have the right to import such sugar as No. 16 when the sugar refiners shall "combine" to put up the price of refined sugar. Sir, if yon pass this bill you accomplish a great result; you give to the people cheap raw sugar and cheap refined sugar, and save to them untold millions of dollars annually, and, in addition, you destroy, root aud branch, the greatest ''combine'' known to our people, a ''combine' 1 which was ''conceived in .sin and born in iniquity," a "combine" which may be called the American "devilfi.sh,' 1 which by the excessive duties in its favor in the tariff schedules and by combination has been devouring the substance of the American people for nearly a century.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee and the country to the difference in the· price of sugar in the United States and elsewhere. To-day in Germany white granulated sugar can be brought "free on bo~rd '~ for export to this country at 3.10 to 3.18, and in England at about 3T cent.8 per pound. These are the latest quotations by cablegram. It costs to land this sugar in New York or at any of our seaboard ports about 30 cents per 100 pounds, which would make the German sugar cost a. little less than 3! cents and the English about 3 7 cents per pound. (If imported thi.s cost would be increased by the 40 cents per 100 pounds provided for in thi.s bill.)

Now, sir, these sugars are quoted to-day in New York and Philadelphia, which are the product of American refiners, at a fraction above 6 cents :per pound, making American-refined cost the American consumer 2i and 2l cents per pound, respectively! more than the German and English sugar.

Thedifferenceis madeup oftheduties and theexactionsofthe sugar "trust." Yellow refined sugars are sold in those countries at the same relative low rates as those I have quoted. In fact, so cheap is sugar in England, where it is imported free, that a large amount is con.sumed annually for feeding cattle.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to call your attention to how the tariff on sugar works on the people of thi.s country in regard to the cost of

· ~ their sugar as compared with the people of England, who have sugar free, as they have many other articles which they are not able to produce. I have examined the Stati.stical Abstract of the United Kingdom, covering a period from 1872 to 1886, inclusive. These statements show the consumption of sugar per ca pita in Great Britain for the years mentioned. In 1872 the people of that country consumed 49. 32 pounds of sugar per capita; in May, 18741 sag~rwas made free by act of Parliament. The consumption of sugar at once rose to56.42 pounds per capita, and nearly every year since there has been an increase in the consumption. In 1886 the consumption wa.s 75. 96 pounds per capita.

It may be well to ask how the taking off of the duty ha.s affected the prices to the Engiish consumer. I can find no reliable data as to the retail pri,ces in that country in 1872or1874, but this I do know, which can be verified from the quotation.s of sugar in England to-day, good white granulated sugar i.s quoted in the }>apers to the English consumer at 3~ to 4 cents per pound at retail. (It should be borne in mind that the large sales of sugar in that country, as in this, are in small amounts

• at retail.) The 76 pounds of sugar consumed annually by the Englishman costs him from $2.70 to $3.04 per capita, while the 52 pounds of sugar of the same quality costs.the American consumer $6.16. It is certain that if our people used the sa.me amount of sugar as the Englishman, the 76 pounds per capita, for which the Englishman pays at the out:Bide $3.04, the American wonld pay $5.77 to $6.16, according to the retail price thereof. This is the strongest argument that can be made for free sngar.

Our Democratic friends on the other &ide of the Chamber two years ago had a good deal to say about the cost of the poor man's blanket. If the duty as it exists to-day is taken off and sugar is made free, you will rave to every family composed of five persons the price of a pair of blankets every year, which can be bought in the United States at $3 to $5 per pa.ir, which are as good in quality and about as cheap in price as can be bought in Great Britain. Thus you save to the head of every American family consisting of five persons enough in each year to buy these blankets, thestrongestargumentthat can be made for free sugar. Sir, we should be swift to give our people this benefit which will accrue to every family in the land.

Mr. Chairman, by making raw sugar free you not only reduce the burden of taxation on the poor and rich alike, but you also stimulate many small industries which require capital and give employment to a large amount oflabor. The puttinl? up ofjam.s, jellies, and marmalade in England, where sugar is free, gives employment to thousands of people engaged in this industry, which is profitable to that people. Why, sir, we have imported of this class of goods, mainly from England,

of which sugari.s the largest expense, since 1867, $9,784,402, on which we have paid duty to the amount of $3,410,5901 aggregating the large sumof$13,194,792. Letmegiveyou another it.em: Wehaveimported, since 1871, $3,285,285 worth of condensed milk, which paid duties to the amount of $657,133, aggregating $3,942,418 in value.

We live in a country, Mr. Chairman, w~ich is blessed by Providence in a bountiful degree. We can and do raise all the fruits incident to the temperate and subtropical climates. We own more milch cattle than any people on earth. Yet by virtue of our sugar duties we have denied to our own people the right to use these product.s, and have compelled them to go to England and continental Ewope rather than to use our own bountiful and grand resources. By passing this bill you at once transfer this industry from abroad to onr own soil and thereby employ our own labor, and keep thi.s vast amount of money which we now pay out to other nations to be expended among our own people. .

Why, sir,, at Cedar Rapids, in my own St.ate of Iowa, which baa within her borders a·million and a half milch cows, some enterprising men started a factory to condense milk. Now, it requires to preserve one pound of milk half a pound of sugar. Unfortunately for our Iowa friends they overlooked the fact that sugar was 80 per cent. higher here than in other countries where they have sugar free. They found at the end of the Eeason that under this condition they could not live, and, sir, to-day th~t factory stands idle afl a monument to the folly of our sugar tariff. Sir, I want to see that Iowa factory and all kindred factories in this country in operation, supplying our own people to the extent of our wants. Does any business man or any man who has the welfare of hi.s country at heart doubt the wisdom of this policy?

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa [Ur.

GE.A..R] desires a few moments longer I ask unanimous consent that hiB time be extended.

The CHAIR1\1AN. Unanimous consent is asked that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GEAR] be permitted to conclude his remarks without J imi t as to time.

Mr. GEAR. I shall require but a few minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There was no objection, and it was so ordered. Mr. GEAR resumed his remarks, as follows: Again, Ur. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee

for a moment to the free sugar and molasses imported from the Sand· wich Islands under the provisions of the reciprocity act which went into effect September 9, 1876. By reference to the table which I have made up and which I will not detain the committee to read it will be seen that in 1877 the importation was small, being only a little over 30,-000, 000 pounds. The importation has steadily increa.sed year by year from that time until for the year .ending June 30, 18901 it amounted to over 243, 000, 000 pounds and over 12, 000. 000 gallon.s of molasses. Statement showing the quantities and values of molasses and brown sugar im-

ported from the Hawaiian Islands and entered fo1· consumption 1·n the United States fr01n 1877 to 1889, incltisive.

Total Estimated Year. Mola;;s~. Sugar. -value of duties sugar and remitted. molasses.

Galunu. Poimds. Dollars. Dollars.

1877 ·••·••••••·••••··••·•••···••··•••••• 138,072 30,642,081 2,131, 982 9 6,475.30

1878 •....•...........•..••...•••••••••.. 87,5-34 30,36 ,328 2,228,879 9 9,6J2.02 1879 .................................... 98, 112 41, G93,069 2,826, 129 1, 266, 554. 77 1880 .•..•.•.•••..•••••••••••..•.•••••••• 111, 950 61,556,324 4,155,322 1, 8&1, 563. 44 1881 ....••..•.•••••.•••..•...••.•..••... 198, 987 76,909,207 4, 962,058 2,4Z7, 777. 57

1882 ..... ··-········· ·················· 152, 700 106, 181, 858 6, 9'.1.),340 3, 314, 938. 90 1883 .....•.....•...•.•.•••••............ 238, 773 114, 132, 670 7,377,526 3, 554, 139. 9G

1884 ·············~····················· 163,347 125, 148, 6SO 7, 131,256 2, 959, 913. 39 1885 .................................... 71,649 • 169, 652, 783 8,207,198 3,937,\147.32 1886 ..............•..................... 61, 127 191, 733, 175 9,174,612 4, 435. 091. 90

1887 ••••••·••·····•··•••••······••····•• 113,574 218, 290, 836 9,270,063 5, 016, 380. 71 1888 ...•.•••••••••••••..•.•...••........ 52,582 2'.!8,540,513 10,266,4.65 5, 007, 200. 92 1889 .......•..•..••..••... ••............ 48, 140 343, 32!, 683 12,084,666 5, 210, 04.9. 55

Total ........................ 1,536,547 1, 638, 174., 206 86, 919, 496 40, 967, 635. 75

Had the sugar imported from those islands paid the same rate of duty as the sugar imported from other countries the duties received by the Government would have amounted to $40,967,655.

Now, l\Ir. Chairman, it i3 well understood that the sugar plantations of the Sandwich Islands are either owned or controlled in a large deirree by Americans; it is therefore clear to my mind that the people of the United States are being taxed indirectly for the benefit of the owners of tbose plantations, by reason of the fact that while Sandwich Island sugar comes in free it is at once brought up to the level of duty-paid sugar. -

At the rate of duty paid on sugar for the last fiscal year imported from other countries, the sugar from the Sandwich Islands would have paid over $5,000,000; in plain words, while we are ostensibly importing fre.e sugar from the Sandwich Islands we are in reality making a ''free gift'' of about $5, 000, 000 a year to the owners of the sugar plan-

.'

"' ·.-;'"ft; ...... .: - -j '~ -.-

~·: ·- ' ~ ·'

1890. -- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4391 tationsin those islands. Itisasmucha "free~" tothemasifwewere .to-day to vote them this amount from the 'treasury of the United 1States, for the reason that the sugar coming in from those islands free

1of duty is, as I have remarked before, brought up to the level of duty-• paid sugar.

As to the results of this treaty I quote from the able report made by the United States commission sent to inspect the sugar traffic in the 'Sandwich Islands which says:

Immediately on the consummation of the treaty which transferred the duty of fifty or sixty dollars per ton from the United States Treasury int-0 the pockets of the planter, a. great impetus was given to the sugar industry of the islands.

The acreage of the old plantations was at once increased and new plantations started.

This impetus resulted in seven years in bringing into cultivation over twenty thousand acres additional.

Again let me quote from his report: It appears that up to 1877 most of the better grades of Sandwich Island sugars

were sold in the markets of the Pacific coast direct for consumption. Early in that year San Francisco refiners made contracts to purchase a great part of the crop of the islands, and arranged with the planters to make as large a proportion as possible dark in color to meet the then existing tariff.

In other words, we were admitting sugars at that time under the Dutch standard of color, and the refiners at once arranged with the Sandwich Island planters, as they had formerly done with the Cuban and other planters of the world, to discolor the sugar by the use of lime, so that all the sugars should be imported as No. 13 or less, like the sample I hold in my hand, thus importing them at the lowest rate permitted in existing schedule, and thereby getting the advantage of compelling the people to use refined sugar whether they wished to do so or not.

This at once cut off the people of the Pacific coast from the use of light-colored suga,r and placed them under the "grippe" of the refin· ers in the same manner as are the consumers of all that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. If, Mr. Chairman, the statesman who negotiated and the Senate which adopted that treaty hoped that the people of_ California or the United States would get by its-result any cheaper sugar, it seems to me that they have b~!J- d~appointed. All I have to say is that the fact stands out and LS indisputable that sugar in place of being cheaper has been increased in value, the sole benefit of which increase bas accrued to the planters and re· finers alone.

l\Ir. CANNON. May I ask the gentleman a question? Mr. GEAR. Certainly. Mr. CANNON. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the

sugar which comes from the Sandwich Islands under the reciprocity treaty without the payment of duty commands the same price when it lands in our ports on the Pacific coast or elsewhere, and when it goes to the consumer, which the sugar commands which comes from Cuba and elsewhere and pays the duty of 2 cents a pound and over?

Mr. GEAR. Yes, sir. l\Ir. CANNON. So that therefore the consumer does not get the

benefit of the absence of duty on the sugar that comes from the Sand· wich Islands, but the advantage inures to the producer -of sugar in those islands.

Mr. GEAR. Precisely. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Is the gentleman sure that the same result

will not follow if we let in sugar free from every country where it is produced? _

Mr. GEAR. Does my C'llleague mean to ask whether I am sure that sugar will not be as high as it is to-day? ·

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Yes. Are you sure that it will be any lower? l\1r. GEAR. "Doubtful things are always uncertain;" but it is an

absolute fact that whenever you take a duty off of an article that we do not produce in this country the price goes down.

Mr. FARQUHAR. Provided we let sugar come in free of duty, what guaranty have we that the countries which export it will not put on export duties?

Mr. GEAR. We have provided for that in this bill. The bill provides that as to any country establishing an export duty on sugar the existing rate of duty shall be revived.

Mr. l.!'ARQUHAR. And that that duty shall be on a sliding scale. ]}fr. GEAR. The provision is that the present existin~ rate of duty

shall be revived as to sugar coming from any country that pots on an export duty.

Mr. FARQUHAR. We placed coffee on the free-list and Brazil asses.sedan export duty. Now, if we release sugar from all duty, what certainty have we that the countries which export it will not exact an export duty?

Mr. GEAR. As amatteroffact, therearesmallexport dutieslevied now upon sugar in several countries, but we provide in this bill that whenever any country shall levy an export duty which doea not exist now, that act shall ipso facto revive our existing sugar duties as to that country.

Mr. CANNON. Is it not true that when we took the duty off coffee we did not make a similar provision against an export duty on coffee?

Mr. GEAR That is true. Mr. McKINLEY. A mistake which we discovered too late. Mr. CANNON. Is it not true also that there is no export duty or

no higher export duty levied upon sugar sent to Great Britain, where

it is admitted free, than is levied upon sugar sent to this country? And is it not also the fact, as the gentleman has stated, that sugar is from 2 to 2! cents a pound cheaper in Great Brita.in than it is here?

l\Ir. GEAR. It is from 2 to 3 cents cheaper. Now, let me digress for a moment to illustrate what I have said about

the effect of taking off the duty from an article which we do not produce in this country. I was a merchant, and when we had a 3-cent duty on coffee I, in concert with my neighbors, imported a thousand bags of coffee to my own town. We held that coffee there in bond until the law went into opera~on taking off the duty, and on the succeeding day that coffee went down 3 cents a pound to the consumer. And, Mr. Chairman, if we had had the sagacity as a government to provide that no export duty should be put upon coffee by the countries exporting it without relialiation on our part we should have much cheaper coffee to-day. Welacked wisdom. But we have covered that point in this bill.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. You have done well. Mr. GEAR. Mr. Chairman, it would seem but natural to expect

that in California, into whose chiefport of San Francisco the Sandwich Island sugar is imported free, the people should have the benefi~ of low prices on sugar; but, sir, such is not the case. I quote from the San Francisco Journal of Commerce under date of February 6, 1889, in which it reviews the trade of that city for the year 1~89.-

The sales of groceries and other merchandise still go on increasing despite the complaint of dullness or the reverse. The total of the year is close on t-0 $63,00'J.OOO, an increase of nearly seven million and three-quarters over 1888. The most conspicious item in all this is the sugar business, the greatest on record . and which, valued at an average of 8 cents per pound, '"ives a total of $25,-000.()_00.

That treaty, in place of giving, as it was claimed, cheaper sugar to our people, has operated to make sugar dearer than it was before t.he adoption of the treaty.

Sir, this is not just nor fair. While I am not in favor of abrogating that treaty, yet I most heartily and earnestly favor the importation of sugars from all countries free, so that the '.'plain people'' of the United States may have the same advantages as the owners of the sugar plan ta· tions in the Sandwich Islands; so that "the people may be saved the amount of this annually increasing contribution.

Again; I notice in a letter written from the City of Mexico to tfie -Chicago Tribune, under date of February 4, that the question·of a reciprocity treaty between the United States and Mexico is urged with much force, especially in regard to admitting to our ports sugar free from Mexico. I will read an extract or two and will print the letter in the RECORD with my remarks: JllEXICA...~ SUGAR FOB THE UNITED S'.»ATES-HOPE FOR A REVISIOS OF THE TAnIFF

WHICH WILL AD:lIIT IT FREE OF DUTY.

CITY OF MEXICO, February 4. Great interest is felt in this country as to the possibility of a reciprocity treaty

being brought abou.t. with the United States free of duty, or even a revisio'n of the tariff, as is considered perhaps more probable, by either of which measures the raw sugars produced in .Mexico may be exported to the United States, or with so light an impost that there would be some encouragement for the development of the industry. Now that facilities have been afforded by the construction of railroads, giving the planters the means of obtaining improved sugar mills at a more reasona.ble price and an outlet on better t~rms for their product to the domestic markets, it is astonishing to see how quick they are to take advantage of the improved condition of affairs, and it is another evidence that the country is not so devoid of capital as has often been supposed by foreigners who, in a short visit, have acquired only a superficial knowledge of the real facts. If the Louisianians wish to grow sugar let them come here, where they will

be welcome, with their knowledge a.nd experience gained under difficulties in producing an article in a climate and latitude only half suited to the industry. Good land, far better adapted for sugar-raising than· anything in the United States, can still be had at moderate prices, and that the prospects for profit are good will be recognized at once from the facts that labor ilil cheap, and the yield on good sugar land in Mericois 75 per cent. in excess of that of Cuba, and even about 20 per cent. over that of Brazil, while the West Indian Islands, that have produced so much, and Louisiana, tliat has produced so little, comparali>ely speaking, are miles behind in productiveneS3.

Sir, while I am heartily in favor of cultivating reciprocal trade re· lations not only with Mexico, but also with our sister republics of South America, yet I would oppose duplicating the Hawaiian treaty in regard to sugar alone, for the reason that sugar coming free from those islands would be brought up in value to the level of duty-paid sugar from / other ·countries; the benefits of which would accrue alone to the own- · ers of the sugar plantations in those countries, and it would therefore follow that we would be paying ·by indirection a bounty to the sugargrowers of Mexico and any other country from which it might be admitted free, as I have shown we do on the sugar admitted free from the Sandwich Islands.

Sir, the right thing to do is to admit sugar free from all countries, but ifthe proposition of the committee to make sugar up to 16 free is adopted we shall at once have made a long step towards reciprocity, not only with Mexico, but also with those republics in South America which have been so recently in consultation in our nation's Capital, and in whose deliberations we have taken so much interest and so earnestly hope will lead up in the near future to most intimate reciprocal com· mercialrelations, which must be of immense advantage to the American people, as well as those of South America and Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, those who favor the present enormous rate of direct taxation which the American people have endured for a century

. -

-.

•I

.-

. I

--

--

. :o, ~ •. \.. . > •

4392 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J !'

MAY 9,

past, say that if this bill shall be enacted into law we are striking a blow at the cane-sugar industry of Louisianni, a blow that will destroy that industry, and also that we are inflicting an injury on the prospective beet and sorghum sugar development. Sir, this is not so. I, in common with the Republican members of the committee and House, do not intend to injure that or any other industry which exists on AmeriC.ln soil. We propose to take care of it by giving it a bounty equal to the amount of duty now imposed on sugar from foreign countries, which for the past year averaged 2 cents per pound.

We propose to give not only this bounty to the cane-growers of Louisiana, bnt also to the sugar-beet and sorghum growers of this whole country, so that if it be possible we may in the future be self-producing in this article, which is so necessary for our use and of which we consume over $200,000,000 worth annually. It has been suggested that it is unconstitutional to pay a bounty. I, for one, do not believe this, but, on the contrary, I believe it to be constitutional for Congress to do anything that may ''promote the general welfare ; '' and let me ask what greater welfare can be promoted than the making of the American people selC-snstaining in the production of this great staple? ._. Sir, the Emperor Napoleon, while he was a man of great ambition and like Alexander aspired to rule the world, yet with all his ambition was a far-sighted and sagacious statesman. With the prophetic vision of statesmanship he foresaw that by proper encouragement France could be made to produce her own sugar. It is his decree of March 11, 1811, that encouraged the growth of the sugar-beet in that country and the establishment of sugar factories, an encouragemant which has been maintained by the French Government to this day, so that now France has become one of the great sugar-producing countries of the world.

The same is true of Germany, for both of them grow not only all the sugar used a home, but are to-day large exporters of sugar to this and other countries. As a matter of fact, the beet-sugar industry, which only began to give really practical results within a few years, is to-day, as the result of wise encouragement given it, exceeding the amount of the world's production of cane sugar by nearly a million of tons per year. Slow-movin"g Austria and even semi-barbaric Russia have followed the example of France and Germany. '!'hose countries are to-day among the great sugar-proclucing countries of the world.

It has been said, Mr. Chairman, that ''whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow on the spot of ground where only one grew before would deserve better of mankind and would do more essential service to his country than theraceofpoliticiansputtogether." Sir, I do not see why the American people shonld not be encouraged by the same means which has accomplished such great results in other countries. Ifwe can do this, it seems to me that we shall have conferred a great blessing on the agricultural interests Of the United States-an industry which we all know to-day is in a languishing condition-by opening to them a new avenue of production which will be more certain and more remunerative than the raising of some other products. In addition, when you stimulate the beet industry you at once cause the erection of sugar factories in every hamlet which produces beets.

Do this, Mr. Chairman, and the Fifty-first Conp;ress will pass int-0 history as among those who '' deserve better of mankind and do more essential service to their country than the race of poll ticians put together.'' While some may object to a bounty being paid by our Government as a new departure, yet bounties have been pa.id by this Government indirectly for nearly a century on the product of sugar by the imposition of an enormous tax, a tax which has amounted to over fourteen hundred millions of do1lars, which, as I have shown, is a direct bounty to the growers of sugar-cane. We have given fishing bounties, and we are to-day encouraging exports of manufactured articles by granting drawbacks to the amount of duty paid.

Many of the States have given bounties, both indirect and direct; notably is this the case in Michigan, whose immense salt industry is to-day the result of the wisdom of her statesmen. Iowa, Kansas, and other States are offering bounties for the production of sorghum sugar.

The bounty question is not a new one. A hundred years ago Alexander Hamilton, who was not only one of the foremost men and statesmen of his times, a man whose hand-writing is in every line of our Constitution, a man who did more towards the molding of public sentiment of"his time than any other man, saw how desirable it was for the American people to be self-sustaining in this and many other articles. He was the first to advocate a system of bounties.

Let me quote from bis report on manufactures, in which he says: Bounties o.re sometimes not only the best but the only proper expedient for

uniting the enlo.rgement of a new object of ngTiculture with an object of manufacture.

.A.gain: It is the interest of the farmer to have the protection of the raw material by

counteracting the interference of the foreign material of the same kind. It is a species of encouragement more positi\'e and direct than any other and

for that very reason has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit and diminishing the risks of loss in the first attempts.

The gist of his argument is that bounties tend to reduce prices by competition from foreign markets. I quote his words:

Because after letting in a. new charge on the foreign article it serves to introduce a competition with it and increase the total quantity in market.

Again: And the farmer if the bounty be made to him is enabled by it to enter into

successful competition with the foreign material.

1\Ir. Hamilton sums up the whole protective doctrine in a few words when he says-

That a. duty upon the importation of the article can not otherwise a.id the domestic protection of it than by giving the latter greater advantages in the home market.

l\fr. KERR, of Iowa. Is not that the theory of free-trade doctrinaires all the world over?

~fr. GEAR. I do not know. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I know it is. .Mr. GEAR. The gentleman may be wiser than I am. He may have

had a revelation that has not reached me. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. It is in all the text-books. Mr. G EA.R. Mr. Chairman, I hear some objection made to a bounty

on the ground of its lack of permanency. It is proposed in the bill to give a bounty of 2 cents per pound on sugar grown from suj:i;ar-cane, sorghum, or from beet~, and it is conceded that if sugar can be produced from sorghum and beets it could be made a succ~ within that time. Objection is made on the ground that a subsequent Congress could cancel this bounty. That, Mr. Chairman, is unquestionably true; but the fact is that the Senate of the United States is to-day Republican and will be so for many years to come; the allotment of this bounty is in the nature of a contract between the sugar-producer and his Government, and it will be so considered, and in my opinion there will be no attempt made to disturb it; and in this connection let me say that in my deliberate judgment it is in the interest of the sugar-cane-growers who do not produce more than 10 per cent. of our sugar consumptiou to accept the provision of this bill, for, sir, so pronounced is the demand for free sugar that if this measure shall fail, the Fifty-second Congress, whether it may be Republican or Democratic, will be compelled to place sugar on the free-list, even if it shall be done without any protection to the American growers.

Sir, in the debate on the "trust" bill on May 2 the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MCMILLIN] stated that the Republican bill of the Ways and Means Committee was in the interest of the sugar trust by reason of the fact that it gives the refiners 40 cents per 100 pounds by way of protecting that industry. The majority of the committee rec· ognize the fact that the refining industry employs in its business a large number of men in many branches of lab9r. Many men are engaged in the labor of making the 11:500,000 barrels used annually by the refining industry. It requires, sir, 30,000 kegs of nails to nail the . hoops of these barrels. Many are also engaged in other branches of this industry. Sir, the majority of the committee believe that this labor should be kept employed at fair wages at home rather than have the refining business transferred to foreign countries.

Let me call the attention ot my friend from Tennessee to the difference hetween this bill and the Democratic bill, the passage of which the gentleman so eloquently discussed and urged two years ago. The Democratic bill made a horizontal cut of 20 per cent., thereby reducing the revenue $12,000,000 annually. The Democratic bill preserved the differential rate in favor of the refiners at from 60 cents to about $1 per hundred pounds. Let me also call the attention of the gentleman from 'l'ennessee [Mr. :MCMILLIN] to the additional fact that the first bill which came from his committee two years ago made the dividing line at No. 16, but it has been stated and not denied that when the sugartrust people came over here from New York, No. 16 was stricken out and No. 13 inserted in the bill, thereby forcing e>ecy pound of sugar imported through the melting-kettles of the refiner. _

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do I understand that the consumer can use this No. 16 sugar without further refining?

Mr. GEAR. Yes, sir. The consumer can use No. 14 or Ne. 16; and he can use No. 13 when it is washed. When No. 13 is washed it is a good, handsome sugar. I have sold thousands of hogsheads of it.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. But No. 14 and No. 16 can be used without refining or washing?

Mr. GEAR. Certainly. Sir, the difference between this and that bill is simply this: The Re

publican bill admits sngar up to and including No. 16 free and gi>es the refiner the fair protection of four-tenths of a cent per pound.

This bill, in addition, relieves the American people of an enormous tax of over $55,000,000 annually, while the Democratic bill, if it had been enacted into law, would have perpetuated this burdensome tax. Our bill is in the interest of the people, while the Mills bill was directly opposed to their interest, not only in this regard, but also in many others.

The economy to the people of the proposed bounty is stated in the majority report of the Committee on Ways and Means, that the sugar duties inl889 amounted t-0 $55,975,610. The amount of money required to pay the bounty on last year's crop in Louisiana is ~timated at $7,000,000, thus saving to the people $48,975,610 thlS~ year. If the amount of sugar produced should increase of course th& amount of the bounty would increase; but taking the average of pro- · duction of cane sugar for the past ten years, the bounty would no~

,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4393 amount to more than $5,500,000 a year, unless the beet and sorghum industry should prove to be the success we all earnestly hope for.

In the event that the desired result of producing sugar from beets and sorghum shall approximate our w~ts in the time designated for the payment of the bounties (fifteen years), then we can give those sorghum and beet-sugar-producers protection by a suitable tariff.

The political effect in passing this bill on the fortunes of the colored man in the South is, to my mind, fraught with great results, in that it will aid in making him self-sust:liningandself-reliant. It will result in breaking up the large holdings of land which are to-day in the hands of but few people in the cane-sugar-growing districts.

The negro and the poor white man alike will be stimulated by the incentive of the bounty to acquire and cultivate small pieces of land on his own account in place of being tied by circumstances of his condition (as he is to-day) to labor at low wages fo.r the large land-holders and wealthy planters.

In support of this view I ask the Clerk to read the following extract from The Cmsader of New Orleans of March 29, 1890, a paper which is the recognized organ of the colored people of that State:

THE SUGAR TARIFF.

The House Wa.ys and Means Committee propose to make a. cut in the ta.rift on imported sugar. This is a. move in the right direction. It is proposed legislation in the interest of the poor people and the working classes, to whom the necessaries of life 11hould be made· as cheap as possible_ It is as foolish as it is unjust to tax 60,000,000 of people ~1 a. head for the benefit of a couple of hundred suga.r planters who never can make more than a.bout one-tenth of the staple necessary for the home consumption. Moreover, a. deep cut in the ta.riff would so reduce the price of land as to bring it wi\hin the reach of acquisition by the laboring people. Under present conditions, the land is so high that they can never hope to own a home. It was the fashion at one time, whenever a. cut in the sugar tariff was threat

ened, for Republicanaand la.borers to hold conventions, send delegates to Washington to importune Republican Sena.tors or petition Congress to let the tariff alone. The motive of this oourse wa.s more sentimental than rational.

In those days North Louisiana. was the section of the State which was under the rule of the cruel bulldozers. In the suga.r district we enjoyed peace; we were allowed to vote a.nd our ballots were counted. We ca.me to look upon the sugarplantera as our friends; we believed that in recognition of the services of the Republicans in Congress in keeping the ta.riff on sugar, even against the strenuous efforts of Democrat~c Cona-ressmen of Louisiana to remove it, they would never permit the atrocities practiced in North Louisia.na. to be perpetra.ted upon us in the lower section of the State. But, alas I we were mistaken. We had been helpinit', the Republicans in Congress had been helping, through our intercession, a lot of hypocrites and black-hearted Republican-haters and negro-haters.

After Clevela.nd was elected, a.nd when it began to look as if he would be reelect-ad and the Democrats assured of a. long lease of power, the mask was torn off and all dis~uise thrown away, and the suga.r-planters appeared in their true colors, the most grasping, exacting, and insolent employers of labor. They ruthlessly put their heels on the necks of the la.borers and paid them wha.t wages they wanted, and when the latter pleaded for bread they ga.ve them lead; they cruell:v. shot them to death like beasts. They seized the power in one of the richest Congressional districts of the State, and they rule its politics with the arrogance of autocrats. "None can go to Congress but a sugar-planter" is the dictum,

A deep cut in the tariff would free the laborers from the thra.lldom of their overbearing- taskmasters and the citizens of the said Congressional district from the autocratic rule of an oligarchy of a. few large la.nded proprietors.

.Any legislation, Mr. Chairman, that will aid in bringing about this much-desired result seems to me to be of the highest character of statesmansbi p.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the main opposition t-0 this bill comes from Canada and other foreign countries, the importers, and their allies, the free-trade Democratic party.

Mr. Chairman, if this bill shall pass it will, in my opinion, giv~ renewed activities to American industries and at once accelerate the confidence and prosperity which are to-day so apparent as the result of the triumph of the Republican policies. [Loud applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, there is no question in which the people we represent are more directly interested or in which they are more deeply concerned than in thequestionoftaxation. Everycitizenfeels, or ought to feel, that it is his dnty to contribute so much of his substance, so much of that which he owns, so much of that which belongs to him, to the support of the Government as is essential for its economical and honest administration. He also feels, oroughtto feel, that any claim that he should contribute more than this is unjust, and that any law requiring him to do so is oppressive. The power to take from the citizen any part of that which is his own without pecuniary compensation and without hi<1 consent is only accorded to the state; and where civilization · and enlightened liberty exist the state itself is permitted to take so much, and so much only, as is necessary to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country.

The people of the United States view with some alarm and much discontent the financial situation in which they find themselves: great wealth in the possession of a small clas.s; laborers in manufacturing establishments restless and dissatisfied with their earnings; agriculture, foremost in magnitude and importance in our country, languishing, and millions of surplus money in the Treasury of the United States. This condition, sir, has been brought about largely if not wholly by the unequal and unjust tariff laws imposed upon the people of the United States by the Republican party. Every dollar of the millions which annually flow into the Treasury of the United States is ta.ken out of the pockets of the people of the United States. Our friends the protectionists talk about taxing foreigners for the privilege of selling

in our market in a way that indicates that they believe, or are trying to make somebody else believe, that it is possible and they have found a way of obtaining money for the support of our Government by collecting it from the people of foreign countries. On its face that proposition would seem to be absurd. Of course no ordinarily intelligent man will question for a moment the fact that the people of the United States themselves contribute every dollar that goes into the Treasury of the United States.

This being the case, it is quite apparent that the people are vitally concerned in knowing why it is and in understanding how it is that so Jarge an amount of that which represents to each ot them Jabor and toil should. be taken from them and accum u1ated as a surp1 us in their Treasury. I believe that our Republican friends generally at last concede• that a tariff is a tax. I know that a few distinguished gentlemen in this debate have denied that proposition, but the intelligent people of tbe UnitedS~tes,nottobelongerdeceivedbytbesophistriesofthosedirectly and pecuniarily interested in blinding them to the truth, will recognize and realize that any law which imposes a duty upon articles imported into this country for consumption imposes a tax which goes into the Treasury oftbe United States, and which is ultimately paid by those persons in the United States who consume the articles so imported.

1\:Ir. HILL. Will itinterruptthegentleman fromGeorgiaforaque.stion at this time ?

Mr. CRISP. It will interrupt me very much at the present moment. From foreign countries there came to the United States during the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, manufadnred cotton goods valued at $28, 917, 799. Before these goods could be entered and put upon the market here our tariff laws required the payment of duties to the amount of $11,491,897. That sum was paid into the 'l'reasury of the United State~, and added to the original cost of the goods made their value to the persons who brought them here $40,409,676. The goods were sold to and consumed by the people of the United States. Was not this duty a tax, and did not the people in the United States who consumed the manufactured cotton goods pay it?

During the same year there came to the United States from foreign countries more than $6,000,000 worth of earthenw~re and crockery, which paid duties amounting to more than $3,500,000 and which was sold to and consumed by our people; there came also over $40,000,000 worth of flax, hemp, jute, and manufactures thereof, which paid duties of more than $10,000,000 and were sold to and consumed by our people. Nearly$49,000,000worthofiron and steel, in all its forms, came here, paid more than $21, 000, 000 duties, was sold to and consumed byour people. We imported nearly $48, 000, 000 worth of wool and clothing that paid duties amounting to nearly $37,000,000, which was sold to and consumed by our people. The total value abroad of all dutiable articles brought to the United States that year was about $480, 000, 000; the duties paid on them amounted. to about$220,000,000; so that these goods really cost our people who bought and consumed them $700,-000,000.

Does anybody believe that the importer of an article, which he afterwards sells for consumption, does not add the amount of the duty or tax he pays to the Government to the original cost in fixing the price at which he can afford to sell the article to the consumer? Does anybody believe the foreign manufacturer pays to the United States $220,-000,000 for the privilege of getting into our market, and then does not sell his goods at such a price as to reimburse himself for the amount thus paid?

Why, you bad as well tell the people that they do not pay the freight upon any article which they buy, that they do not pay for the labor that enters into it, or that they do not pay for the raw material of which it is composed. Every article that comes here for sale is charged with every item of expense which it incurs up to the time of delivery to the consumer, and either the consumer pays it all or else the seller pursues a losing trade.

Mr. Chairman, it tn.ust be conceded that a tariff upon is a tax upon any article which is brought to this country from a foreign port; that the tax is paid primarily by the importer and that it is recollected by him from each individual to whom he sells a yard of cotton cloth or a suit of clothes, or to whom he sells the iron that he uses or any other imported article embraced within the tariff schedules.

Mr. BAYNE. That is only as to the imported articles? .Mr. CRISP. I am dealing entirNY with the imported article now. Mr. RAINES. If the importer gets it all back why is the gentle-

man so anxious that there should not be any duty? Mr. CRISP. I infer from the question of the gentleman that he does

not believe the consumer pa.ys the duty and that he thinks that in some way we can collect our duties or taxes from the foreigner. My friend, if you can only demonstrate our ability to do that you will become the greatest benefactor the world has seen. We will raise thousands of millions by taxing the people of foreign countries, reward every domestic industry with any amount of bounty they want, and erect a magnifi.cent monument t-0 your memory. Such a proposition, Mr. Chairman! say it respectfully-is preposterous.

A tariff is a tax. The present law with which I am now dealing imposes upon dutiable articles coming to this country a tax of about 44 per cent. ad valorem; that is, 44 cents on each dollar or $44 on each

~--r

. '

...

- l

- .. _- .e.

4394 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. MAY9,

flOO worth of such article.s 0

brought here. This is I believe the high-est rate ever imposed, and practically bas been the rate for the past ·t~enty-five years. We have seen what effect this high duty has upon the cost of an imported article to the consumer; now let us see what 'effect it has upon the price of our American product to our American consumers. Perhaps I ought to state the theory of the protectionists as ·to what its effect upon the home market would be before I show you what its effect has been.

They claim that protective-tariff laws are advantageous to the people of this country in this, that they hold the American market for the .American producer or manufacturer, and that whilst the imposition ot the duty may temporarily make the protected article higher the en-

• couragement to the manufacturer by driving out European competition so stimulates production in this country that the increased production and the competition in the home market bring down the price of the article to the consumer lower than it was before the tariff was laid. I think I have stated fairly the claim made by the protectionists in this respect.

I am one of those, Mr. Chairman, who believe that in determinin~ a policy which is to affect every individual in the United States, rich or poor, high or low, we should as far as possible be guided by our own experience rather than by theory, no matter how distinguished the theorist may be. Now, what is the present condition of the American market? Ninety per cent. perhaps-I do not undertake to be precisely accurate as to the amount- 90 per cent. perhaps of the manufactured articles used in this country are now produced by the domestic manufacturers. The existing law has given them a market, practically without foreign competition, in very many manufactured articles, and the re.sultis,_speaking generally, that our people pay a higher price for such articles in the American market than is pa~d by the people for corresponding articles in other countries where the tariff is much lower or where there is no tariff at all

Mr. BAYNE. Will my friend allow me now to interrupt him and give him a fa.ct?

Mr. CRISP. Yes, sir. Mr. BAYNE . .I believe, with the gentleman, that we should deal

with experience on this question, and not with theories. Now take carpets, on which the duties have been practically prohibitory. I say that carpets in this country are now sold cheaper than anywhere else in theworld.

Mr. CRISP. It does not at all controvert the position that I assume to single out a given article which, for many reasons, might be produced here differently or on a cheaper sea.le than elsewhere, and say that that is an answer to the proposition I make. If the theory of the protectionist is true, there ought now to be, after twenty-five years of protective and in many instances prohibitory tariff laws, such a general reduction in the cost of manufactured articles in this country aa to demonstrate the truth of the claim that protection cheapens and does not increase the cost of the article protected.

Mr. BAYNE. Now, I beg to say my friend is getting upon theory, and not relying upon experience, which, according to his postulate, he should rely upon.

Mr. CRISP. I am talking now about theory, it is true, but it is the theory of the protectionists; and I say that experience has falsified their theory.

Mr. Chairman, if experience had demonstrated the truth of the theory that a high protective tariff reduces. the cost to the consumers of this country of the price of the article so protected, is it not most extraordinary that we find our manufacturers so constantly and so clamorously around this Capitol demanding more protection? Is it your observation that the p~e of a law which will diminish the price of what men have to sell is so desirable to them that they will travel hundreds of miles and haunt the corridors of the Capitol to obtain the passage of such a law? Why is it that the protected industries of this country demand the continuance of a. system the effect of which they themselves say bas been to reduce the price of what they have to sell? If, Mr. Chairman, "protection" is not intended to enable the producer of the protected article to obtain a higher price for that which he produces than h.e would otherwise obtain, bow does "protection" protect, from wbi:im does it protect, and for what purpose does it protect?

In truth, Mr. Chairman, ~ the cost of tue foreign commodity is increased to the consumer by the amount of the duty, which goes into the Treasury of the United States, so the price of the domestic article is increased to the consumer Yery nearly, if not quite, the amount ot the duty, which goes into the pocket of the protected manufacturer. His protection consists of putting a burden upon the goods of his competitor which forces him to add the burden to the price, and thereby enables the American manufacturer to sell his goods at about the same price as the foreign article; thus the burden, which in both cases the consumers pay, is a tax as to foreign goods and a "protection '' as to home manufactures.

As to laborers in manufacturing e.stablishments and as to the farmers of the country, I am sure the present tariff law has been injurious. We find from experience that the imposition of a high duty upon the foreign article enables the domestic manufacturer at once to sell his

product at an increased price..1 and when we hope we have about reached that state of domestic competition which our Republican friends claim will result in lower prices to the consumer than he had before the imposition of the duty on foreign articles, behold these same manufacturers enter into an agreement or combination, sometimes called a trust, the purpose and object and effect of which are to keep up and maintain prices, so that the consumers do not in fact get the cheap goods which we were to1d domestic competition would give them.

Our tariff laws .destroy or prevent foreign competition. They thus reduce the number of those who supply our market with such prod nets; and as they diminish the number of those competing for the market they also make it more easy for that number to combine with each other for the purpose of increasing the price of what they have to sell. Laws which reduce the number of those who may sell in a given market are in furtherance of combinations and trnsts. The greater the num. her of those who compete for a given market the more difficult it is for them to combine to increase prices .

There may be combination where there is no restriction, but this general rule cannot be denied, that it is much more difficult to form combinations and trusts to increase the price of an article, where there are a large and unlimited number of its producers, than it is where the number of those who nroduce it is small and restricted.

The laborers in our manufactnrin~ establishments want reasonable wages and steady employment. They and their families must live from their daily or weekly wages. What is the situation of this class in this country? What effect has the present law had upon their employment and condition? Grant, if you please, thattheyreceiverea.sonablewage.s for the time they are employed, still their condition is not satisfactory, because their employment is not steady.

Our manufacturers must pay a duty on the raw material they use. When they do this they can not sell their goods in foreign countries in competition with those foreign manufacturers who get free raw material. The foreign market therefore is denied to them; theymnstrely upon the home market. When this is supplied, and as to some articles we make more now than we consume, the mill stops or runs on half time, and the workmen either get only half wages or none at all. Most of our manufacturers seem not to want a. foreign market for their goods; the "American market for Americans," is their cry.

Mr. Chairman, to constitute a market there must be buyers and sellers. _ The buyers of manufactured articles in this country are numbered by millions, the sellers are numbered by thousands. The millions who buy want cheap goods, the thousands who sell want hlgh prices. Left alone, the law of supply and demand would satisfactorily regulate prices in this market, but the thousands who sell do not want to be let alone; they want a law which drives ont many who want to beeome sellers, thus restricting the number of those who sell and en· abling them to get a higher price for their goods from the millions who buy. Naturally, the millions who buy are Americans; they must be. The thousands who sell may or may not be. The cry of the ''American market for Americans" means only that none but Americans shall have the privilege of selling in the American market.

Why .should this be demanded if it did not enable the seller to get a higher price for his goods? And why, I ask, should ~his privilege be granted when its only effect is to impose an additional and unnecessary burden upon millions of our people in order that some thousands may "reap where they have not sown."

But let us look, Mr. Chairman, at the condition of the farmer in this country after twenty-five years of Republica!l protective-tariff laws. I understand our Republican friends now claim to be the champions of the farmer.

Even the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GEAR], who joins his RepubIica,n colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means in reporting the pending bill, quoted some lines of Dean Swift to express his admiration for the farmers of the country; and yet this bill, so unjust and oppressive to the farmers of the United States-this bill, which takes from the farmers money that justly belongs to them and transfers it to others having no claim thereto, receives the unanimous sanction of the Republican majority in this House.

Bnt" before reviewing the pending bill it is well to look at the present condition of the farmer ; it is well to know what evil has grown up under the exist ing law, and then we can more readily determine how to avert such evil and if possible proYide against its continuance.

The farmer of this country under the present law is taxed upon almost every manufactured article be buys. I have the honor to represent an agricultural district whose chief product is cotton. The principal marketable crop of tbe Southern States is cotton. In many of the Western States the principal marketable crop is wheat, and in others corn. For this class of farmers I now speak. The present tariff law imposes !li heavy burden upon every manufactured article they buy. Will any gentleman on that side of the House-say for instance from Kansas-explain to the country what benefit the Kansas corn-raiser has derived from the present tariff law?

It is very easy to show the burden it puts upon him. It is very easy to demonstrate that he is, by reason of that law, forced to pay more for the clothing he wears, ~at he is forced to pay more to dress his children, that he is' forced to pay more for hls crockeryware, that

, .. ..

.•,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4395 he is forced to pay more for the plow that turns up the earth than he ought to pay; that the prices ot all these articles are increased by what you call a protective and what we call an oppressive system. V{e can demonstrate that. Can you suggest any benefit he derives from it? Your old argument was that in return for these burdens he was furnished a home market for his produce. Where is his home market ? Where is the home market of the Kansas corn-raiser to-day? He is burning the corn that cost him mouths of privation and toil, because he can not find this home market. Why not tell him where it is? Will you tell him that you have, by putting a tariff on butter ar1:d cheese, furnished a borne warket for farmers who produce sn$ articles, and that therefore he who does not produce them must bear his burdens and be satisfied? Where is the home market for the Minnesota farmer who raiseJ wheat, when we produce many millions more bushels of it each year than 1.he people of this country can consume?

Where is the home market for the cotton-raiser of the South when one.-third of the crop only is needed to supply the home demand?

The Republican tariff Jaw, after twenty-five years of effort, has not created a home ma•ket for the millions of farmers engaged in raising corn, and wheat, and cott.on. Two-thirds of the raw cott.on raised in this country finds its market in Liverpool. There it comes in competition with cotton made by the cheapest labor in the world, the cooly labor of India. The Liverpool market regulate.3 not only the price of cotton there, but the price of cotton at home. The same is true of our surnlus wheat and ot our surplus corn, when we can export it all. The tariff law furnishes to these no home market and it affords to those engaged in their production no protection against the competition of the pauper labor of Europe or of India. Who, then, reaps advantage and wealth from our present enormously high protective-tariff laws?

I answer, Mr. Chairman, a few manufacturers, who may be justly termed a privileged class. Our present merciless tariff system does not create wealth; it only prevents its ng,tural distribution; it takes from t.he many to enrich the few; it makes exactions, small in amount from each from millions of our people, which go into the pockets of the few.' Never until recent years have there been built up in this country such immense fortunes as exist here now.

Gentlemen on the other side point to our national wealth as an evidence of the general prosperity of the people. Mr. Chairman, the wealth of this country has increased marvelously in the last tweutyfive years, but unfo1·tunately it is not distributed among the people; the masses grow poor, the privileged classes grow rich.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKINLEY] in picturing the blessings that the present law had brought us calls attention to the fact that last year our exports amounted to the magnificent sum of $745,131, 652. Does not the gentleman know, or did he forget to state, that of that enormous sum $503, 000, 000 was derived from the sale of agricultural products, the production of which the protective tariff in no wise furthered; that $123,000,000 of it was bread.stuffs; that $101,000,000 of it was provisions; that $237,000,000 of it was raw cott.on; that $18,-000,000 of it was unmanufactured tobacco, and that $18,000,000 was from the sale of live animals? Three-fourths of this great mass of exports which our Republican friends claim to be the result of protection were produced by those people in this country who derive no benefit from protection, but, on the contrary, suffer positive and distinct injury from it.

Our Republican friends point to the fact that in the past twenty-ft ve years there has been a great reduction in the price of manufactured articles, and claim all this as due to the present protective system. They forget that something is due t.o science and art and invention.

Why sir, twenty-five years ago one man perhaps was engaged all day in making a pair of sboes; the pay that he received for that pair of shoes had to include a sufficient sum for labor to support him, and, therefore, necessarily, the price of shoes was considerable. Now, a machine has been invented which, with the aid of two or three men, will make 100 pairs or perhaps 200 pairs of shoes in a day. Under such circumstances ought not the price of shoes to be reduced?

Mr. WAL KER, of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman permit a question?

JI.Ir. CRISP. If it is to the point. l\Ir. WALKER, of 1'tlassach11setts. I want to ask the gentleman

whether those machines were invented by mechanics or by farmers, and whether 1t is not the fact that every machine which is used for making boots and shoes, or used upon leather in any way, was invented in this country. There was not a machine of that kind in Europe twenty-frrn years ago, and there were none here until our mechanics invented them.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, my friei;id can not go further than I can in praic;ing American genius and American ingenuity--

Mr. WALKER, of Massachusetts. But you would smother it and not give it a chance to live. .

Mr. CRISP. But, 1\Ir. Chairman, the gentleman can go very much further tba.n I can in assailing the great agricultural industry of this country in the interest, or the supposed interest, oflthose whom he represent<> on this floor. I say that the gentleman has no kind of right to assume that if there had been no tariff there would have been no invention, that if there had been no tariff there would have been no effort

on the part of inventive genius in America to do all that it could do to facilitate production and consequently to cheapen prices. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. OUTHW AITE. That is their doctrine, though. Mr. WALKER, of Massachusetts. But can mechanics exist unless

they have a chance to live and to develop their capacity? And is it not the fact that invention is always most active in connection with high wages, that the use of machinery is in proportion to high wages, and that machinery can not be used profitably where wages are low? Why do they spade up the soil in Italy instead of plowing it?

Mr. OUTHW AITE. Italy is a protection country. Mr. CRISP. Oh1 Mr. Chairman, theargumentofthegentlemanfrom

Massaehusetts is the old stock argument of the protectionists. 1\fr. WALKER, of Massachusetts. Probably it is. Mr. OUTHW AITE. That is their theory. Mr. CRISP. That is their theory now, but Ur. Garfield in 1878,

when speaking of the prosperous condition of this country during the low-tariff period from 1850 to 1860, on this very question of patents said:

As an exhibit of the activity and industry of our people, forty-eight hundred e.nd nineteen patent.s were issued at the Patent Office in 1860, eleven hundred more than the average number for the three years preceding.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that gentlemen on the other side need not be afraid that any legislation they may p~s or fail to pass can prevent American genius and American enterprise from doing all that man can do to diminish the cost of production of the necessaries of life. [Ap· plause on the Democratic side.] It is altogether absurd to claim what my friend here claims for protection. He claims for protection the vast crops of wheat and corn and cotton that the farmers make and send out of the country. Then he claims for protection e\ery invention that is made. Why, sir, the stimulus to invention is the protection provided in the patent law for the inventor.

l\Ir. W ALKER1 of Massachusetts. Can you conceive of anything that goes further in the line of protection than a patent? If you can, will you name it?

Mr. SPRINGER. That is a. monopoly. Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the patent law, as I un

derstand it, is to stimulate inventive genius; and in order to do this the law says ton. man, ''If you will discover anything that is useful to mankind, that tends to diminish the cost of living or tends to minister to the comfort or ease of the people, the state will agree that you shall ha·ve the monoply of the manufacture and sale of the article for a limited period-seventeen years." The difference between that and the protective system advocated by the gentleman from Uassaehusetts is that under the latter you say to the raiser of cott.on, ''We can not in this country compete with the labor of Europe in the production of tin-plate; therefore we must take part of your earnings and give to the producer of tin-plate in this C9nntry so as to enable him to make what he can not otherwise make."

Mr. WALKER, of Massachusetts. Is not that true of a pa.tent? l\Ir. CRISP. Not at all. The patent secures to an individual for a

limited period that which is bis by reason of discovery. Your system takes from one individual by force that which is his by reason of his labor and gives it to another. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Again1 Mr. Chairman, our friends who advocate a high protective tariff tell us-Brother McKINLEY told us the other day-that all the vast railway systems which traverse this country owe their existence to the protective tariff. There seems to be nothing on earth or under the earth which yon gentlemen do not claim for your protective tariff system, except the distressed and impoverished condition of the farmers, which it has really caused; and you attribute that to something else. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I have shown I think the effect of the present law upon the farmers. I now want to call attention for a few moments to the remedy which gentlemen on the other side propose for the existing condition of affairs. I read from the report of the majority of the Committee on Ways and l\feans:

The committee have given months of investigation to tne e~isting conditions of agriculture and matters connected therewith. This great industry is foremost in magnitude and importance in oar country. Its success and prosperity are vital to the nation. No prosperity is possible to other industries if agriculture languish. In so far as the fostering care of Government can be helpful, it :nust be faithfully and forcefully exerted to buiid up and strengthen agriculture.

That there is wide-spread depression in th is industry to-day can not be doubted. Every remedy within thescopeof practical legislation known to your committee has been recommended in the proposed measure to meet the urgent requirements of the situation.

The enemies of the protective system have no word of criticism for the real causes of agricultural depression, no suggestion of relief from the real burdens which are weighting it dc.wn to-day; but, seizing the presen ta.s a favorable time, they solemnly charge that the decline in our market is solely due to the to.riff.

They are pleased to ignore the fact that one of the purposes of a protective tariff is to hinder a still larger importation of foreign produce, and thus save the market from still greater depression.

The friends of larger foreign importations feel no apprehension or alarm at the rapidly increasing volume of foreign agricultural produce pouring into our markets. These and all other actlual perils they pass by. They are silent to this danger which offers real he.rm to American agriculture and clamor against its only safeguard and protection.

But your conunittee,sensible to the importance of this industry, prompted by the single motive to lift it to the highest level of profitable employment, be-

_.

1.-

.·

-'

)

. '~'ft . ' ...... . ~ 1' • I

; ., .~

4396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_..:HOUSE.

lieve that they offer in the bill presented all the relief which tariff legislation can give to it.

How many agriculturists, how many men who raise cotton and com and wheat did the committee have before them? How much consideration have they given to the real interests of agriculture? They tell you they have µ:iven months. We hear everyday and see in the newspapers that representatives of this or that protected industry come down and clamor--

Mr. MASON. May I ask the gentleman a question? Mr. CRISP. If it is on this point . .l\Ir. MASON. It is a qnestion for information. Mr. CRISP. If it is on the matter I am talking about I will yield. Mr. MASON. You wanted to know how many gentlemen engaged

in the cotton business were before tbe committee. Mr. CRISP. No, sir; I said how many raisers of raw cotton. Mr. MA.SON. Well, I want to ask you--Mr. CRISP. Oh, you said you wanted to ask me a question, and

now yon are adopting the Irish rule of answering one question qy asking another.

Mr. MASON. I ask yon this question--Mr. CRISP. When you get the floor I shall be glad to have you call

me up, and then I wil-1 answer you. l\Ir. MASON. I simply want to know whether a single man has been

refused a hearing before that committee? Mr. CRISP. These gentlemen who have spent sleepless nights for

months considering the depressed condition of agriculture bring in a remedv, as they say, for all these evils. Not a single raiser of cotton, I venture to say, was heard. I will venture that no 13uggestions have been made in favor of a high protective tariff by the corn and wheat raiser, but we have seen in the morning paper for months past that somebody from the steel association in Pittsburgh, or some other protected industry in New York or Rhode Island, or the boot and shoe men from Massachusetts were there.

Oh, yes, they were on hand, and whenever it was given out in the newspapers that the Committee on Ways and Means had agreed on such and such a rate these men-these vultures you might call them, who have been fattening on the people for a quarter of a century-came around to see that there was a fair divide and that their ''privileges" were not disturbed. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. BA.YNE. But your importers were around, too, representing British houses. .

Mr. CRISP. Consideration for everybody in this country except the farmers. But I have no doubt they are a class for whom my friend from Pennsylvania does not entertain a very high respect.

Mr. BAYNE. Oh, the gentleman is mistaken; I wa.'J born and raised amongst them and represent many of them. [Applause on the Retmblican Bide.]

Mr. CRISP. But you have abandoned the home of your childhood and you have gone to Pittsburgh, where every manufacturer believes that the Government of the United States has the right and power and it is its duty to give him the privilege of plundering the rest of the country so as to increase his profits at the expense of some other class. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. HILL. Will the gentleman yield for a question just here? Mr. CRISP. Well, if it is pertinent. Gentlemen have exhausted a

great deal of my time, and I would prefer to be excused from yielding. The CHA.~RMAN. The Chair desires to suggest to the gentleman

from Georgia that he has occupied something over forty-five minutes. Mr. CRISP. Then, Mr. Chairman, I must decline to yield. Mr. HILL. The question is this--Mr. CRISP. I have no time to yield. Mr. HILL. I will give you the time to answer. Mr. CRISP. But you have no time to give. [Laughter.] Mr. HILL. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may have

time to answer a question. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is not in order.

The gentleman has no right to interrupt the gentleman from Georgia without his consent.

Mr. CRISP. Now, Mr. Chairman, a moment further. The Committee on Ways and Means in their report realize the de

pressed condition of agriculture, and use the following language: But your commUtee, sensible to the importance of this industry, prompted

by the single moth·e to lif\i it to the highest level of profitable employment, believe that they offer in the bill presented all the relief which tariff legislation can give to it.

That relief, Mr. Chairman, which it is exhaustive of the power of tariff legislation to give, is to increase the duty on corn from 10 to 15 cents a bushel, when only 3,200 bushels came from abroad la.st year to compete for our market, and we sent more than 60, 000, 000 bushels into the foreign market. It is to give to the wheat-grower 25 cents duty instead of 20 cents when we sent abroad nearly 50,000,000 bushels of wheat last year, and there was brought here less than 2,000. The bill does not even pretend to protect the producer of cotton. Perhaps my friend from Massachusetts may say, if the bill afford:! to the farmer all the protection which under the tariff syst~m it is possible to give him, why is not the farmer satisfied? [Laughter.]

I say to him that the school to which I belong believe that the essence of justice and fairness in the collection of taxes from the people is equality. If you can devise a system which will help everybody in the country ~hen it might be called just. If the system you have devised is so inherently weak or so peculiar in its character that the millions of producers of cotton, the millions of producers of wheat, and the millions of producers of corn can receive no benefit, but only injury from it, in God's name, my friend, modify your system and adopt one under which they can have some sort of chance in the race of life. [Applause on the Democratic side.] That idea seems not to have occurred to the Ways and Means C-Ommittee. They are pledged, and say so, to the principle of protection. They offer a sop to the farmer. They put a duty on his goods, when the truth is, and they know it, that no duty can do the raiser of corn and of cotton and of wheat any good whatever.

They bring in a bill en titled ''A bill to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, nnd for other purposes." The word "equalize" might seem to imply that they believe equal advantages should be extended to all avocations and to all people. Not at all. Their idea of equality will be discovered in the bill. It is to continue the unjust system which has aheady created a privileged class in this country, the system which enables a small class of persons to have entire control of our market, the system which enables this small number of people to com· bine and confederate together to plunder and oppress the great body of the people. lApplause on the Democratic side.]

Again, see how you discriminate against any manufacturing industry in this country which does not demand larger protection; you want them to lean on the law for support. I hold in my hand a memorial addressed to the Committee on Ways and Means which comes from the National Canned Goods Packers' Association, but the Com111ittee on Ways and Means have not had time to give them a hearing.

Mr. BAYNE. Oh, yes. Mr. FLOWER. Oh, no; not this association. They are here to-day,

forty-odd of them, at the doors of the committee-room. Mr. BA. YNE. But my friend will recognize the fact that we did

have the members representing this business before the committee. Mr. FLOWER. But this is a new association. Mr. BAYNE. But the business industry has been heard. They are

all citizens of the United States; nor was it a dark-lantern investigation when the committee did hear them.

Mr. CRISP. I will read the memorial: Resolved, That we, the National Canned Goods Packers' Association, includ

ing in our membership the Western Canned Goods Packers' Association, the Baltimore Canned Goods Exchange, the New York Canned Goods Packers' Association, the New Jersey Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the Virginia. Packers' Association, which cover in their jurisdiction the packing interests of twenty different States, do most respectfully and emphatically protest against the proposed increase of duty on tin-plates as embodied in the recently introd uced tariff measure.

The increased duty proposed by that measure will add $3,600,000 to the cost of our yearly output. Based upon current sales during periods of both a. high nnd low range of current sales, such increased cost will result in a. diminution of consumption or Cully 30 per cent. We submit that to restrict the markets by decreasing consumptian when the emergency calls for increased consumption and extended markets is not the sort or encouragement that a young industry, whose possibilities a.re great, but whose resources are weak, has a. right to expect at your hands.

Respectfully submitted. L. G. SEAGER, President. E. S. JUDGE, Secretary . .

This industry, already established in this country, employing thousands .of persons and millions of capital, in order that you 'Illay confer a privilege on certain parties who ask it, is to be certainly embarrassed and perhaps destroyed. [Applause.]

The complaint I emphasize is that you make no effort to cheapen the goods to the consumer, to the agriculturist, to the people who so much need relief. Yon do put sugar on the free-list, but at the same time you promise to pay out of the Treasury of the United States 2 cents for every pound of sugar of a certain grade that is produced in .the United States. This is a bounty paid out of the common treasure to the sugar-grower. Can any good reason be given why the sugar-grower is to receive 2 cents a pound in bounty and the cotton-grower is to receive nothing?

Is it just or equal to take from the Treasury money that is raised by taxing the people and giveitasa bounty to thesugar·grower? Should this bill become a law the :first year we will pay a bounty of $7,000,000 to the sugar-grower direct; if the business is stimulated, as it is thought it will be, the next year we may pay $14,000,000, and no man can tell where the burden is to end. Why11otletthe sugar industry be treated as other industries are treated? Why make any except.ion?

Mr. BAYNE. Will the gentleman allow a question? Mr. CRISP. I have only a moment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is entitled to pro

ceed without interruptiCln. Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Ways and Means have

spent months of restless days and sleepless nights trying to :find out what will give relief to the farmers of this country. I can suggest a. plan of relief in :five minutes, and I will not charge anything for it,, either. Modify the existing tariff laws; reduce taxation; permit some reasonable competition in the market; destroy trusts; accord equal rights

............ - ··."!"C•

-1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4397 t-0 all and special privileges to none. Do these things and you will help him. Give the farmer free salt. That would help a little. You give it to the fisherman on the coast of Maine and on the coast of Massachusetts; why not give it to the farmer? Give him free bagging, in which the farmer of the West sacks his corn and with which the farmer In the South wraps his cotton. Give him free iron ties, with which in the South he binds his cotton bales and with which in the West be bales his hay.

Give him some reduction on his hats, on his woolen clothes, and on his cotton goods. In that way, and in that way only, can you benefit the great mass of the farmers of the South and West. You can not increase the price of their prodnct by protective-tariff duties, but you can decrease to them the cost of production and ofliving by reducing the tariff on those articles used to make their crops and on those articles of necessity which all families must use.

Mr. RAINES. You can take the tariff off rice. Mr. WALKER, of Massachusetts. You can take the tariff off of ma

chinery. Mr. CRISP. It never seem~ to occur to our Republican friends to

try this method of relieving the distress of the people. Our present tariff law has brought great depression upon the agri

cultural interests of the country, and, instead of lowering duties and relie'ViQg the people to some extent, the plan proposed, while it puts a few articles on the free-list, raises the aggregate amount of duties collected of articles on the dutiable list more than $4,000,000 above the present law, thus increasing rather than diminisbinf~ the burdens of the people. .

Gentlemen on the other side contend that the question was fairly submitted to the people at the last election and that they decided in favor of a tariff for protection. I deny that. It is true that the Republicans elected a bare majority of this House, but it is also true that a majority of the people of the .country voted against yon; besides, in the great agricultural States of the West and the Northwest yon appealed to and succeeded in arousing the passions and the prejudices of thepeopletosuch an extent that large numbers of them wereinfinenced by those feelings rather than a consideration of the economic questions involved. Instead of discussing the tariff, you talked about the late war.

Mr. DOLLIVER. We talked about it in Iowa. Mr. CRISP. You were talking about the war and the Sou them brig

adiers, and you were doing everything you ·could to keep the people from understandingthereal issue. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

When the Morrill tariff bill was passed, it was passed as a. war measure. At. that time the Government needed immense revenues. An internal-revenue law then imposed special taxes on all manufacturers, on notes, or bank checkE, and on almost everything else. As some compensation for these burdens, a very high protective duty was laid in the interest of the manufacturer. Years ago that c1ass had sufficient influence over the legislation of the country to secure the repeal of all those internal-revenue laws which imposed burdens upon them, and also sufficient influence to prevent the repeal of those laws which imposed burdens upon the farmers and other consumers of the country. Their burdens remain, and it is proposed in the present bill to increase them.

This question is not settled. This is not the first time in the history of the world when a cla.ss has appeared to triumph over the great body of the people. It is not the first time when privileged classee have used the wealth unequal laws had enabled them to acquire for the purpose of maintaining and perpetuating such laws. But, sir the American people are intelligent. They understand this question now. They are beginning to understand the means that were used by the Republican party to carry the last election. It is "currently reported and generally believed" that the protect~d inftustries of this country contributed a great campaign fund with which large numbers of voters, in "blocks of five" and otherwise, were "induced" to vote the Republican ticket. [Applause on the Democratic side.] And it is "currently reported and generally believed'' that, being in power by their aid, yon purpose maintaining the existing unequal and unjust laws in order to enable those same manufacturers to recoup from the people the money ''laid out and expended '' in your behalf.

Mr. RAINES. Does the gentleman believe it? Mr. CRISP. I do. I have not a shadow of doubt about it. [Ap

plause on the Democratic side.] .Mr. FARQUHAR. I would like to know what the ten-thousand

dollar contribution of President Cleveland _did to get him his place. It was a pretty large block.

Mr. CRISP. Oh, well-Mr. KILGORE. That was his own money, anyhow. Mr. CRISP. Oh, well, any man has the ,right to voluntarily con

tribute what he pleases to a campaign fund, but no man or set of men, being elected, have any right to confer special privileges upon contributors which will enable them to reimburse themselves from the pockets of the people.

Mr. Chairman, my hope is that this discussion will go on ; if it does, the time will come and come soon when the laborers, and the farmers of the West, and the farmers of the South will understand exactly the real situation. ·

No amount of juggling, no amount of sophistry, no amount of theory will prevent them from understanding really what this protective system is; that its effect is to take from one class to give to another, to take from the mass to give to a classi and when they do understand it they will repudiate its authors, feelmg as felt Macbeth when he e~claimed:

Be these juggling fiends no more believed, That palter with us in a double sense; That keep the word of promise to our ear And break it to our hope.

[Prolonged applause on the Democratic side.] During the delivery of the above remarks the time of Mr. CRISP

expired. Mr. URISP. I would like to have five minutes more. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I ask un.mimous consent that the gentleman

have five minutes more, or such further time as he desires. There was no objection. Mr. CRISP resumed and concluded his remarks.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent that the committee rise

for a few minutes in order that we may pass a bill to replenish the contingent fund of the Honse. It is now exhausted and drafts are being presented that can not be paid unless this bill is passed at once.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. The committee aceor4ingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed

thechalr, Mr. PAYSON, from the Committee of the Whole, reported that they had had under consideration the bill H. R. 9416, the tariff bill, and bad come to no resolution thereon.

HOUSE CONTINGENT FUND.

Mr. CANNON introduced a bill (H. R.10102); which was readt wice. Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unanimous consent that the

bill be read a third time and passed. The bill was read, as follows: B e it enacted, etc .. That there be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 312,000 to supply a. deficiency in the appropriation for miscellaneous items, expenses or- special and select committees of the House for the fiscal year 1890.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and be· ing engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. CANNON. I move that the Honse now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the tariff bill.

The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole,

Mr. PAYSON in the chair. TARIFF BILL.

The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 9416) t-0 reduce the revenues and to equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. . Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, "An act for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States," which contained the following preamble, ''Whereas it is necessary for the support of the Government, the discharge of the debt of t;heUnited States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported,'' was passed by the American Congress and ·became a law July 4, 1789. In the debate in Congress during the consideration of this bill-a Congress composed of so many gentlemen who had been members of the convention and who took an important part in framing the Constitution-there was no objection made to the passage of that bill as a protective measure. No question was raised as to the constitutional power. No question was raised as to the policy of the Government entering into this line of legislation, and the first public act .that was passed by Congress was an act for the encouragement and protection of manufactures by laying duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported.

Mr. Chairman, the people of that day had passed through an experience, recent in their history, which made every member of that Congress a protectionist., in theory not only, but in practice. They had had, since the close of the war during the years of the colonial period, unrestricted free trade. From 1784to1790 they had witnessed the destruc-tion one by one of those industries which were forged out of the very necessities of the war, out of the blockade of our ports, out of the circumstances which compelled the people to manufacture their own clothing and the necessaries of life. They had had, I say, from 1784to1790 a. period of unrestricted free trade. There was no central power that could impose a uniform system of duties or of taxation. State after State had tried it. Jealousy on the part of one State and another had let down bar after bar, until the country was deluged with imported merchandise.

A table printed and furnished upon English authority s'b.ows the co:qclition of our exports and imports during that period. I beg the at-tention of the committee to this table, in view of what we heard the other day from the gentleman from Te:xas (Mr. MILLs]. It was hijf~ theory, anditisthefavorite theoryofever;yfreo-tr~enyh9~c~esthia .

'!. -""'~..... - • •

'• - -_... ~,,. ......

·'

..

: . ., ---: -- ... . , , >~ ':'_- ... ~-_. ~!I •.• ;~-~-:..., -..... ., ........... -: ... : - ... - . . . . -~-- ~ ~ ~ . ;;~ .:

. . .

·439s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY9,

subject, that if we open our ports to imports from the Old World we shall thereby stimulate exports from this country. The theory is that if we can only bring in enough foreign-made goods, that will in some way create a demand for our goods; that there must be some sort of an exchange of cmmmodities whicb will benefit this country; that they will necessarily take from us the products of our farms and our manufactures. That is the way they expect to aid the farmer and that is the way they have always promised to do it.

This table is from English authority:

Years.

1784 .................................................................................. . 1785 .....•....•................................................ : .... .................. . 1786 .......................................... ~··············· .. ···············•·•••· 1787 .................................................................................. . 1788 .................................................................................. . 1789 ................................................................................. .. 1790 ................................................................................. .

Exports.

£749,345 893,594 8!3, 119 893,637

1,023, 789 1,050,198 1,191,071

Imports.

£3,679,467 2,308,023 1 603 465 2:009:111 1,886, 142 2,525, 298 3,431,778

Total............................................. ........................... 6, 644, 753 17, 443, 28i

Excess of imports, £10,i98,531, OT $52,372,875.

From this table it appears that in 1784 we had exports t.o the amount of £749,345, and we were deluged with foreign-made goods to the amount of £3,679,467.

In 1785 the exports were £893,594, the imports £2,308,023. .A.nd so on from 1784 to 1790 the total exports were £6, 6641 753, against imports of £17,443,284-an excess of imports over exports-a balance of trade against us of £10, 798,531, or $52,372,875.

This was free trade for six or seven years. What effect did it have upon the people of this country? Every industry was paralyzed. The people wen.tin debt for these foreign ,goods; they went in debt to our merchants for the goods they bought. The farmers became indebted to the merchants, and when they came to sell their produce theycould get nothing for it. They could not exchange it in the markets of the Old World, as the gentleman from Tex.as would have us do to-day; tb.ey could. ~et no price for it.

Every student of history, every school-boy in the land, is familiar with the universal distress in this country at that period, affecting not alone the merchants, the mannfucturers, the business men, the mechanics but also the farmers of the conn try; so that the sheriff and the tax-gatherer came hand in hand to demand their pay; and thefarmers, having no money, having nothing with which to pay, :finally got into the Legislature and passed laws that they might pay with horses, and cattle, and sheep. And the prices of horses, and cattle, and sheep went down, down, and down until a dollar a head was the price for horses and cattle and 61- cents a head for hogs.

This was the era of free trade. The gentleman from Texas says that things balance themselves up. So they did. The gold that had come into the country during the Revolutionary war and after our treaty with France, the gold which had been scattered among the people of the country, poured in a st.ream towards Europe to help "balance" this thing up. The people were poor, absolutely without money, absolutely without currency, with nothing save their hands and their farms, and their farms were mortgaged and we.re sold from under them. We had a period of universal distress. Talk about "ha.rd limes" now among the farmers ! Go back a hundred years to that period following those eight years of free trade and compare the condition of the country now with its condition then.

When the Representatives of the people assembled in the First Con· gress there was not a single dissenting voice about the passage of thjs tariff bill, and theyputintoita clauseforprotectionforprotection's sake only. Mr. Chairman, from that day t.o this we have had some sort of a tariff in .this country. Until about 1830 our people were still all for pIOtection; there was no division on this subject. Even John C. Calhoun, representing a cotton State-the State of South Carolina-was a protectionist. By and by the cotton industry came in. By and by men conceived the idea in this country-and there are now some devotees to that idea-that cotton was king, and they wanted to crown it; they wanted to bow down to it.

Every interest of the country must bow down before King Cotton .in the Sou.th. And so Calhoun began to agitate his free-trade notions in this country. Aided by Rritish influence, aided by British gold, an agitation was brought on in fuvor ultimately of free trade because, as the advocates of that policy reasoned, as our brother CRISP reasoned to-day, as they had so much cotton to sell they must find a market abroad for~ large a proportion of their product that it was best for them, without a manufacturing industry in their Southern States, manufacturing being repressed there, with their slave labor, the cheapest intheworld-theythoughtitbestforthemtohavefreetradeinthiscountry. They did not look over thew hole broad land; they did not consider the interests of every section. Tariff and free trade with them was a "lo_cal issue,'' con.fined to the South. .A.nd so the battle began to be waged and was fought out in this country.

In 1832 we had nullification. In 1833 we had a compromise tariff, to see if we could not coax the South to stay in the Union and be peace.a-

ble, a compromise that looked t.o the reduction of the entire schedule to 20 per cent of duty, to take effect in 1842. Gradually the reduction process went on; gradually factory after fa<:tory was closed; gradually the imports began to increase a!ld the exports to decrease; and gradually the accumulated gold was swept out of the country, and gradually came on panic and disaster which ended in 1837. Then we had the campaign of1840. Then the tariff of 1842 was formed on protective lines and on the theory of the protectionists of the country. The battle was fought out on that issue and decided by a majority of the people. In 1842 the law was enacted. Immediately manufactures increased; immediately prosperity spread all th.rough the land; immediately, as if by magic, confidence was restored and the country went on in its career of prosperity and advancement.

In an evil hour Poik and Dallas were nominated and elected. Polk, of Tennessee, who a year before in a public letter bad declared against the tariff of 1842; Polk, who, in answer to a. letter from a citizen of Pennsylvania, a letter received in May and over which he deliberated and incubated from May till June, a period of six weeks, by a very cunning "straddle," managed to deceive the people of Pennsylvania and make them believe he was a protectionist; that he would let the tariff act of 184.2 alone; and so, on the cry of "Polk, DaUas, and the tariff of 1842, '' the Democracy then-a great deal like the Democracy of a later day-deceived the people. The moment that Polk and Dallas were elected they went t.o work to undermine the tariff act of 1842 and passed the Walker tariff of 1846. Under that we labored and struggled from 1846 to 186L

It was a tariff for revenue only, a tariff that would suit onr friends on the other side, a tariff which nevertheless ruined our industries; and though the final day of reckoning was postponed because of the great discoveries of gold-the golden stream that came from California for a few years-finally so great was the excess of our imports over our exports, so great was this demand for the currency of the world, which, according to our friend from Texas, when it gets three miles from shore ceases t.o be currency and becomes a commodity-so great was the demand for tbis that after a few years even the supplies from California were exhausted and the nation was again impoverished. Then came the tariff of 1861 and the season of the protective tariff which has lasted from that day t.o this.

Why, Mr. Chairman, there has never been a time in the history of this country when the question was fairly presented to the people in a national election that they have not unequivocally declared in favor of a protective tariff. On this issue no party has ever been beaten except by the fraud and deceit of those who pretended t.o be in favor of the protection of American industry. [Applause on the Republican side.]

And so, Mr. Chairman, at the end of a hundred years we come again t.o a tariff bill, to a tariff discussion, and the whole question between the doctrine of free trade on one side and protection on the other. It is not that this debate has commenced now, because in the past six: yea.rs in a Democratic House, with Democratic measures threatening the protective system, the discussion has gone on all along the line. First, we had that unique measure known as the :Morrison "horizontal reduction" bill that made a cut of 20 per cent. on all the schedules, when they had no time to examine into the wants or necessities of the great interests and industries of the country. They had no time to weigh for a single moment the effect of the measure here, there, or elsewhere, on any industry, whether farming, mechanical, or of any kind, nor as to the effect upon the manufacturing industries of the country or on the labor of the country.

Still, for all that, we saw the other side marching up, not quite unanimously, it is true, but still marching up and voting for the llor· rison horizontal 20 per cent. reduction bill without a murmur of hesi· tatioa Two years later we had another struggle, and a similar bill was presented. Two years ago there came up what was called the "great debate," the great struggle which lasted through weeks and months of debate, not so much to convince anybody of the justice of the measure, not ro much for the purpose of influencing a vote in the House of Representatives in the parliamentary struggle that was to follow, but for the purpose of attracting attention to the Presidential campaign of 1888, because every man, I think, realized that the question that the country would settle in that campaign and in that election was the question between protection and free trade. The Mills bill passed the House and went to the Senate. The issue was clearly defined. The contest was presented and it went to the people of the United States, and what was the result? The people rendered their verdict in November, 1888. Our friend from Texas says: ''Oh, we know how you carried that election.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Brother MILLS did know something about it. [Laughter.] If my recollection serves me right, he came up into the rural districts in the State of New York, r.nd they fixed him out with a canal-boat and four mules to draw it through the State, and loaded the boat up with Democratic revenue reformers and free traders and documents, and sent the whole concern th.rough the State on the canal. [Laughter.] I suppose they thought that method of locomo· tion was just about fast enough for the Democratic party. [Applause and laughter on the Republican side.1 It is just about as near up to

. ; .; / .

. .. . ' .. '· .. ~-:. . . -· .. ~ ;

,,,.·_·. ·y-::--·- ~'(·--:·;~ '=7/7'.·': .· ~" ....,~--__..,..--. ..... -~, 4

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4399 the times as the Democratic party ever was. [Renewed laughter and applause.]

Our people thought they had discovered an eternal fitness in things that the Democratic party should be loaded into a canal-boat. [Laughter.] When they got into the towns along the line of their march, they sent out their brass band and circulars, and the people gathered together to see the show and find out what kind of a circus they had, anyhow. [Laughter.] Crowds surrounded it, and I can imagine my Brother MILLS from Texas as he got out on the deck of that boat and with the gesture which we saw so often repeated the other day and with his stentorian tones announcing to the people of that part of the country, as he did to the House, that the great conflict was going on in this country, and telling the people that they must "every one strip t-0 the waist and enter the combat." [Laughter.]

And I imagine, too, Mr. Chairman, that I could hear the good people up in that part of our country who did not understand the intricacies of the language of the prize ring-I think I can see that they did not exactly ' 'get on to'' the gentleman's argument. [Laught.er.] But in the course of his remarks he proceeded by quoting Scripture, and got on to grounds which were a little more familiar to our people, so they could begin to undel:Stand what be meant. [Laughter.] And when he exhorted them "to throw a.side every weight and the sin that doth so easily beset us," they knew what he meant, took him at his word, went immediately out, took the heavy weight of the Democratic party, threw it aside and trampled it under foot. [Laughter and applause. J That is how we won the victory. That is the result of the gentleman's QWn teachings.

Why, sir, even the gentleman from Tennessee, I think it was, intimated that there had been some money considerations which entered into the election. But he knows, he must ha-ve known, that the Republican gain of votes in the State of New York-in all parts of the State outside of the cities-was marked; that the largest gain came from rural districts, and that the cities of that State, and also the city which my friend who spoke this morning [Mr. FITCH] so well represents in part on this floor, increased the Democratic majority. Well, of course, everybody knows that money did not have any influence in the cities; ob, no. [Laughter.] It is confined entirely to the rural districts, to the sturdy yeomanry; they are the ones who are to be bought and sold, of course. [Laughter and applause on the Republican side. J

And I understood my friend from Tennessee to intimate also that the present Postmaster-General has contributed something towards the campaign.

Mr. McMILLIN. Intimated! I did not intimate anything of the kind; I said it was notorious. So reported everywhere. and never denied.

Mr. PAYNE. But I notice also that my friend <lid not say a word about the late President and the Presidential candidate of the Democratic party and the members of the Cabinet on that side. They walked up to the captain's office and settled like little men. [Laughter and applause on the Republican side.] And in violation of the civil-service law, as a friend near me suggests. Why~ I ask him, was there ever an act performed by the Cleveland Administration that was not a positive violation of the civil-service law? (Applause on the Republican side.] Yes, Mr. Chairman, they walked up to the r.aptain's office to settle. Of course that money was for the purpose of charterin~ canalboats, not to be used in buying votes; oh, no! (Laughter and applause.] Of course it did not make any difference to these parties that they were liable to indictment under the civil-service law.

But so it was, l\Ir. Chairman, t:Pat the election was carried in 1888, and the people of the United States, with more intense earnestne.ss than ~hey had ever shown in any election before, declared themselves in

· ·ravor of the protection of American homes and of American industries. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. BAKER. They left the canal-boat and got a coach afterwards, I believe.

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, yes; as my friend in front suggests, they discovered a little later on in the campaign another mode of conveyance, and they got so far that they could rea-0h a tally-ho coach. That was a little faster. And I understand that• they were able to bear the additiona~ speed, although they had been used to much slower methods in life, as they have been slow in reaching correct conclusions on economic questions.

But my friend from New York who sits· in front of me [Mr. FITCH] this morning was scolding the majority of the Committee on Ways and Means because, he said, they had neglected the interesta of the importers of the citv of New York. He said that New York was a commercial city and-interested in commerce and trade, and he would have us to think that that was the only interest in New York. Why, bless your dear soul, my friend, do not you know that New York is the first manufacturing city in the United States? [Laughter.]

Mr. FITCH. Certainly. Mr. PAYNE. And that if you are here representing it you are rep·

resenting th6 manufaduring interest of the country as well as the im.porting interest of the country? (Applause.] Then you can not rep,resent t~em all, and you propose to take those across the way; and if \YOU desue to represent the importers and manufacturers abroad, why,

of course, true to Democratic instincts, you will have to follow in that direction.

Mr. FITCH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. PAYNE. I have not time. The great manufacturing interests

of the greatest manufacturing city in the whole country--Mr. FITCH. And the greatest Democratic manufacturing city in the

country. · Mr. PAYNE. Yes, the greatest Democratic manufacturing city in

the whole country. It manufactures not only useful articles, but it manufactures those things which no patriot can say we have any use for in this country of ours-I mean the ignorant Democratic voter [laughter and applause on the Republican side] that walks up to the polls year after year to vote the regular Democratic ticket. It manufactures Tammany Hall, and Tammany Hall manufactures more rascals than any political organization that ever existed in this or any other country. [Applause on the Republican side and in the galleries.] But they did not stop at drawing money from the members of the Cabinet and the President, but drew it from another source. Of course it is a patent fact which my friend from New York knows, and knows better than I do, that a nameless amount of money was gathered from a certain sort of business in all the cities in the State of New York, and was used in behalf of the Democratic party in 1888. Now, do not talk any more about buying elections and buying votes. What did you raise all that money for? To invest in canal-boats and tally-ho coaches [laughter], or did yon put it where, in your judgment, you thought it would "do the most good," and where you thought it would make the greatest increase in the Democratic vote ?

1iir. FITCH. Does not the gentleman know that the cry of the saloon-keepers was "Harrison and Hill?"

Ur. PAYNE. No; "the gentleman" does not knowanysuch thing either; but the gentleman knows that Hill and his cohorts were true to Cleveland and tariff reform, and the whole thing was done with the money that was levied upon the saloon interest in the State of New York. [Applause on the Republican side.]

But, Mr. Chairman, let us come down t-0 this bill I did not mean to say a, word about politics and should not have done so if gentle· men on the other side bad not alluded to them. At the commencement of this session the Republican party entered upon the labor which they had been called upon to perform: to revise a tariff and revise it on the line of protection to American induatries.

The committee so framed the bill; and the first act of that committee was to invite every mau, be he high or low, rich or poor, farmer or mechanic, employer or laboring man, every class and every citizen, every subject of the United States, to come before that committee and give them what information they possessed with reference to the proposed revision of the t.ari:ff. The doors were not shut. There was no secret proceeding. At many of the hearings the members of the press were present to hear what was said. There was no attempt to cover up anything. There was no attempt to close the mouth of any person; and if the grower of cotton from Georgia did not make his complaint known before that committee, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] suggests, it was not the fault of the committee, but the fault of the grower of cotton; and, by the way, that is the interest, and only interest in this country, so far ns I remember, that was not heard and fully heard before that committee. [Laughter. J "r ell, we brought in the bill, and gentlemen on the other side proceeded to criticise some of the things we put into it. The gentleman from Texas (l\ir. MILLS] got hold of the agricultural schedule and wanted to know what we proposed to do for the farmer. He struck some of the items there. He says: "What do yon propose to do for the farmer?" Well, he picks out three of the items in the schedule. Of course these were the lea.st important in fact, but the most important so far as his argument was concerned; and he picked them out to illustrate his side of the case. He strikes wheat, and says that we increased the duty on wheat from 20 to 25 cents a bushel, and we do that when there were only 1,946 bushels of wheat imported at a cost of $2. 50 a bushel.

Well, now, if the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MCMILLIN] will each look at Executive Document No. 6, on page 95, they will find that we imported 130,649 bushels of wheat last year at a cost of $119,617, or 90 cents a bushel, and they will find further the significant fact that 129,713 bushels of that wheat came from Manitoba. Now, although the gentleman did not know it, the farmers got hold of that fact. They found that the wheat of Can· ada and the wheat of Manitoba was coming from there and undersell· ing their wheat, and they came to the committee and asked us to increase that duty from 20 to 25 cents a bushel, and we did it. We thought we had better preserve our own market for wheat, no matt.er where it came from, whether from India or anywhere else, and check this importation; so we put on that duty; and we do not apologize for it, either. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Then, the gentleman says, we raised the dnty on potatoes from 15 to 25 cents. Well, we imported 883,380 bushels of potatoes la;;tyear, and that was a much lighter importation than for one or two years before; and, of these, 800,000 bushels of potatoes came from the British Possessions on the north, right across OUl' border, and interfered with our

-·

·-

,·

.. .

I "

·'":-·' .... J • . ,·


farmers and drove them out of the market, so we increased the duty from 15 to 25 cents a bushel, and we have no apology to offer for that, either to the other side of the Honse or to the American farmer. We do not seek to deceive the American farmer. Why, he cannot be deceived. You undertook H in 1888, and you found he knew more about economic questions in many instances than you did.

Still you went out into the northern part of the State of New York, with a list of items furnished by your national Democratic committee, showing them forks and hoes and various items of manufttcture. You told the farmer: " You pay here now 75 cents for a hoe, and you can go right across the river and gettbe same hoe manufactured in the United States from a Canadian hardware store for 50 cents." The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] said that be had a list of these at his room, and I presume he has one of those pamphlets. Well, now, the farmers looked into that to see whether it was so or not. .

A farmer went to Ogdensburgh, in New York, a~d got a hoe for 75 cents, and went over to the Canadian side and bought one for 50 cents, and compared them, and he found that the Canadian hoe had a handle with cross-grain; that the hoe-blade itself was imperfect and would not stand a week's use; and he goes to a hardware dealer atOgdensburgh and asks him, ''Why don't you sell these 50-cent hoes?" ''Well," says the dealer, "we sell hoes like that at 40 cents apiece; but the American farmer won't use them. We have a lot of them on hand now, and we will have to give them away, as we can not sell them." [Laughter.] And so that was exploded.

Theyt.raced. up the sewing-machine business, they traced up the reaper and the mower, they traced up the Oliver chilled plow, and the farmers of the United States in every instance found that you gentlemen were trying to cheat and deceive them, and they would not be deceived. Now, we know too much on this side of the House to try to deceive the American farmer. [Laughter.] We have profited by your experience; and, then, we have the advantage of having had a little honestybeforewestartedout. [Laughter.] But the gentleman from Texas reached a high point in his argument on the agricultural schedule when he came to the item of cabbage and called this a ''cabbage-head bill." I wish every farmer in the United States had heard his speech on that part of the bill. The farmers know what the importation of cabbages into this country is. They know that the competition in cabbages with Belgium and with Germany would wipe out every cabbage-patch in the United States.

1'!r. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman please state what bas been the importation of cabbages into this country?

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, now, the gentleman from Illinois does not suppose that I carry all these figures in my head. I said the farmers of tbis country knew what had been the importation of cabbages.

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, the farmers do not know. Statistics show that there was not a head of cabbage imported into this country on a free-trade basis.

Mr. PAYNE. Why, Mr. Chairman, the gentle_man from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER] is not half so well informed as I thought he was.

Mr. SPRINGER. The record is as I have stated. Mr. PAYNE. Because the record puts this article under the general

hea-d of vegetables the gentleman says that no cabbages were imported. I tell him again that farmers know better than he knows and better than I know how many cabbages were imported into this country and the extent to which their industry was interfered with by that competition.

Mr. BAYNE. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. PAYNE. Yes, sir. Mr. BAYNE. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he thinks it is

good policy for the Democratic party to object to a duty on cabbageheads. [Laughter.]

Mr. PAYNE. Certainly I do, because a duty might tend to keep out some future Democratic voter. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS] reached the climax when be struck rye. [Laughter.] "Why," said he, " they haYe put a duty of 10 cents a bushel on rye, althougp t~ere was only 16 bushels of rye imported last year, which brought $24, at $1.50 a bushel. Some farmer imported that 16 bushels of ryf} for seed, and this committee thereupon determined to put a duty of 10 cents a bushel on rye." Why, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas did not seem to know that the existing duty on rye is 10 cents a bushel. [Laughter.] But, further, he did not even seem to know that the Mills bill had proposed a duty of 10 cents a bushel on rye. [Laughter.] Talk about our trying to deceive the American farmer! Why, Mr. MILLS, did you try to deceiYe the American farmer when you proposed to put 10 cents a bushel upon rye? Or have you a greater affection for ''rye'' on that side of the House than we have over here? [Renewed langhter.] -

Well, that is as far as he went in the agricultaral schedule; but of course that is not the whole of it. There were import-ed last year l,965,000pounds of oat-meal and 11,368,414 bushels of barley. Now, barley is a pretty good crop when you get a fair price for it, even though it does go iJ.l.to beer. [Laught~r.]

Mr. KER].l, of Iowa., Can the gentleman tell how much we paid for that barley?

Mr. PAYNE. Seven million seven hundred and twenty-three thou-

sand eight hundred and thirty-eight dollars. The entire consumption of barley in the United States for beer purposes (and that is the only purpose for which itis used, except for feeding cattle and hogs) was about 44,000,000 bushels, so that we imported from Canada about one-fourth oftbe entire consumption ofbarleyin this country. The statement is made that we raised over 60,000,000 bushels, and that in order to get rid of the surplus barley our people had to feed it to cattle and hogs. Now the committee have proposed to raise the duty on barley. Of cattle there were 55,551 imported., and the cost was $550,887, or about$10 a head. The duty was 20 percent. That statement, on the face of it, shows that there was an immense undervaluation of these cattle that were imported under a 20 per cent. duty.

The committee thought, therefore, that it was right and just and proper to put a specific duty upon every head of cattle imported, and they have proposed to put that duty at $10 a bead. They have fixed that rate with the idea that it may check the importation of cattle, and they do not apologize for it. Of horses there were imported 48,-786; of sheep, 398,891. We changed the duty on sheep from an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent. to a specific duty of $1.50 a head. _ Of hay there was 105,395 tons imported. Now, the hay industry is getting to be quite an industry in this country. Baled hay is sold all over the land. We send it South; we send it to the cities; we send it everywhere. Hay is getting to be one of the best crops to the farmer. The Canadians want to get into our market. They sent in last year 105,395 tons. If they want to come in here we propose to make them pay for it, so we increase the duty on hay from $2 to $4 a ton.

Mr. BAKER. The farmers without respect to party have petitioned for that increase of duty on bay.

Mr. PAYNE. Then comes straw. The gentleman from Texas criticises us for putting a duty on straw. What we were after was rye straw, which comes in quite extensively from Canada, and upon that article of straw we put au ad valorem duty of 30 per cent., because we could not well lay a specific duty on an article some of which is worth $10 per ton while other straw is worth oruy $1 or $2 per ton.

Then there are eggs. We found there were imported into this country 15~918,809 dozen eggs, at a value of $2,418,976, and that of these eggs more than 15,000,000 dozen came from the British Possessions north of us, Canada, Nova Scotia, etc. We thought we had better retain that market for the American hen, and so we put a duty of 5 cents a dozen on eggs.

Now, all these things, if they will check the importation of $40,-000,000 worth of farm produce from Canada and the British Possessions, can not fail to benefit the American farmer; and the American farmer will read this schedule through and understand it all, and will never be misled by your croaking about our cabbage-patch.

The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MCMILLIN] yesterday had a chapter on seeds. He said we had increased the duty on seeds from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. ; and so we have. He said that only one man appeared before the committee, and the only statement he made was that he had to go out of business because he was only getting back the interest on the money he bad invested. Well, the man did say that; but that was not all he said; and be was not the only man who came before the committee either; and his statement was not the only information on which the committee acted. J'ily friend from my own State [Mr. LANSING] appeared before the committee, representing the farmers up along Lake Ontario. Other members appeared or sent in letters and petitions.

These letters and petitions for these duties on farm products came from the farmers of th~ country without regard to locality and from Democrats as well as Republicans, asking for these increa~ed duties and asking for this relief; and Democratic members of the House came before the committee. Why, sir, the tariff is a '' loca1 issue'' with them. It always amused me to see the way in which our Democratic brethren would come in, hat in band and with a pleasant smile on their faces, to see the majority of the committee. '' Of course our party believes in revenue reform, a tariff for revenue, and all that sort of thing; but a. few years ago we had a little sumac industry down here in Virginia which employed a number of poor people. There was a tariff on the article. Some way or other the article dropped out of the tariff; and now all those little factories are stopped, are shut up. We have the raw material there; it grows wild; b1:it we can not manufacture it because there is no tariff upon the manufactured article. Now, if you will just be lrind enough to insert a clause in your bill protecting the sumac industry of VirJ.?J.Ilia, why, privately I will bless you, but when it comes to voting I will vote against the bill as n. whole, of course." [Laughter.]

Mr. O'FERRALL. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Jt.1r. PAYNE. Certaiply. Mr. O'FERR~L. Who made that request of the Committee on

Ways and Means? Ur. PAYNE. Why, I have no objection to stating. It was your

colleague, General LEE. [Laugh~er on the Republican side.] Mr. O'FERRALL. General LEE is not present. When present he

is able to speak for himself. M:r. PAYNE. Certainly he is. He ·was able to speak for himself

when he ~me before us. No man will deny that proposition. Mr. O'FERRALL. I would prefer that the gentleman, when he

, ,

-..... _ ..... _,

'·.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4401 makes a statement in regard to my colleague, should see whether he is in his seat.

Several MEMBERS (to Mr. O'FERRALL). Why did you ask your question? .

Mr. O'FERRALL. After the statement had. been made by the gentleman, I simply asked for the name.

Mr. PAYNE. There is always difficulty on the other side of the House about being present and being absent; it is chronic. I suppose that if a gentleman can be in his seat and still be absent, he can be out of his seat and still be present. [Great laughter.]

Mr. O'FERRALL. The gentleman from New York when he made his remark knew that he was alluding to General LEE and he ought not tohave made theallusion to General LEE unless hesa.whiminhis seat.

Mr. PAYNE. I told the g:entJeman [Mr. O'FERRALL] that I would answer him if he wanted to know, and I did so. I have not any apology to make for it, either.

Mr. Chairman, it has grieved me very much to s~e the division in the Democratic party over the increased duty on oranges. I was sorry to hear my colleagne [Mr. FLOWER] say anything yesterday about this question. Why, sir, the application which came to us was backed by some of the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber who claimed in behalf of their constituents that they could produce Florida oranges at any season of the year in which the Mediterranean fruit came in. They claimed that the industry was prostrated, that it needed protection, that it was a large industry, that it employed an immense amount of capital, and that if we did not give it a little more protection this agricultural interest, which was the greatest agricultural int.erest of the State of Florida, would languish and be destroyed. So we on this side of the Honse, being protectionists and willing to give the benefit of protection to Florida as well as to Iowa, New York, or any other State of the Union, advanced the duty on oranges. We did it to encourage a Southern industry.

Mr. GEAR. And the cemmittee asking it were all Democrats.

American fariner was obliged to sell his entire crop. wrapper, filler, and everything, for 9 or 10 centB a pound. ·

Mr. BROSIUS. And as low as 5t in my district. Mr. PAYNE. And my friend says it sold even as low as 5! cents

a pound in hi'3 district, which is one of the largest tobacco-growing districtB in the United States. Is it any wonder, then, that the business languished? Is it any wonder that the growers of American tobacco, without any regard to party er location, came before the committee and besought them to save this agricultural product? We looked about for a way to do it; we tried to adjust the duty so that it would fit the circumstances of the case.

The committee labored industriously and earnestly; we spent many hours of time trying to devise some way by which we might distinguish the wrapper from the other grades of tobacco. There appeared before us in opposition to any increase of duty Mr. Schroeder, of BtOolilyn, a manufacturer of cigars, a gentleman well posted on this q ues-tion. He demonstrated to us how utterly impossible it was to distin~uish between wrappers and fillers when the article was imported. He says:

Now, a few words on another point. It is proposed to have three or four specific duties on leaf-tobacco: one on wrapper leaf, one on filler leaf, and another on stemmed tobacco of both kinds. A law discriminating between wrappers and fillers cap not be fairly or equitably administered for the simple reason that no one can tell the dividing line between the wrapper class and the filler class in leaf-tobacco; :r..o one can to a certainty tell what is a wrapper leaf except the manufacturer or operative after the leaf is moistened, stripped, and prepared for the cigar-maker's work-bench. Any cigar manufacturer will tell you that what is commercially known to the farmer and dealer under the name of wrapper is used for fillers about as often as it is used fo:r wrappers, and there is a large quantity of tobaoco imported from Cuba which Is wrapper leaf-I estimate not less than 600,000 pounds-much of it is finer by far than Sumatra leaf, enough to cover 120,000,000 cigars.

You can not make an~ desc:ripti<>n of wrapper leaf which will cover Sumatra. leaf alone without naming the article. This your treaties with Holland forbid, and whenever you attempt to collect the higher duty on wrappers generally you strike a.snag in the product of Cuba and other countries, which makes such legislation impossible because of the difficulty I have stated. If you could name the product of Sumatra in your bill you could arrange the matter; but you can not, and it is not necessary that you should, for the American smoker is taxed enough, more ~han any other except the Englishman, and in England cigars are not popular. By the high rate of duty nll but the richest are driven to the pipe and cigarette.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, the committee that came were almost all Democrats. And I did not think that Brother FLOWER in behalf of the importers of Mediterranean fruit in our city ought to have jumped upon the struggling industry in Florida with such weight as he did. [Laugh- So we concluded to put the duty on all leaf-tobacco, which should ter.] be uniform, and which should catch the Sumatra leaf and wrappers

Mr. FLOWER. Did they make you believe that they could produce and at the same time be a duty to be imposed upon the Cuban leaf and oranges in Florida and send them to New York after the 1st of April? I Cuban wrapper. We put the duty at $2 a pound on unstemmed and

Mr. PAYNE. Why, do you suppose I would disbelieve the state- $2.75 a pound for stemmed tobacco. We arrived at that because we ment of so many disinterested as well as interested gentlemen whose were told by such men as Mr. Schroeder that nothing else would prostatements were uniform in that direction, and generally who were on tect the American farmers, and not being very particular about pertheir word of honor, too? Of course I believe it. [Laughter. J cen tagE>,s or ad valorems, but wishing to put on enough duty to protect

Now, Mr. Chairman, my time is running on and I must be brief. I our home industries, we put $2 a pound, as I have suggested. want to talk a moment about one or two other subjects. Now, when we bad done that the cigar-makers of Key West, Tampa

First, I wish to address myself to the question of tobacco. My friend, Bay, and other places from Florida came and told us what a splendid Judge CRISP, did not remember tobacco when ialking of the various agri- industry they had established down there; that they had been importcnltural industries that we are trying to help and protect. He did not ing Cuban tobacco and manufacturing it into Cuban cigars; telling us sayanythingaboutit. Tobaccoisabigindustry. Itisalargefarming if we put $2 a pound on the tobacco that they would .have to have industry~ Anything that helps the tobacco growth helps the farmer. It some protection on their cigars. We were already collecting a duty of draws just so many men from the other kind of agriculture, just as the $2.50 upon all imported cigars and 25 per cent. ad valorem. flock-masters in Ohio are drawn from the number of those who would Well, we gave it, and so we put it at 4! cents on imported cigars and raise wheat, corn, or other agricultural products. In1881and1882The 25 percent. ad valorem. ''Well, that is a pretty good duty,'' you say. Netherlands began sending their tobacco into this cbuntry. It was a So it is. I hope it is almost as large as the Englishmen pay, because small importation at first, in 1881 amounting only to 573,159 pounds. if we must raise money to supporUhis Government we might just as In 1882 it had grown to 1,522,463 pounds, in 1883 to 4,065,496 pounds, well raise it on tobacco as any other thing-that is, on the high-priced and in 1888 7,098,393 pounds came into this country to be disposed Havana cigars th.at the rich man must have and is able to pay for, of in competition with an agricultural product of many of the States. while we still allow the American farmer'io produce American leaf and What was the result? Why, prior to this time the tobacco-raisers in furnish to the American workingman an American cigar from i;tem to Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were able to gudgeon. [Applause on the Republican Ride.] raise and sell cigar wrappers from their tobacco. But this Sumatra l\Ir. WASHINGTON. Will the gentleman allow me a question? leaf was almost exclusively a wrapper. One pound of it in wmppers Mr. PAYNE. I have only a little time. will go as far as 4 pounds of ordinary tobacco. One poandof it is Mr.WASHINGTON. Iamsomewhatinterestedinthetobaccoques-worth forwrn.ppersfour times the price of the ordinary American wrap- tion myself, and I would like to ask you if you raised this duty in the per. interest of the American producer why do you not take off the domes-

Up to 1881 the smokers in this country knew nothin~ of the Suma- tic tax on the farmers who raise tobacco instead of leaving it at 4 cent.s tra leaf. They were content with cigars made and wrapped with wrap- a pound? pers grown in the United States. Congress has tried to check the grow- Mr. PAYNE. I will state that further on. ing importation of the Sumatra leaf for several yea.rs. It was tried by The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman bas expired. the adoption of the law of 1883, when they put a duty on it which it Mr. W A.SHINGTON. I hope the gentleman will be allowed to pro-was thought would check the importation. They required that in or- ceed, so that he may answer my question. der to pay a higher duty a certain percentage ot leaf should he found Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the in the bale of tobacco imported. The result was nearly every pound gentleman from. New York may be permitted to continue his remarks that came in after a year was paying the lower rate of duty, and not until he concludes them. that which should have been, paid and collected on the wrapper ac- There was no objection. cortlingtothe law. When the farmer in Connectieutraised 1,300 pounds Mr. PAYNE. I thank the committee and the gentleman from Mich· of tobacco he used to get 300 pounds of wrappers out of it, and used igan for the courtesy shown me, and will try not to inflict too much to get from 60 cents to $1 a pound for the wrapper, and then sell the upon you. balance for fillers and binders, or both, at 10, 12, or 15 cents a pound, In regard to taking the revenue duty o_ff tobacco I should have no as the case might be. o~jection. I should be willing to take every dollar of it off and make

It costB him to raise this tobacco at least 12 centB a pound, but if be this product of the American farmer free, but when we figured up the could sell the wrapper at from 60 cents to $1 a pound he might make a reductions that would be made by this bill and by the articles that were fair profit on the investment, and the growth was increasing faster than transferred to the free-list, with our reduction on tobacco, they amounted the increase of population in this country. But as Sumatra. leaf came to more than $71,000,000. in it drove out the use· of domestic leaf for domestic purposes, and the When we considered, in addition to that, that, although there is an

XXI--276

.. --~~ -· .. ";: ..... , .. --. ' - .. . , ·.L.. ,,,,r_ :: r.. . ,-~- :• .... ,f' -. ·' ·.

1·.

4402 ', CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY9,

•/

increase of rates in the woolen schedule, yet when we have put these duties on woolen goods we were protecting not only the raiser of wool, but the manufacturer of wool. Jtnd that the probable effect will be, in the line in which we have worked, to check the importations, and a consequent reduction ot the revenue on the woolen schedule, and so on through the schednles along the line, I did not see how we could and for myself I would not dare to, go further or vote for one dollar of re· duction of the revenues of the Government. We would relieve the pro· ducer of tobacco as far as we are able to, but we can not go to the ex· tent of taking a further ~10,000,000 or $15,000,000 from the revenue.

Mr. WASHING TON. Now, right there will the gentleman allow me to ask him another question? Did yourpartynot in the last Con· gress insist that if they had the power they would take the tax off the manufactured tobacco? And, again, do you not believe that this tax of 4 cents on the manufactured tobacco is a great burden on the farmer who is producing the tobacco? That is the burden that you promised to relieve them of.

Mr. BAKER. Right there--Mr. P .A YNE. One at a time. There are two questions there. Mr. BAKER. . The difficulty was the Democratic party could not

consider it. Mr. PAYNE. Now, I was not in the last Congress. Mr. WASHINGTON. But your party was. Mr. PAYNE. I acknowledge that I occasionally read the news

papers. Our party was here and you heard from them. .And when the Democratic party heard from the message of the President about the condition that confronted them and about the terrible distress that was coming to the country on account of the surplus revenue, and we saw that that party was presentll:!g nothing practical and that would become a law and rednoo the taxes and reduce the surplus, the Republican party did offer at any time to strike down this tax upon tobacco, and they would have voted for it to a man.

Why, I am sort of committed myself. When I went out of the Forty-ninth Congress I made a little speech in favor of taking off the entire tax on tobacco. My principal object was to put on record the interesting correspondence between the Speaker of the House and a feader of one wing on that side of the House at that time in referencP. to this question. Mr. Randall desiring an opportunity to make a motion to pass a bill abolishing this t.ax on tobacco, the Speaker desiring that he should not, and the Speaker, in his correspondence, really not liking to meet the issue, dodged the question. I committed myself then in that Congress to striking down every dollar of this internal-revenue taxation.

But it is different now. We are in the majority now. We are going to give the country a tariff revision in the bill before us in the line of protecting American industries; and while we reduce the revenues by striking off this tax on sugar we do not want to go too far and leave a deficit in the Treasury when this Administration goes out of power, as you did in 1861, after fifteen years of a tariff for revenue only.

Mr.WASHINGTON. In otherwords, you confess that as a majority you do not pretend to do that which yon proposed to do while you were in the minority?

llfr. PAYNE. Oh, not at all; but we were in the minority, and when we can get only half a loaf we will take the half loaf, and if we could not get the half a loaf we would take a slice, if we can get but a single slice. But now we have the responsibility and can have things our own way, and we will fix them j nst as we think best all along the line. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. VEN.ABLE. Do yo mean to say it is the policy of the Repub-lican party to continue the tax on tobacco?

Mr. PAYNE. For the present. Mr. YEN A.BLE. Until you ~et into the minority. Mr. PAYNE. Oh, no; we do not expect to get into the minority.

[Laughter.] Mr. VENABLE. I hope you will shortly. Mr. PAYNE. We will take it off tobacco after awhile. Mr. VEN.ABLE. When you have not got the power. Mr. PAYNE. We will take it up after awhile--Mr. WASHINGTON. Do you not believe the 4 cent.s tax imposed

upon the manufactured tobacco will produce a monopoly in the manufac~ure of tobacco? Is not that the reason why your party are in favor of keeping that 4 cents a pound tax on the tobacco?

Mr. P .A YNE. I did not suppose that even the gentleman from Tennessee would ask me if we were in favor of monopolies. Why, we are trying to legislate for the benefit of the laboring men of this country, to give them employment, to give them wages, t-0 give them homes, and to give them shelter. We in favor of monopoly!

Now, I want--Mr. WASHINGTON. But you did not answer my question. Now,

does not the 4 cents a.pound dntyputon tobacco create a monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco, and as you are in favor of protection is not that the reason why it is put on there?

Mr. P .AYNE. No, sir; we do not believe it creates a monopoly in tobacco.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Will it not so hamper the farmers that it will operate as a monopoly by the action of giving bonds and by the super-

vision of the Government, and so forth, so that only rich men can go into the manufacture of tobacco and that the farmer will be absolutely prohibit~d from selling his product?.

Mr. PAYNE. You will find we have covered that whole point in the bill. We have removed that restriction.

We have taken everything off. We have left on only 4 cents a pound, and we would be happy to take that off if the revenues would stand it, but they will not. We will do it, though, in good time. But when the gentleman talks about a monopoly of tobacco, does he not know that in every city and village throughout the length and breadth of this country there are men, perhaps one man, perhaps half a dozen men, running a little cigar fuctory, sometimes with one employe and sometimes with the proprietor as the only operative?

That is the case all over the country, yet gentlemen talk here about a monopoly. We had before the committee one man who commenced five or six years ago alone, in a little shop, without capital, and who had built up for himself a large and flourishing businE".S. No; there is no monopoly in cigars and tobacco.

It is the imagination of gentlemen upon the other side that leads them to think there is a monopoly. Some of you gentlemen really believe that the tariff has built up monopolies.in this country. You look across the water where you may and you see those great "syndicates, 11

those great aggregations of --capital, putting up the price of food, putting up the price of clothing, putting up the price of tin-plate, but your vision is obstructed so that you can not see anything but free trade over there; and yet the fact is that under free trade there are more and greater monopolies in England than ever existed in this country, and the greatest monopolies in this countr.v are in those things which you say we can not protect by a tariff: cattle, meat, coal oil, coal, and other articles which you say can not be protected by a tariff.

We have protected the farmers' wool. I insert a table which will show at a glance the rise and fall of this important industry, under the Walker tariff, from 1846 to 1860; under protection, from 1860 to 1883, and since 1883, under the weak points in the law which have enabled importers to evade it:

Amount of wool produced in tlte United States.

Year. Production. c1;Tfa. Year. Production. Per capita,.

Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. 1840............... ...... 35, 802, 114 2.5 1879 ..................... 232,500,000 1850... ...... .......... .. 52, 516, 969 2. 7 1880 ..................... 240, 000, 000 1860........... .......... 60, 264, 913 1870... ............ ....•. 162, 000, 000 1878......... ..... ....... 181, 000, 000

L 7 1882...... ... ..... ....... 290, 000, OClO 4. 2 1881.. .... ............... 308, 000, 000 4.2

The amount per capita jg very instructive. In 1889 the clip was reduced to about 250,000,000 pounds.

ported, however:

Pounds. 4.3 4.6 5.1 5.4

Weim-

Pounds. Clothing wool .................................. .............................. ............ ......... 22, 973, 087 Combing-wool..................................................................................... 6, 651, 716 Carpet wool. ............................. ! ....................................... ,.................. 96, 556, 4.66

Tota.I ............................................................................................ 126, 181, 271 Of the value of $17, 432, 758.

In addition to this we imported of woolen and worsted goods in value $52,681,482.56 and containing about 160,000,000 pounds of wool. .Add this to the raw wool imported, and we have a grand total of 286,181,-271 pounds of wool We now raise one-sixth of the world's supply of wool and we consume about one-third. We propose to check importation so that the American farmer shall produce every pound of this wool consumed here, and we shall relieve so much of competition among the grain-producers of the country. Do you gentlemen yet discover anything for the farmer in this bill?

But, :Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a. word about sugar. I do not propose to say much about it because the gentleman from Iowa [l\Ir. GEAR] has gone very folly over the subject, butlest his speech should fail to reach some who may see mine I will say a few words.

It appears that last year we imported sugar and molasses to the amount of 2,700,547,667 pounds, on which, including moJa.iises, we paid duties amounting to $55,975,984.52.

Now, in this instance the tariff was a tax and was added to the price which the consumer paid for the imported sugar. There is no mistake about that. No Republican has ever denied that. What we have said, and what we do maintain, is that where you can produce articles in this country in competition with imported articles and you impose a. tariff dnty, the price goes downi in some instances even below the amount of the duty, and in such a case the tax is not added to the price of the article and the tariff is not a tax.

Now, a word about salt. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] wants free salt. I understand that salt is worth 50 centa a barrel of 280 pounds. The package is worth 20 cents, so that the 280 pounds of salt is worth just 30 cents, and it sells for 30 cents to the farmer. Now, the tariff on that salt is 32 centa, and I want to kno\V how the gentlfilllan can manage to figure out that the duty is added to the cost of the article and is paid by the consumer, when in fact the consumer

-;,. ........ - ~ I -, • . ,.,,

·.''·

1890. CONGRESSIONAL ·:RECORD-HOUSE. .· 4403 ,pays 2 cents less than the amount of the ta.riff? [Laughter on the Republican side.]

Yon gentlemen ought to be able to understand that the duty can not be added to the price paid by the consumer where the commodity itself 'sells for less than the amount of the duty. [Laughter.] That prob-1lem, at least, you ought to be capable of figuring out.

But I was talking about sugar. I say that we imported last year sugar and· molasses upon which we paid duty to the amount of $55,.975,984.52. In the Hawaiian Islands there was raised 242,324,683 pounds of sugar. That sugar was imported into this country and was sold at the same price as Louisiana sugar and at the same price as other imported sugar.

Somebody, therefore, got the 2 cents a pound, which was the amount of the tariff, because, as I have said, in this instance the tariff is added to the cost of the commodity, Now, who got that 2 cents a pound? I 'understand from my friend who is on the Agricultural Committee [Mr. HERMANN] that a gentleman namM Spreckels appeared before that committee and told them that the owners of the plantations in the Hawaiian Islands got that 2 cents a pound. ''Who are the owners of the plantations?" was asked. The answer was, "Well, my friends

1from California and mvself are the owners of those plantations." [Laughter.] Now, you-have been paying a bonus of $4,866,493.66 to

1the owners of the sugar plantations on the Hawaiian IslanJs; you paid 'that last year.

But, in addition to that, the people of this country paid last year for the benefit of the Louisiana sugar-planters $7,518,836.94, being 2 cents a pound upon the entire product of sugar in Louisiana and the other sugar-producing regions of this country. That was paid as a bounty, a bonus. The Government put its bands into the pockets of the taxpayers of this <;ountry and took out those seven millions and a half and handed the money over to the raisers of sugar in the Southern States.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS] grew eloquent the other day and pictured ns as highwaymen, putting our hands into the pockets of the tax-payers and taking ont seven and a half million dollars and handing it over to the owners of the plantations in Louisiana. Two years ago you proposed to make a reduction of 20 per cent. on this sevett and a. half million dollars, so that you proposed after that time to put your hands into the pockets of the people of the United States like highwaymen (to use your own phraseolo~) and to take out $6, 000, 000 annually and hand it over to the growers of sugar in Louisiana!

Now, we found that the people of the United States were paying this seven and a half millions to the planters in Louisiana; we found they were paying $5, 000, 000 to the owners of the plantations in the Hawaiian Islands; we found there was a duty of fifty-five millions-nearly fiftysix millions-collected upon this article. We proposed to relieve the people from fifty-one millions of this duty. We proposed that the Government should stop putting its hands into the pockets ()f every taxpayer and taking out a dollar for the owners of the plantations in the Hawaiian Islands.

We proposed that bounties shall stop as to all these producers of sugar save those fa Louisiana; and they having Quilt up their industry under a protective system which, as relates to sugar, has lasted for nearly one hundred years, we thought it but fair and just to them to continue this bounty which had been taken from the tax-payers and paid to them for a hundred yea.rs, to continue it for the present at least. Why? Because gentlemen claimed that after repea~ failures to establish the beet-sugar industry in the United States in different sections of the country they were just about to succeed in solving the problem and enabling our farmers to raise the sugar-beet to produce the sugar for this country.

We thought it but fair to give them a chance to produce it, and so we put this bounty in the bill. It is but a change of words, a change of names, a change of terms. Instead of taking 2 cents a pound from every consumer of sugar in the United States, we reduce the exaction to a small fraction of 1 cent a pound upon the whole people, and we propose to turn the seven millions and a half over to these producers of sugar in Louisiana, who have invested their money and built up their industry under a tariff for nearly a hundred years. We take seven millions from the Treasury, instead of sixty-eight miJlions from the people. We take it directly from the Treasury, but it comes from the people, and we pay it to these Louisiana planters.

Now, we have fixed a duty of four-tenths of a cent a pound on all sugars aborn No.16. Mr. MILLS in his bill madethedifferentialduty between raw and refined sugar six-tenths of a cent a pound up to a cent. I wonder-I was not here at that time--I wonder whether the gentlemanfrom Tennessee [l\Ir. McMILLl:N] held up his handsinholy horror then for fear the Mills bill was going to help build up the sugar trust, with a duty of six-tenths of a cent to a cent a pound in their favor. I warrant you his voice was not then heard in favor of the suffering people and against the sugar trust. Yet now he is criticising us because we have reduced this duty to four-tenths of a cent a pound, which is the exact point, as near as we can get at it, of the difference in the cost of refining and the cost of labor in this country as compared with fornign countries.

If we get more light on the subject, if we see that a smaller duty ~serve every proper purpose, the majority of this committee will be very glad to come into the Committee of the Whole and report an amendment cutting down the duty to the very point where it shall protect, and only protect, this important industry. On the other band, if the duty as we have now fixed it should not be enough to protect this industry, no cry of "trust," no cry of "monopoly," will deter us; we will do our duty to the people of the United States; we will do our duty even to the gentlemen who control the trust; we will do our duty to the gentlemen who have put their millions into the business and are outside the trust; and we will protect this important American industry.

But we take off a dollar on the annnal cost of sugar to every inhabitant of the United States. What do you say to that? Why, it helps the farmer, it helps the laboring man, it helps the poor man, to give them this prime article of food at a lower price; and with the competition that comes from Germany and France, from Cuba and from all quarters of the earth, I have no doubt that when this law goes into effect every man can buy his sugar at two cents a pound less than under the present tariff.

A MEMBER. Twenty pounds for a dollar. l!Ir. PAYNE. Yes, 20 pounds for a dollar. Now, Mr. Chairman, I did want to say a word about hides, though

I dislike to talk so long. Mr. CONGER. You had better say something about hides. Mr. PAYNE. I think I must touch upon that subject. Brother

MILLS says that hides '' bobup serenely" and then go down again. He would intimate that even the majority of the committee at some time may change their views on some questions in the schedule. Well, we have not done it at the request of any sugar-refiner. Mr. Havemeyer did not appear before us or any of his kind. We did not do it at the request of Mr. Armour. Whatever we have done has been done after consideration and as a matter of judgment. We examined this hide business. We found that there were imported into the United States a'6out $25,000,000 worth of hides; that $7,000,000 worth were goat skins. We did not think we could encourage the raising of goats in this country, and we did not put any duty on goat skins. We did not think it would help the farmer or anybody else; so we left that off.

A MEMBER. And there were some kangaroo skins. Mr. PAYNE. Yes, there were kangaroo skins, too. But we found

there were about Sl 7, 000, 000 worth of hides of cattle and calves. The question was, Would a duty help there? The hides imported into this country come from a warmer climate; they come trom the torrid zone. They are thick because nature thus provides a defense to the animal there against the insects that infest those countries. Tbe hide is thick and the hair thin. Take it in our colder climate and the bide is thin and the hair thick. You do not produce such hides and never will in this country. You can not do it. The climate is not adapted to it. You would have to raise an animal in a hot-house to encourage the hide to grow thicker. The tariff would not do it; protection would not make any more thickness on the hide of an ordinary "critter" in the North.

The committee believed that a duty of 15 per cent. upon the thick hides coming from the southern country would not help the American farmer, that it would not do him any good, and that it would be a delusion and a snare. We believed it. would give color to what our friends upon the other side were claiming, that we were attempting to deceive the farmer; so we did not place that duty on the hides. Iwanttosay that we were influenced by no bugaboo about trnsts; but still the fact remains that if by a duty we could have inrreased the price of hides in this country the profit would have gone to a certain concern in Chicago which has reduced the price of cattle in this country to every farmer and yet has increased the price of every beefsteak on every table in the land. So we thought, after surveying the whole field, that it was the wisest and best plan according to our deliberate judgment to leave hides where they are, on the free-list.

There is another matter which influenced us. We saw that a splendid industry had been built up here, that we were exporting leather from this country, and that we were exporting more leather than we were importing hides, and that this industry was scattered throughout the Northern States, that it was a home industry, and so we concluded to leave hides where they are. If they have ''bobbed up serenely," as the gentleman 1rom Texas says, they are certainly in the right _ pl~ now, and we propose to leave them there. [Applause.]

Mr. McCORMICK. Will the gentleman allow a question? li!r. PAYNE. Certainly. · Mr. McCORMICK. Will the gentleman inform the House what pro-..

portion of hides that are manufactured into leather by the tanners of the United States are imported?

Mr. PAYNE. I can not give you the statistics now. Mr. McCORMICK. The fact is that one-third of all that are manu

factured into leather are imported. In other words, we do not produce enough hides to furnish our tanners, and consequently a duty would be useless.

-.

• "' ~! .,

. , I

- \

\ J

'

,

..

.------


Mr. PAYNE. In addition to that, 90 per cent. of all the imported supplies are not confined to the Cornwall district. The following will hides are exported in the form of leather. show the sources of supply:

Now I must say something about Tin prod,uction of the world (stated in tons). TIN-PLATE.

Under existing law the duty on tin-plate is 1 cent per pound. We propose to make this duty 2 cents per pound. There is no reason why we should not manufacture all the tin-plate consumed in this country, except that arising from the difference in the price of labor between this country and Great Britain. The present duty is merely a revenue duty; by doubling it, it becomes a protective duty, ancl we will be able to employ American labor in manufac~uring every pound

1885. 1886. 1887. 1889. ___________________ , ___ ---------

Corn wall........ ... ...... .... ..... .. . ..... ......... .... ...... .. .... 9, 000 9, 000 9, 000 Straib:i ................................................................. 17, 320 19, 674 23, ffl7 Australia............................................................ 8,496 7,506 7,02!> Banca................................................................. 4,200 4,379 4,384 Billiton............... ..... ..... .................................... 3, 760 4, 128 4, 978 Bolivia ...... .......................................................................................... .

9,300 28,355 6,125 4,377 4,700 1,500

of tin used in this country. 'l'otal ... ......... ...... ...... ................... .... . .. ....... 42, 776 44, 687 4.9, 364 54, 357 The process of manufadure is a very simple act and involves no i -------------------'-------------

secret method, no mechanical difficulty. Sheets of iron or steel are . . first rolled to the required thickness, then dipped in baths of molten Of this total supply of the wor~d, m each of the years named, a~out tin and rolled as often as required, and fiually rubbed and polished 60 per cent. was produced by Chmese and Malay ln.bor, as follows. with oil. We already have machinery to roll the sheets of iron or steel Produced by Chinese and Malay labor. and we have some of the requisite machinery to finish the tin-plate. [In tons.] But the present duty does not afford sufficient protection. 1885 ............................................. 25,280 1 1887 ............................................. 33,339

The history of the attempts to establish this industry in this country 1886 ........................................ ······ 28, 181 1889 ............................................ 37, 339

. furnishes a good illustration of the folly of a tariff for revenue only. The population of the Straits Settlement, where the Straits tin is pro-In 1864 this law imnosed a duty of 2~- cents a pounil upon tin or iron dnced, in 1889 was 387,234, nearly all of whom were engaged in tin

coated with tin. Secretary Fessenden decided that thi<> did not mean mining, etc. This population is composed of-iron plates coated with tin or tin-plates, and that these came in with a Europenns ................................................ ................................................ 3,497 duty of 15 per cent. This ruling smothered the industry. l\Ialays ...................................................................................................... 170,163

In 1873, relying upon the high prices charged by the English syndi- Chinese ...................................................................................................... 173,279 cate, parties commenced the manufacture. Tin-plates were then sell- Natives of India................................................................................. ......... 4o, 295

ing for $12 per box. They c;-ontinued in the business for three years, Total population ............................................................................. 387,234 until their foreign competitors bad forced down the price to $4 per box. In 1876 they bad sunk their origiual capital and were compelled to give up the unequal contest.

The British manufacturers had followed the advice of Lord Brougham when be said, "It is worth while to incur a loss upon the first expectations in order by the glut to stifle in the cradle the rising manufactures of the United States." No sooner had they stifled the rising industry than they began to recoup themselves upon our people for their losses. Prices were again advanced until in 1879 tin-plates were selling at $9 and $10 a box.

.Again our people began to manufacture and again the foreign competition put down the price. So persistent was the competition that the foreign agents went about to our consumers, offering to sell at_25 cents a box lower than the lowest price offered by our own people. They made shorter and more decisive work of it this time. Oar people were vanquished, and retired ingloriously from the field, the victims of a tariff for revenue only. Since then we have been enjoying tlt.e luxury of tin at whatever rate the Cornwall manufacturer might demand. The consumption has steadily increased; its uses have multiplied. Almost uninterruptedly have our mechanics, our laborers, our poor people paid tribute to the wealthy syndicate who have controlled this industry for morethanacentury. Themagaitudeofthisindustry is enormous.

Griffith's Guide, published in The Iron and Steel Journal of London for January 25, 1890 (at page 135), states the names of the registered tin-plate mills in the Unit.ed Kingdom on January 1, 1890, showing: The number of mills to be ....................................................................... . 480 The number of persons directly and indirectly employed in the tin-plate

industry in En~land is estimated at ...................................................... 500, 000 The annul\l product in tons for the English tin-plate industry is esti-

mated at ................................................................................................ 500, 000

We consume 75 per cent. of all the tin-plate produced in the world. The number of tons of tin-plate imported into the United States for

the past three years and the value thereof are stated in the report of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, president of the Board of Trade of London, to the House of Commons, which report is dated December, 1889, and the statement will be found at page 84, as follows:

1887. 1888. 1889.

~---------------~1>~----1------ 1-----

Tons ........................................................... .. Value (in pounds, equivalent to an average

of about $-9...3,000,000.

21)8,355 3,562, 972

292, 626 4,091,147

336,692 4.,674,455

With the duty imposed under this bill, we could produce all this here, employing directly 25,000 bands and indirectly many times that number. About the 1st of January last the Cornwall syndicate put up the price of theirarticle so tbatitsold at $6.50 per box. Our people can make it now at $5.50, and will at once embark in the business if Congress will guaranty them this price. But they want no more of the experience of 1876 and of 1879.

There is no trouble about the supply of the raw material. We can furnish the requisite 500, 000 tons of pig-iron, the 500, 000 tons of limestone, the 1, 000, 000 tons of coke, the 36, 000, 000 pounds of lead, and we can get the 1,000,000 pounds of tin. This raw material isfree, and the

But I have great faith in the tin-mines of the United States. The mines are numerous. Immense c.apital has recently been invested in their development, and the ores are very rich. A test made in 1886 of ores taken direct to Cornwall and there tested showed 2.80 per cent. of tin, a percentage unequaled by any foreign mine. This is what the British consul at Chicago says in 1887 of these mines. It will be found on page 11 of his report:

The discovery of tin in the Bla{!k Hills must be regarded asofthe highest importance, and there is now little doubt that the mines are of enormous extent and value. The district known as the Black Hills i~ an isolated group of mountains lying principally in Dakota and partly in ·wyoming, between the two main forks of the Cheyenne River. The group is of nearly an oval form, about \JO by 69 miles, rising from an arid plain. It is thickly wooded and cov· ered with verdure, and has rich, deep soil in well watered valleys. Of the two known tin districts, the souther.n section, 4 miles wide, lies around the north and west sides of and probably runs all around the central mass of granite called Ilarney's Peak, and the other or northern section is about 20 miles west of Deadwood.

Tin was first discovered here in 1883, but the miners were only in search of the precious metal, and little attention was paid to it.

Some of the mines are now commencing regular opemtions, sinking shafts and erecting machinery, and before long there will probably be a regular supply of metal.

The quantity of ore appears to be unlimited, and as it lies near and crops out from the surface and on lofty wooded hills the cost of wotking and transport will not be great. Little has, however, yet been done, except the production of specimen bars and the examination of localities which appear to be most likely to yield paying quantities of ore, though there are eonsiderable quantities extracted ready for concentration.

Mines in North Carolina, too, yielcll per cent .. of tin. which is double the yield of some mines in Cornwall successfully worked.

To furnish all the materials and do all the labor required to supply our entire demand for tin-plate would give to the laborers of this coun·try twenty millions of dollars per annum, and tin utensils would not cost any more than we have paid for them during the greater part of the time for the past twenty years. If the entfre increase of duty were added to the cost of the tin cup it would amount to only one-sixth of a. cent per cup; if to the dinner-pail, to but 1! of a cent per pail; the wholesale price of cups is 16i cents per dozen. Does any one believe that a single cup would sell for more than 5 cents each or a. pail would increase in price from the 35 cents now asked for it?

W c shall get a better article of tin. Now the heavier sheets of tin, which cost the least to make (becam:ie they do not require as many heats or as many rolls as the thinner sheets), sell at $1 per box more than the next lighter sheets. The syndicate compels this difference in price and our people are obliged to submit to it.

'l'be British press and people are becoming much agitated over this proposed action of ours. Last summer the discussion commenced, and it has not abated since.

Let me read the following: [From the London Ironmonger, August 10.]

The efforts which a.re being made in the United States to familiarize the people of that country with the idea that tin-plates can and should be manufactured there are well worthy of the sustained at ten ti on of the manufacturers of South Wales and England. The promoters of the home•made plan are exceedingly pertinacious, and are leaving no effort untried in order to achieve success. At an exhibition to be held at Pittsburgh this autumn the process of manufacture is to be carried on· in a practical manner, a sum of nearly £1,000 being expected to be laid out on the plant for the purpose. It is anticipated that by thus inter-· eating the American public and showing "how simple the business is " the way will be ma.de easier for pushing a bill through Congress next session, having for its object the imposition of much heavier duties upon imported tin• plates.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4405 Should this scheme succeed then there is no doubt that a. grea.t dea.l of A.mer

can capital will be promptly embarked in the business, and, sooner or later, the tin-plate trade will cease to be a. monopoly of South Wales and Monmouthshire. Nevertheless, we see no reason why the ma.nufacturersof tin-plates in this country need grow disheartened or despondent. They have the advantages of possessions, position for shipment, trained labor, and all materials on the spot. These are ve1·y important points; but1 in addition, the Welsh makers have strong allies in the United States, and , 1f the alliance is made the most of, we should have very considerable doubts of the success of any application to Congress to increase the present duties. But to insure that result the 'Yelsh makers and their business connections must not only watch but work, and work hard, to checkmate the advances of the American ultra-protectionists.

Will my Democratic friends aid us in removing this ''monopoly of South Wales?" Certainly you can ha.ve no relation to the "strong allies" in the United States.

But the syndicate that was formed last winter, to put up prices by shutting down on the production, was broken up in March. Why it was done let Mr. J. H. Rodgers, the managing partner of the South Wales Tinned Plat.e Company;, tell yon. His speech, as reported in. the Cardifl' Echo of March 3, contains the following:

"A year ago the protectionist party in the United States, for the first time in many years, wns able to get a bill passed by the Senate more than doubling the duty on imported tinned plates, with the object of enabling the steel-makers of America t-0 manufacture plates profitably a.nd to exclude those made in this country. The House of Represent.atives threw out the bill, but now the protectionist party is in a. majority in the lower House, so that those in America who are endeavoring to prevent the duty on tinned plates bein&' raised have a. more difficult battle to fight than they had a. year ago, a.nd those among us who are trying to form a combination to close a.11 tinned-plate works in Wales for a. time, if successful, would sl.mply succeed in arming our opponents with the strongest weapons of attack." .

He then stated that the forming of a. combination to shut down the tinnedplate works would be but a fulfillment of the prophecies of the protectionists. and he reit1uded it as eminently unwise and hazardous. Continuing-, he is quoted: "I could give you further evidence to prove ho\Y 1mdesirable and how dangerous any combination would be to oblige the Americans to pay higher prices for plates. The total exports of tin boxes and terne plates last year were 7,400,000. Of Lhese the United States took 5,500,000boxes. Consider what would be the result to all of us here if the United States should make her own plates, as she now makes her own steel rails, pig-iron, etc., which not many years ago were a.II made in this country. Some tell us that if such a state of things comes about we must find new markets; but where are we to find them? And if they are to be found, why do not the owners of the work• that are now idle for want of orders seek them out and open up business with them? It seems to me that the first results would be that tin-plate-makers would have to reduce the cost of manufacture to meet the increased duty. A~ far as I can see at present the only direction in which the cost could be reduced would be in labor."

Is it necessary to add that this firm staid out of the combine and tin-plate is again declining in price? But this little game will not work. The representatives of the people are not to be deceived. We will put this duty upon tin-plates, and in less than five years our people will buy their articles of tin at lower prices than ever before. Nay, it is very probable that the new competition will makethe averageprice from the start lower than that under a revenue tariff.

It is a noteworthy fact that the pressed tinware, such as dairy pans and like articles, is tinned in this country to-day. The honest work in this class of goods is driving the foreigner from the market.

WELSH TIN·PLATES MA.DE BY WOMEY.

The London Iron and Steel Trades J onrnal for April 12, 1890, contains the following reference to the ~cKinley bill:

The most important item in the proposed new schedule is that affecting tinplates. The duty is now 1 cent per pound, and the suggested ta.riff" is 2 cents and 2.10 cents per pound. If this is carried the occupation of three-fourths of those engaged int.he tin-plat.e trade will be gone, and our manufacturers and their workmen if they continue in the business must employ their capital and experience on the other side of the Atlantic. The great obsta.cle to tin-plate-making on a large scale in the States is the entire absence of cheap female labor, so necessary in the industry and so abundant in Wales; but if the enormous duty of 12s. a box is adopted possibly the labor difficulty ma.y be got over. Until the bill is actually passed we shall continue to believe that the people of America will refuse to impose upon the consumers of tin-plate this enormous tax. Tin-plates can not possibly be made in the Statessocheaplya.s they can be in this country; the existing duty is ample proof of this; and to abolish the duty entirely would be more appropriate than to increase it.

We will not take this advice. We respectfully refer it to the other side of the Honse. We do not propose to leave our men in competition with the women of Wales. Our men are compet.eut to perform all of man's work in this land of ours, and we have lifted up the wife of our laborinp: man to preside over the comfortable home which his well requited toil is able to provide, and we propose to preserve this order of things for all time to come.

We can supply oar whole market with tin-plate; we can transplant this magnificent industry to our country; we can give labor to tens of thousands of our men, and shelter, food, and raiment to hundreds of thousands of our people. Shall we hesitate? Let us obey the commands of th.e people so clearly spoken in 1888. One question decided then was against free tin as expressed in the Mills bill, and in favor of encouragement to this industry as provided in the Senat.e bill.

The gentleman from Texas says that if we will only open our ports for the product.~ of other countries there will arise a demand for ours; trade will beget trade. He wholly ignores the law of supply and demand. If there is a shortage of the wheat crop in the world England will seek it where it can be obtained for the lowest price. Ifwe have it to sell, she will buy of us iu such quantities as she may need, and without any regard to the- questions whether she pays for it in barter or in the currencv of the world.

We have seen how from 1784 to 1790, when we had free trade and our imports ran up to an alarming :figure, our exports did not increase to any extent. The same rule holds good to-day. From Brazil, Vene-znela., Uruguay, and the Unit.ed States of Colombia we import $78,046,-856, of which $72,231,034 is free of duty and $5,815,822 pays a. dutyin other words, 93 per cent. of it comes in free-but we only sell them a. mere 25 per cent. of this amount, $19,1031907.

It is not because there is no demand for articles that we sell in Brazil and these South American states. They take oar $60,000,000 of gold for the balance due them, and buy what we could supply them with in the markets of the world.

These same trade relations hold good with every country of the world. They ea<ih buy of ns what we have. It makes no difference whether they are able to sell to us or not. In our trade relations with the world the following tables of fa<lt show this Texas theory to be entirely without foundation:

In the countries where our im.i:>orts exceed our exports:

Countries.

Europe ............... ....................................................... . North America .... ...................................................... . South America .... ...... .. .......... .......... . ........................ . Asia. and Oceanica ............................................... ..... . Africa ...... ............. . ........................................... ........ . All others ........................••••...•...................•.•............

We buy.

8195, 341, 951 145, 683, 513 83, 046, 64.6 85, 519, 94.5 2,19.5,592 1,848,564

We sell.

8130, 280, 086 79, 904, 747 21,210,483 17,700,9'¥1

464,868 618,637

In the countries where oar ex!)Or..tB exceed our imports, and where nearly every dollar of the import.a pays us a duty:

Countries.

Europe ...•....... ......... -0 • • ••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •

North America ..........•............... ................................. South America ......................................................... . Asia and Oceanica .............. ...........•........................... Africa .......................•..............•.... •..............•............ Allothers . ....................................................•..... ... ....

We buy.

$208, 079, 107 5, 182,303 9,088,406 7,684., 505 1,414,535

46,:>Si \

We sell_

$448, 622, 434 9,645,729

13, 810, 534. 16, 978,032

3,031,637 133, 191

When the Mills bill was before the House two years ago there was great anxiety in certain circles for its passage. Sir Charles Tupper, minister of finance for Canada, congratulated Canada on the prospect ive passage of the Mills bill, and what be said in that connoction I shall insert here, as well as the groaning of the London Telegraph and other English papers over the defeat of the Morrison bill:

Modified it may be, but I a.m inclined to think the amendments will be still more in the interestofCanada than as the bill standsto-da.y. We may congratulate ourselves upon securing the free admission of our lumber, upon which was paid during the last year no less than Sl,315.450. On copper ore. m&de free by the Mills bill, we paid or there was paid-to make it meet the views of the hon orable gentleman opposite more correctly-$96,~. On salt $21,992 duty was paid. This is rendered free by the Mills bill. I am sorry to find, as I hoped would be the case from the first copy of the bill that came to me, that potatoes were not included amongst vegetables. I am sorry to find there is a. doubt as to whether the term " ,-egeta.bles not specially enumerated" will not exclude potatoes.

After the defeat of the Morrison tariff bill, in the Forty-ninth Con gress, the London Daily Telegraph, an ultra Crown paper, had the fol lowing:

A bill to establish in America what the English call free trade has just been defeated in the House by the narrow majority of 4. The measure was of enor mous importance for English manufa.ctw·ers, as it would ha\"e ena.bled them to export goods to the States without the crushing tariff now imposed, and its fate was watched with intense interest by Englishmen. Were it passed it would have been worth $100,000,000 per annum to British manufacturers.

Bat no such indorsement comes from Great Britain in respect to the pending bill. Every foreign government, every foreign manufacturer that bas said anything at all about it, has protested against the passage of this bill. Every importer has protested against its passage. But the manufacturers, the consumers, and the farmers of the country have lifted their voices in favor of the passage of this bill. [Applause on the Republican side.] It is in the interest of the farmer, in the inter est of the manufacturer, and in the interest of the laboring people of the country.

Mr. ChairD}an, we have the great.est country on the face of the earth. Rightly it is named the "New World." It is a world in itse1f; it it is a new world in that it is not only the last in its discovery, but it meets all the demands and requirements of modern civilized life Stretching from ocean to ocean and from the Great Lakes on the north to the Gulf of Mexico on the south, it embraces twenty-five parallels of latitude, while the sun in all his course from east to west never sets upon our domain. We have every variety of soil, every condition of climate between the torrid and frigid. The soil on our hills and in our valleys, in the great prairies of the West and in the low lands of the South, is unsurpassed in richness, variety, and productiveness.

Nature bas stored our mountains with gold, silver, copper, iron, and every variety of metal, with coal unequaled and abundant. The laboratories of the earth for centuries have been compounding and storing for our use oil and natural g~ in seemingly exhanstless supply Our

,•

' • I

;.: i .;,,. ... • ·-

,'

/

,,

.:

.. - ...

.- '·I • t-- .......... _ . ' . ~:,~'·~ .. ·$-::·';;., " !('~ • - - •• .-. '. ,_ :"-: •• - ·l

4406 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY9;

countless rivers and streams, as they flow onward to the sea, develop a power infinite in ex.tent, ready ever to be harnessed by the hand of man and in obedience to his will to aid him in his work. With these grand resources, by the help of intelligent effort we can produce within our borders everything that the necessities and comfort of our people require. Providence never intended that a people so richly endowed should be mere hewers of wood and drawers of wat.er, that we should confine our energies to corn and cotton, and leave our mines undeveloped and our fuel unused. Our fathers never acted upon this idea.

To regulate commerce, they formed a " more perfect union," and at once inaugurated the protective system, which has ever commended itself to a majority of our people through the century of our life as a nation; which has lent its beneficence to onr growth and prosperity for more than four-fifths of the hundred years of our existence. Protected by it, our growth ha.s been marvelous, surpassing belief. One is lost in admiration whether he contemplates the material growth or the progress in invention.

The gentleman from Georgia asks, do we claim that the prot.ective system has had anything to do with invention? Why, Mr. Chairman, "necessity is the mother of invention," and when you create the necessity here for the supply of our wants by the manufacture of our hands you stimulate the inventive genius of the country. Take away protection, take away the chance to manufacture the article invent.ed, and what incentive is there for men to spend their brains, their time, and their talents in invention if the seventeen-year patent-right is not to inure to their benefit? because they are defenseless without a protective system and can not manufacture profitably the articles which they in-vent. ·

I will not stop with the statistics of our material advance or to enumerate the ten thousand improvements which steam and electricity have brought to the daily seryice of man. Of the mat.erial growth, Mulhall, the great London statistician, in 1882, could not find words capable of expressing his astonishment and admiration. In 1860 our total wealth was estimat.ed at $16,000,000,000. It is now estimated at over $60, 000, 000, 000. In 1882 Mulhall estimat.ed the total wealth of Great Britain at $40!640,000,000. Our accumulations of a quarter of a century far exceeded the entire wealth of Great Britain accumulated during all the centuries of her existence. No wonder Mulhall is forced to say: It would be impossible to find in history a parallel to the progress of the United

States in the last ten years. Every day that the sun rises upon the American people it sees an addition of two and one-half million dollars to the accuornlation of wealth in the Republic, which is equal to one-third of the daily accumulation of all mankind ouliside the United Stat-es.

No wonder that the great statesman of modern times, with a ripe experience extending back well through the century, should with deliberation say:

The success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully borne and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its Army, found employment for all ilia soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labor and homes to all the unemployed of Europe as fast they could arrive within its territory, and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt. Because it is my delibe~te judgment that the prosperity of America is mainly due to it.s system of protective laws, I urge that Germany has now reached that point where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States.-Bistnarck.

While we do not shut our eyes to the fact that there is temporary depression here in all our industries, we also remember that this same depression extends tbroughont the whole civilized world, and that by comparison we are still the mostprosperous people of the earth. Let us learn from our experience. The past few years, with its evergrowing divergence between the wages paid here and abroad, have disclosed the weak points in our existing tariff laws and shown us where a readjuatment is needed. Let us remedy the defects, and, heeding the voice of the people, pass this bill, which will give confidence to the farmer, the artisan, the manufacturer, and the capitalist, and start our country again on a new career of prosperity and greatness. [Loud and prolonged applause on the Republican side.]

ORDER. OF BUSINESS.

Mr. WHEELER. of Alabama, was recognized. Mr. McKINLEY. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment to

move that the committee rise? The CHAIRMAN. The committ.ee will rise informally to receive a

message from the Senate. The committee accordingly rose, ]\fr. MORROW taking the chair as

Speaker pro tempore. Mr. McKINLEY. I desire to ask unanimous consent that the rule

fixing Friday evening for the consideration of pension business be suspended for this evening in order that we may devote it to the continuance of this discussion.

The SPEAKER pro tem1JOre. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. I object. Mr. McKINLEY. I was going to ask, Mr. Speaker, in connection

with that, that next Monday night be set apart for the consideration

•

of pension bills, the same order to prevail as on Fridays, in case of the vacation of the order for this evening.

Mr. SPINOLA. Make it Thursday night. Mr. McKINLEY. Make it any night. I trust the gentleman will

withdraw his objection, for there are many gentlemen on both sides of this House who desire to speak, and I sbail ask the House to give an evening so that the Committee on Invalid Pensions and the Committ.ee on Pensions shall not lose the time for the consideration of bills reported by them on this account.

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. I desire to place myself right in this connection. I do not desire that the single evening of the week provided for the consideration of private pension bills shall be l~. There have been a great many mea.snres reported from that committee, and so far there have been very few of them passed upon, so I do not like to agree to anything that will set aside that night for the consideration of other measures. I do not believe it ought to be done.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will you take Saturday night? ~Ir. MCMILLIN. Saturday evening is set apart for eulogies. Mr. SPINOLA. Take Thursday night of next week. Then you can

have two nights in the week. Mr. McKINLEY. We will consent that it shall be any night yon

desire. I have no desire to deprive the Committee on Invalid Pensions of an evening for the consideration of their bills.

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. As a member of the Committee on Invalid Pensions, and I do not undertake to speak for the committee, but speaking for myself, I will 8ay that the Committ.ee on Invalid Pensions have done a great deal of work and have made many reports, the Calendar is full, and we have not gotten along with our work as well as we ought to bav~ done; and I do not think this onght to be done.

Mr. CHEADLE. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. Yes. Mr. CHEADLE. Will it make any difference, so far as the work of

the Committee on Invalid Pensions is <..'Oncerned, whether we devot.e to- · night or next Monday night to its consideration?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. That will give you two nights in the week.

Mr. McKINLEY. I want to state t-0 the gentleman from Indiana that I make this suggestion with the concurrence of the chairman of the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Mr. PA.. YSON. I would like to have the attention of the gentleman from Ohio. If he will ask unanimous consent to set apart an additional evening next week besides the regular Friday evening session· for the consideration of pension bills that will be satisfactory.

Mr. McKINLEY. I make tlie request for an additional evening; but Friday evening will be covered by the rule.

Mr. McMILLIN. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that I do not think he ought to try 19 close this debate to-morrow. I do not think he ought to confine the debate to four days only. This is a very important measure and this is certainly a. very short debate. I think a longer time could be properly devoted to it. There is no disposition on the part of the Hou!')e to excessive debate. I do not say this in connection with the objection, but I do think that there ought not to be an effort made to close debate to-morrow.

Mr. McKINLEY. I made the request for the evening session in order to give gentlemen more time for the purpose of general debate.

Mr. McMILLIN. But, even with that, what I was stating to the gentleman from Ohio is that general debate ought not to be limited to four days. Now, this is a matter of vast importance, and a number of gentlemen desire to debate it. The members of the committee have had the .kind indulgence of the House and have each occupied more than one hour. This has necessit.at.ed the taking up of the whole day in the discussion by members of the committee; and I suggest-and I think I voice the sentim~nts of others on this si.de of the House, and I also think it would not be counter to the feeling on that side-that it is hardly fair for our committee to take up the debate that takes place in the day and force · others to evening sessions. Unnecessary debate will not be insisted upon, and I do not think, under all the circumstances, that it will be reasonable for us to undertake to force this debat.e on the other' gentlemen who shall not be able to speak after tomorrow evening.

The SPEAKER pro tt:mpore. The committee rose informally and debate is now proceeding by unanimous consent.

Mr. McKINLEY. I only want to say a single word in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee, that it seems to me if I ever had any doubt as to whether four days was too short a time for the debate on this bill it bas been demonstrated in the last two or three days, from the interest taken bymembers on thisveryimportantquestion, thatfourdaysseems to be quite enough for discussing it; but of course I am not at this moment making a motion to close debate. I expect to do that to-morrow.

Mr. FLOWER. If the gentleman will permit me toaskhimaquestion there. Was it not understood in the committee that during the discussion under the five-minute rule if any members desired they might have a longer time in which to discnss portions of the bill in which they were interested?

\ .

. ...-._ ·t- .~ ... . ";.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4407 Mr. McKINLEY. I do not think there will be any discussion about

that. Mr. SPINOLA. I desire to state to the gentleman from Ohio that

my friend from Indiana [Mr. MARTIN] is willing to take Thursday night and the Friday night that is provided under the rule.

Mr.McKINLEY. Tbeniaskunanimousconsent to set apart Thursday evening for the consideration of pension bills on the Private Calendar. I witl state to the gentleman from New York that of course you get Friday night under the rule.

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. A parliamentary inquiry. If we consent that the agreement shall be made here this evening, suppose we meet on next Thursday evening for the purpose of consideripg private pension bills and a point of order is raised. Would it or would it not deprive us of that night?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a proceeding by unanimous consent of the House, and ii the House consents to make the order it will be just as binding as any rule of the House.

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana. Then I withdraw my objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mc

KINLEY] asks unanimous consent that an evening seesion be held next Thursday evening, the same order to prevail as on Friday evenings, for the consideration of private pension bills. Is there objection? (Aft.er a pause.) The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Secretary, announced

that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which concurrence was requested, bills of the following titles:

A bill (H. R. 7160) making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and for other purposes; and

A bill (H. R. 8152) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891.

.APPROPRIATIONS FOR NAVAL AND ARMY PURPOSES. l\Ir. PEEL obtained unanimous consent to have printed in the REC

ORD the following petition, without the names: 8.ALEll:, FULTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

To the honorable Senate of the United States a.nd House of Representatives in Congress assembled:

We, the undersigned petitioners, knowing that as a nation we are at peace with all the nations of the world and that there is not the slightest indication that that fraternal relation will be disturbed either by our Governm"nt or others, and havillg observed in your proceedings an inclination to drain our national Treasury by useless appropriations to build up our Navy and make our militia more efficient, or a secret purpose to force the industrial classes to pay tribute to the capitalistic element, would respectfully file an earnest protest against all such reckless legislation, and do petition and urge your honorable body to defeat those measures, especi&lly H. R.4668, which we regard as a menace to free government and a bold step to,vard the establishment of an absolute despotism.

This we will ever pray, reminding you meanwhile that in a Government of the people such as ours the people have a. right to be heard1 and that it is the duty of their Representatives to enact the will of the people mto la.ws.

The Committee of the Whole then resumed its session. TARIFF BILL.

[Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama, withholds his remarks for revision. See Appendix.]

Mr. McKINLEY. If nobody desires to consume the remainder of the hour at this time I will move that the committee rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The remainingthirty minutes will be controlled by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. LA.NH.Al\:[].

The motion of Mr. McKINLEY was then agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed

the chair, Mr. PAYSON reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, having had"under consideration the tariff bill, had come to no conclusion thereon. .

HARBOR AT GALVESTON. Mr. CRISP. Mr. Spea1'er, I ask unanimous consent t.o publish in

the RECORD a short petition, without signatures, in reference to the harbor at Galveston.

There was no objection. The petition, which was referred to the Committee on Rivers and

Harbors, is as follows: To the honorable the House of .Representatives of the

United States in Congress assembled: Whereas the growing necessities of the West demand a first-class harbor on

the Gulf coe.st of Texas in order that the surplus products of tha.t vu.st region may find an outlet to the markets oftbe world by a shorter route, thereby sa>ing annually to the producers many millions of dollars; and

Whereas such direct relief to tbe farmers of that section would be indirectly a great benefit to the agricultural classes of our whole country; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States, recognizing the importance of such a harbor, directed the appointment of a board of engineers whose duty it should be to select the most eligible point or points for a first-class harbor· and said board having reported in favor of Galveston, and recommended th~ immediate appropriation of $6,200,000 for the improvement of that port; and

Whereas Senate bill No. 2716, making an appropriation in accordance with such recommendation, has passed the Senate of the United States and is now before the House of Representatives: Therefore,

\Ve, the undersigned, voters of Sumter County, State of Georgia., respectfully petition your honorable body and earnestly request Hon. CHARLES F. CRISP. Representative iu Congress from our district, to support and vote for thepassacre ol this bill, with this proviso: That the Representatives jn Congress from the

• I

West give their support and votes to the defeating of the Conger compound· lard bill now before Congress for passage, a. bill which we believe is directed primarily to the crippling and ultimately the ruin of an importa.ntSoQtbernindustryand product.

The above was unanimously adopted by.Harmony Suballia.nce May 2, 1890. .A.O. BELL, .A.. C. SPEER, A. D. GA.TEWOOD, Y. l\L FURLOW, D. C. N. BURKHALTER, Y. B. HOOKS,

and 36 others. G. A. HERNDON,

President Hannony Suballiance, Sumter County, Georgta. G. H. SREG, SecretaTJ1 Harmony Subaltiance.

.APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of conferees as follows,

namely: On the bill (S.1221) granting a pension to Helen Plnnkett-}lr. MOR

RILL, Mr. FLICK, and Mr. TURNER of New York; and On the bill (H. R. 7754) granting the right of way to Mille Lacs and

Lake Superior Railroad across the Mille Lacs Indian reservation-Mr. PERKINS, Mr. HALL, and Mr. SKINNER.

LEA VE OF ABSENCE. By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. FRANK, for one week, on account of important business. To Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania, until Monday. To Mr. FLICK, indefinitely, on account of sickness. To Mr. ATKINSON, of Pennsylvania, on Saturday next, on account

of important business. WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS.

By unanimous consent, leave was granted to Mr. KELLEY to withdraw papers filed in support of the bill (H. R. 9299) for the relief of Daniel W. Boutwell .

E~OLLED BILLS SIGNED. l\Ir. MOORE, from the O>mmittee on Enrolled Bills, reported that

they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the following title; when the Speaker signed the same:

A bill (S. 2406} to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building thereon at Atchison, Kans.

VISITORS TO NAVAL .ACADEMY. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. BOUTELLE, Mr.

WALL.ACE of New York, and Mr. RusK as Visitors to the Naval Academy.

SEN ATE AMENDMENTS TO .APPROPRIATION BILLS. The SPEAKER laid before the House amendments of the Senate to the

bill (H. R. 7160) making appropriation for the payment of invalid and other pensions of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and for other purposes; which were referred tothe Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

Also, Senate amendment to the bill (H. R. 3152) making appropriations for the support of the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. _

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, before moving that the House take

a recess until 8 o'clock I ask unanimous consent that we meet to-morrow at 11 o'clock instead of 12.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. Mr. McKINLEY. I move that the House now take a recess until 8

o' cloek p. m. for the purpose of further considering the tariff bill. The SPEAKER. Before submitting the question the Chair desires

to announce that the gentleman from Kansas [.M:r. PERKINS] will preside as Speaker pro tempore at this evening's session.

The motion of Mr. McKINLEY was then agreed to; and accordingly (at 5 o'clock p. m.) the House took a recess until 8 o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION. The House, at 8 o'clock p. m., resumed it.a session, :J'!.Ir. PERKINS in

the chair as Speaker pro te1npore. TARIFF BILL.

l\Ir . .McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 9416.

The motion was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union, Mr. MORROW in the chair. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, before the House took a re

cess this evening we were entertained by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. WHEELER] with an extended eulo~y of the Democratic party, in which he spoke of how much it had accomplished and other matters in connection with its history. I was astonished that the gentleman should claim so much for the Democratic party, and while he was speaking about its history my mind went back to 1860, when

. .. ·~

, .

I. .... .....- . .,.

• .. ...... , .. ~·,_ -. ..


the Charle.:iton convention was in session, during which that party was in great agony over the question whether the policy then recently favored by the distinguished statesman from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], should prevail in it.a councils or whether the policy advocated in the South should -prevail; and when that convention finally broke up and disorganized, a writer to a newspaper in the Northern Statessaid that be "witnessed the contortions of the dying monster." It is a wonder that it is still alive. The only thing creditable about it is its age.

I thought, as the gentleman eulogized that party, of its history in this country. At that time the Southern wing of the party, that for at least thirty years before that time had controlled the organization, was maintaining that slavery was the corner-stone of our institutions, that the normal condition of the laboring man was that of a slave, and that the highest condition of society was that in which capital owned labor. The gentleman said that the Democratic party was always strongest when in touch with the people; that like Antreus it gathered strength when it touched its native earth. I believe since the Democratic party lost the name of Republicanism in 1832 it never has been in touch with the American people on any great public question, but has been controlled by a close social organization, and the leading men in the interest of social aristocracy have dict.ated all it.a policies and controlled its political action.

Even the southern secession movementwas a movement in which no body of Southern people was ever consulted. I challenge any gentleman to show that any movement of the Southern States in the direction of secession was sanctioned in any State by a majority of the Southern people. That only goes to show that the Democratic party when it was controlled by the Southern leaders was never in sympathy with the people. There was a time in this country when the men, many of whom went into the Democratic organization, were known by a nobler name, when it had the sympathy and support of the Ame:riran people, and when its councils were controlled by the great man who in the beginning of our history wrote the American Declaration of Independence, in which the young Republic proclaimed to the world that all men were created equal; that they were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were the protection of life, liberty~ and the pursuit of happniess, and that to secure these rights Governments were instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

But there came a time when these liberal views, when these liberal political ideas, when the doctrine, which was then the shibboleth of the party, that all partial laws were iniquitous, that all special provisions were wrong, were entirely abandoned by the Democratic organization; and while the gentleman was speaking I thought of the speech of the distinguished President of the United States, Mr. Garfield, in which, in 1879, he spoke of the monuments that were placed all along American history of these nineteen -previous years and the record of the Demo-cra tic party during those times. ·

Now, there are distinct policies to-day advocated by the Republican party. I will not spend the time of this committee this evening by quoting from the views of the men who were the leaders in this country and who controlled its policies for the first forty or fifty years of our history. .

In some remarks that I made two years ago I called attention to the views and quoted from every President that had occupied the Presidential chair from the time of Washington up to Mr. Jackson, in which every one of those distinguished men advocated the policy of protection to American industries. I will only allude to the fact that under the ad ministration of these men-and I might say of every Democratic President in American history-all of the revenues of the General Government, except for a short time during the war of 1812 and a short time a fter the war of the Revolution, were raised by a tariff upon the imports into this country.

Now, what is the position of the Democratic party to-day? When the Democratic party speaks at its national conventions and expresses it.a views as a national organization it declares in favor of American industries. It is only when it abandons its party platform and submit.a itself to the dictation of it.a free-trade leaders that it ever abandons those ideas.

Let me read from the Democratic platform of 1884, which was indorsed again in 1888:

AU taxation shall be limited to the requirements of economical government. The necessary reduction in taxation can and must be effect-ed without depriving- American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor and without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any inc1·eased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wnges prevailing in this country.

As a national organization the party indorsed that in 1884 and again in 1888, and the distinguished ~entleman from Pennsylvania recently deceased [Mr. Randallj, one of the honored men of this day, stood squarely on that doctrine when he refused to follow his party organization in support of the Mills bill, insisting that the Democratic theory, as advocated by Jackson, by Jefferson, by.Madison, and by Monroe, was that ta.riff duties should be levied with a view to protecting 1\_merican labor and developing American industry. Now, as I have said, this doctrine was indorsed by the Democratic party again in 1888. It is true that the then President managed to secure a renomination and

submitted his views to be decided upon by the American people, and we all know the result.

We know that the great State of New York, which had been considered as safe for Democracy, changed and became, by quite a large majority, a Republican State. We know that the State of Indiana. in the West; changed and became a: Republican State. And, Mr. Chairman, I make this assertion, that no man can go before this great American people and stand squarely upon the doctrine which was made the Democratic party shibboleth in 1888 in spite of their platform-no man can stand upon that ground and declare that in levying the taxes he will not seek to protect American industry and be successful as a public man in this country. •

Now, something has been said about the position of the Republican party. The Republican party from the very beginning of its organization has declared in favor of the policy of protection. I know we have some men among us who, by extravagant expressions, place us in ·a. false position. For my own part I do not believe in a high protective tariff. I believe in a tariff in which two elements shall be considered. The main leading element in all cases must be the object of securing the necessary revenue to carry on the Government, to provide for its great necessities, for the development of the country, and, at the same time, in the mind of the legislator there should also be considered the development of American industry and the advancement of the interests of American labor; and no man, I maintain, is performing his highest duty to the American people unless these·two great objects of taxation are kept at the same time prominently in his mind as a legislator.

That, as I say, was the policy of the fathers, and the Republican party in 1860, when it laid down its platform, declared for that policy, and it has renewed it in every national platform since that time. It; had the experience of the time from 1857 to 1860 and of the disastrous consequences which hati resulted from adopting the free-trade theories of Democracy; and, by keeping that experience in view, the Republican party put into its platform in 1860 the declaration that in levying dnties to raise revenue to carry on the General Government the legislator should have in view aliro the interests and the advancement of .American labor. Our Democratic friends nowadays say that this object should not be considered at all.

In my own State-and it is a common thing in most of the !J!;:lt~the Democratic party, following an early theory on the other side, say that if in levying duties you take int.o consideration any other thing than the revenues to result to the Government you violate the Constitution. The Demoeratic party of my own State several years ago declared that to levy a tariff for anything but revenue only was uneonstitutional. Now, Mr. Chairman, 'what effect have these policies had in our history upon the development of the country? In the minds of all the early statesmen there was no question of the duty of protecting American industry in levying duties, and I have before me a letter, which I will not take time to read, written by General Jackson in 1824 to Dr. Coleman, in which he said that we had our mountains of iron, lead, and copper, that we had the facilities for the growth of hemp and wool, and that if we, in levying our duties, were unmindful of those great interests, we were unworthy the name of American statesmen.

And he closed that letter by saying: We have too long been subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is

time we should become a litUe more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the pauper laborers of Europe, feed our own; or else, in a. short time, by continuing the present policy, we shall all be paupers ourselves.

That wa.s the opinion of the man most honored in the Democratic party in that day, General Jackson.

In 1824 the duties on imports were raised, and again in 1828. I have here a table showing the rates of duty in every year of American history from the time the Gonrnment went into operation up to 1888. It was -prepared by Mr. H. J. Philpot, a prominent free-trader of my ow~ State, and was published in 1888 in the Chicago Tribune. Here is the table, showing the percentages of the tariff from 1791 to 1888:

Year.

1791 .......... .. ......... ................... . 1792 ........................................ . 1793 ............................. ........... . 179-! ......... ............ .............. .... . 1795 ...................................... . . 1796 ............................... ......... . 1797 ........................................ . 1798 ...................................... .. . 1799 ..... .............................. ..... . 1800 ....................................... .. 1801 .................. ...................... . 1802 .... .................................... . 1803 ........................................ . 1804 ........................................ . 1805 ............................... ......... . 1806 ......... ............................... . 1807 ...................................... . 1808 ....................................... .. 1809 ........................................ . 1810, ... .................................. . 1811 ....................................... ..

Percent.

15.34 11.54 14. 68 17.10 11. 21 12. 02 15.60 19.99 19. 70 17.42 16.61 30.67 20.52 22.76 19.19 21.22 20.09 37.22 18.80 14.07 W.62

Year.

1812 ....................................... .. 1813 ........................................ . 1814 ................................... .. ... . 1815 ........................................ . 1816 ........................................ . 1817 ............ ............................ . 1818 ........................................ . 1819 ........................................ . 1820 ...................................... .. 1821 .............. ......................... . 1822 ........................................ . 1823 ............ ............................ . 1824 ....................................... . 182-5 ...................... ................. .. 1826 ..................................... ... . 1827 ........................................ . 1828 .. ................................. ..... . 1829 .................... .................... . 1830 ....................................... .. 1831 ....................................... . 1832 ....................................... .

Percent

13. ff1 69.03 46.79 6.84

27.9( 32.00 16. 78 29.81 26.69 3().99 27.13 39.21 50.21 50.24 49.26 53.76 47.59 54.18 61.60 47.38 42.96

r

· .. ·.

.:

1~90. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4409

Year.

1833 ...................................... .. 1834 ........................................ . 1835 ........................................ . 1836 ........................................ . 183'7 ........................................ . 1838 ........................................ . 1839 ........................................ . 1840 ........................................ . 1841 ....................................... .. 1842 ........................................ . 1843 ....................................... .. 1844 ....................................... .. 1845 ....................................... .. 1846 ....................................... .. 1847 ...................................... .. 1848 ....................................... .. 1849 ........................................ . 1830 ........................................ . 1851 ........................................ . 1862 ....................................... . 1853 ........................................ . 1854 ....................................... .. 1&55 ....................................... .. 1856 ............... ........................ . 1857 ....................................... .. 1858 .. . ..................................... . 1859 ....................................... . 1860 .......... , ........................... .. 1861 ........................................ .

Percent.

38.25 40.19 40.38 34.94 29.18 4L83 31. 77 34.39 34.56 25.81 29.19 36.88 34.45 83.35 28.02 26.28 26.11 27.14 2/l. 63 27.38 25.93 25.61 26.82 26.05 22.45 22.43 19.56 19.67 18.84

Year.

1862 ..................................... .. 1863 ..................................... .. 1864 ..................................... .. 186.5 ...................................... . 1866 ...................................... . 1867 ...................................... . 1868 ..................................... .. 1869 ...................................... . 1870 ...................................... . 1871 ......... ............................. . 1872 ..................................... .. 1873 ...................................... . 1874 ..................................... .. 187-5 ..... ................................. . 1876 ..................................... .. 1877 ............... ...................... .. 1878 ..................................... .. 1879 ...................................... . 1880 ...................................... . 1881 ..................................... . 1882 ..................................... .. 1883 .. ................................... .. 1884 ...................................... . 188() ..................................... .. 1886 ..................................... .. 1887 ...................................... . E,<>til;lla~d average rate un-

der Mills \>ill .................... ..

Percent.'

36.20 32.62 36.69 47.56 48.35 46.67 48.63 47.22 47.08 43.95 41.35 38.07 38.53 40.68 44.74 42.89 42.75 44.87 43.48 43.20 42.66 42.45 41.61 45.86 45.55 47.10

42.00

The same writer says we had during that time passed fifty-five ta.rift acts, of which the principal were the Hamilt.on tariff of 1789, the Calhoun tariff of 1816, the Clay tariff of 1824, the tariff of 1828, the compromise tariff of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861.

This table shows that, in accordance with the views of General Jackson, the highest rates of duty pre~ailed in the period from 1824 up to 1830 and '31. It shows also that m 1833 they began t.o go down, and that in 1837 the rates of duty had fallen about 4 or 5 per cent., and at that time there caxne, as you all know, the panic of 1837.

Our Democratic friends have been calling our attention to the fact that there is now stagnation in business in the West; that the farmers out there are suffering, and that corn is being burned. Some gentlemen speak as if the,bnrning of com were a new thing. Why, sir, I can remember that away out on the prairies corn has been burned at times for the last twenty years. Eighteen years ago I, myself, burned 100 bushels of corn in one winter. It is the height of folly for a man to go 30 or 40 miles through a st.Orm to sell a load of corn and buy a load ot coal and haul that coal back through the storm when the load of corn will furnish fuel and heat for cooking just aa long as the load of coal and just as cheap, besides saving the expense of the long haul.

Gentlemen speak also of farms in the West being mortgaged. I have not often seen attention called to the cause why Western farms are mortgaged, especially in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri. The moot prominent cause of farm mortgages in those Stat~ has been the pernicious policy of the Democratic party thirty-five and forty years ago. Gentlemen know that under the Democratic a<lministrations of those days the public lands, instead of being given to actual settlers who would improve them and make them permanent homes, were sold to speculators; so that in those daye the registersbips, the receiverships of the land offices were favorite p1aces for Democratic partisans, many of whom made their fortunes in those offices by selecting lands for Eastern speculators.

They bought them and they held them until fifteen or twenty years ago in my own State, and then after we had gone out there .and improved their surroundings and made them worth $10, $15, and $20 an acre, they sold them to settlers for that price, and thereby under the pernicious pol icy of the Democratic party pocketed the direct resul t.s of our labors and privations. The present mortgages are the results of that Democratic legacy.

Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the gentleman whether the Democratic policy caused the farm mortgages in Illinois and Indiana-

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Certainly it did. Mr. FITHIAN. And Ohio? Mr. KERR, of Iowa. In regard to Ohio we had an answer by the

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR]. Mr. FITffiA.N. I wish to ask the gentleman whether there was any

public land then open to settlement in those States. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I have here a statement-and I am glad the

gentleman bas called my attention to the point-by which I find that no man ever settled an acre of land in Illinois under the homestead policy. The Republican party inaugurated in this country the homestead policy, and among the stat.esmen of the South there were only two nien who ever favored that policy. One of them became a Repnblican·in 1864-1 refer to Mr. Johnson; the other, Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, was never heard of during the rebellion because he .was in sympathy with the masses of the people and believed that the public lands should be kept for the poor people, for homesteads for actual

settlers. As I have said, gentlemen sometimes talk about the public lands having been used by the Republican party to build railroads.

Why, Mr. Chairman, the public lands of the United States were never given away more lavishly than they were by the Democratic party whenitadministered the Government. The gentleman [Mr. FITHIAN], who, I believe, is from Illinois, and is probably an admirer of Stephen A. Douglas, will remember that in 1851, under a bill introduced by Mr. Douglas, all the lands along the Illinois Central Railroad, frori;l Cairo to Dunleith and to Chicago: were given to a railroad corporation for six miles on each side of the road.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Was a single foot of those lands given by Congress to any railroad corporation? Was not the land given to the State of Illinois?

Mr. CUTCHEON. But the land was given by Congress to the State for that purpose.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. The gentleman from Kentucky is making a point that is common on the stump with Democratic orators. H~ says the land was given to the State and the State gave it!'° the railroad company. But, as is suggested here, the land was given to the State by Congress for the express purpose of being given to the railroad corporation.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. But is not the distinction a very broad one? The land is given to the State for the purpose of enabling it to charter the railroad company so that the State may control it; and the land is granted to the railroad company upon such conditions and under such limitations as the State chooses to impose. .

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Now, that is a distinction without a difference.

Mr. FITHIAN. And the land was ceded by the Legislature of the State of Illinois--

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. It is immaterial as to how it was done. The gentleman has made his point, and that is sufficient. I say it is immaterial how these lands were ,;iven, whether given through the Stare or directly by the General Government.

Mr. FITHIAN. Does the gentleman xnow that under the grant of the Legislature ceding this land to the Illinois Central Railroad Company the State is receiving 7 per cent. of the gross earnings of that railroad company and will receive that return as long as time lasts?

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. As long as the Stale sees proper to require it. Mr. FITHIAN. That requirement is embodied in the constitution

of the State. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. But the gentleman neglects to make the state

ment that this payment by the railroad company is in lien of all other taxes upon the corporation; that the State exempts the railroad company from local as well as State taxe8, the State getting the whole of the benefit of the percentage.

In regard to this matter of granting land to railroad corporations, I have before me a list of 16, 000, 000 acres of the best lands in the United States that were given away under Democratic policy to railroad corporations under the same plan which the gentlemen now speak of. Four of the great leading lines of my State were built under a grant made by a Democratic Congress in 1856. I refer to the Northwestern, the Dubuque and Sioux City, the Rock Island, and the Burlington and Missouri River Railroads. All the lands for 6 miles on each side of those roads were given to those railroad corporations under a Democratic Administration. We gave inferior lands in the West, where in 1860 they were not worth 50 cents an acre, and under our policy since we have improved that country by building roads.

But this, Mr. Chairman, is a little away from the question. What I was speaking about was the old Democratic policy of giving or selling the lands belonging to the public domain to speculators, and I say that it was out of this that the mortgage system we are now cursed with in the West has grown. That was the policy that brought the mortgages upon us. I know that speculators have sold our farms and the lands we improved by going out in the early day, braving privation and want, for $10 and $15 an acre. But under the policy of the Republican party the interest which we have been paying, which used to be 15per cent. in the years gone by, we now get as low as7percent. and some as low as 6, and, as a consequence, at the present time the men who own those farms prefer to improve them with money that they can obtain at these lower rates of interest.

I know that many of them make grave mistakes; often mistakes are made that result in disaster, fortheyput on in some instances too many improvements, and failure of crops one year results in inability to pay the interest or the mortgages when due, and hardship and failure inevitably result. But to-day the hardships that exist in Dakota and Kansas and in the extreme Western States of the country are the result, not so much of this cause as of a want of sufficient moisture to produce the crops. We, in the Eastern parts of the country, have been cursed with too much rain. It has washed away towns and cities, destroyed hundreds and, I believe~ thousands of people, and done incalculable damage to property. But the lack of rain in the West has been the cause of very short crops in some of the Western States, and for a few years past this bas been the condition. The last year there was a greater abundance than usual, and as a result the crops in many parts of the country were abundant.

\ .

"-

l

.... ' ""' . . '

!·

~-·

.......... •-.· .... . ;i:··

4410 OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. \ - MAYH,

AB to my own State, people have talked here about the low price of oats and corn. Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a statement for the information of the Honse, that never in the history of the State has the crop of oats been three-fourths as much as it was in the last summer. All the land I had in crops du.ring the last summer averaged from 75 to 80 bushels an acre of oats, but with such an abundant year it can not be expected that oatS would be very high in price until at least a very large proportion of the crop has been consumed or otherwise disposed of: The abundance of the crop has reduced the price. That is the inevitable result. · There are in farming periods of prosperity and of depression.. They are inevitable. They are the result of natural causes which can not be controlled. But in this connection I call the attention of the committee to a result to which I may more justly attribute any diminution in prices than perhaps to any other cause that could be alleged.

:Mr. Chairman, we bad in the Presidential chair during the last Administration a Pre.sident surrounded by a Cabinet who were pledged to drive the people of this country to the adoption of a single standard, nothing bat gold. We had a message from the late President in favox of the demonetization of silver, a message and a recommendation that were re-enforced by the recommendation of a Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Manning, in which he was followed by Mr. Fairchild, and I hold that that bad something to do, and that it luLs to-day something to do, with the depreciation of prices in this country.

But another thing: the last Administration was favorable to importations, and they put the most favorable construction for the importers upon the revenue laws. The result was that our importations, which for the fifteen years previous, up to 1885, bad averaged $129,000,000 less than our exports were during that administration increased by this construction of the law by the Cleveland administration, so that the exports at its close were only equal to our imports. And if you take into consideration the amount that we sent abroad during that time to pay interest on the foreign indebtedness, the balance was against the United States. I ask you if to this may not be attributed the partial depression of prices in this oountry since the close of the last Democratic administration ?

Mr. Chairman, I will occupy a little time in considering what I conceive to be the proper policy in regard to the question of protection. I do not believe in a tariff so high as to cut out foreign competition. I believe the object of a protective tariff is to offer to our American industries equal protection and to give to them a living chance with foreign industries. Our own local industries have to pay 2 per cent. on an average of local taxation; they have to pay higher rates of interest for -the capital employed; they have to pay higher wages for the labor they employ; and yet in spite of these drawbacks, making it difficult to maintain our industries in the United States, our Democratic friends say that the proper theory is to promote free trade. That means to give the foreign producer of articles that we may produce in this country the advantage to the extent of our higher rates of wages, our higher interest, and higher local taxation. I hold that this is neither reasonable nor fair; it is not just to our American industries. We ought to maintain our tariff at such a. rate that our Amercan industries can live and compete and prosper; that they may ret.ain the great :portion of the American market, and thus he able to furnish a home market for agricultural products. but not so high that they will be permitted to get the advantage resulting from combines and trusts.

Something has been said during this debate about trusts and high tariff fostering trusts. I bold that if you banish from the United $tates the great industries, and by destroying American competition place our industries in the hands of the foreign producers, you thereby put the trusts beyond our power, because you can not in making our laws regulate combines and trusts beyond the ocean. You have no cont.col over them. But as long as you maintain and protect American industries, regulated by foreign competition, with only sufficient protection to enable them to live and thrive, you have the trust within your own power and can regulate it at will. That I believe is the correct theory oflevying tariff duties. [Applause.] .

I am glad my Democratic friends agree with me on this proposition; I am glad they stand on their own platform, which the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Randall, made the occasion of his divergence from the great body of his party two years ago, and I believe to-day that if it were not for the doctrinaires of tQ.e Democratic party, who :ire still co:itrolling by their old Southern ideas that party, it would march up to the true American doctrine on this proposition, and Sfl,y, as they did in the beginning of our hist<iry, that the true policy of this Government should be to protect American industries against injurious foreign competition.

Now, what was the result of this policy during the years of our history? One gentleman has alluded to it already in this debate. I can remember in 1841, as the result of the policy adopted by the Democratic party from 1833 to 1837, and the condition which prevailed in this country up to 1842, that there was a perfect stagnation of business everywhere in the United States. I remember that the best qualitv of cows were sold ou the lt'Iississippi River near St. Louis for $6 and $7 a bead; and I remember horses that are to-day in the markets of the country worth $150-a good, ordinary team, strong and vigorous, and

about five or six: years of age-sold in the markets of St. Louis at $20 each. -

That resulted from the abandonment of the poiicy of protection by the Democratic party at the behest of the Southern leaders in 1833. In 1844 we adopted again the policy of protecting American industry, and times, everybody knows, revived; and gentlemen call our attention to the fuch they got into power on a false pretense. They got into power in 1846, and then went back to the old policy of allowing the revenues to be so low that American in{lustries could not thrive. ·What was the result of that? From 1848 up to 1860 the balance of trade against the people of the United States was $375,000,000, and all the money that came to our Treasury from the JZOld mines of California was sent to Europe to help to pay the balance of trade against the United States. When the Democratic party, in 1856, declared in favor of free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world and the Democrat~c party shortly after ma.de their tariff policy less protective. it brought on the panic of 1857, when the Democratic party went out of power.

Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. Will the gentleman allow me a que.stion? Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Yes, sir. Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. Does not the gentleme,n know that dur

ing the period of which be has j nst spoken wheat sold at from $1.15 to $2.50 a bushel and that the average for those eleven years was $1.55.

l\:Ir. KERR, of Iowa. I know that it was not. I know that I cradled wheat, and that I sold it at St. Louis for 60 cents a bushel at that time.

Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. I want to state to the gentleman that Spofford's Almanac shows that the average was $1.55.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I know that I sold it myself for 60 cents a bushel in Alton and St. Louis. [Applause on the Republican side and in the galleries.] There may have been a temporary advance in prices some time.

Mr. CUTCHEON. That is experience against theory. A MEMBER. That is better than a last year's almanac. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I know that du.ring those years prices were

lower than they are to-day. Now, in 1861 we changed the tariff policy. It was necessary in order to get the revenues to carry on this Government; and what was the result? When the war closed the debt of this Government was $2, 743,000,000, and we began to pay it off under the policy of protection. Shortly after the war, when our people returned from the Army and engaged in protective industries we were unable to recuperate, and from 1873 to 1885 the balance of trade in favor of the United States was $1,544,000,000, an average of $129,-000,000 a year. That enabled us to pay off our debt to within $250,-000, 000 of its present limit. It enabled us to resume specie payments, and the balance of trade in our favor during that time paid every dollar of that debt as we paid it off. That has been the result.

Now, gentlemen talk about the distress that bas resulted from the Republican party's policy. I do not think there is any man who is a Republican and I question if there is any Democrat to-day in existence who is not proud of the history of this country for the last twentynine years. In 1860 the total wealth of the United States was only $16, 000, 000, 000; at the close of 1880 it was $42, 000, 000, 000. Our foreign exports during that time were almost doubled, so that the talk about not getting the necessary foreign market does not amount to any-thing. . .

I believe in trade. I believe it is right for one nation to trade with another, export things they produce and import things that another nation produces. That is genuine, legitimate trade; but for a nation to send away raw material, send it across the ocean three thousand miles and have it manufactured under a foreign Government and then brought back after it bas been increased in price and in valuethe value of the labor put upon it under a foreign G9vernment placed upon it-it is waste and it is a suicidal policy. The true theory of trade is for a nation to make an article it produces in such a condition tpat it will bring the higbe>:t price, then sell it and get some article in exchange for it that another nation is fitted from it.s condition to produce. We have to import into this country many articles we can not produce or if we can produce them we do so to very poor advantage.

So far as trade will accomplish an exchange of products in order to benefit and to add to the comfort and the luxury of the people it is legitimate trade; but in no other sense is trade desirable or beneficial.

Now, I want to say a word in regard to protection to the Western industries. I have in my district two cities, one with 22,000 to 25,000 inhabitants, another of 12,000, which are just beginning to develop their manufacturing capacity, and large industries are growing up there. I make the statement that the great danger oo this country by the adoption of the policy of free trade would be to theinj nry of the Western industries. There is a great problem-a railroad problem-which is one of the things we suffer much from, and that is from the fact that we have to pay so much for the transportation of our products .away from home.

Now, I believe the best way to solve that great railway problem is to bring our markets to our doors, so that a man who raises corn and chickens and cabbages, as the gentleman bas said, can bring the factories into t.he neighborhood, so that his produce can be sold at the greatest price, and that will produce a much greater good than will

,-'-:,·~,.,...,._,,,~·''~ .. :';-: . :~-;.

. -

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 441-1 result from free trade. Protection will solve the railway problem and -protection will advance our Western States. The .destruction of the policy of protection will do more injury to those States than it will to the Eastern States. In the Eastern States you have your men and your capital and they do not need so much protection as we do. Your labor would go down in price; but your men will have to take what you are able to give them if you adopt the policy of not protecting American industries.

But the labor in our Western cities will goon to the farms and will go into other industries, and our cities will be depopulated because they have not the capital to compete with the larger cities in the East. Therefore, in the interest of the young, thriving Western cities, in the interest of the development of a home market at our own doors in the West, I am opposed to the free trade and in favor of the protection of American industries. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. Chairman, there are so..ae things in this bill that I am not in favor of. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GEAR] made a statement to-day that he was in favor of a bounty on sugar, and he quoted Alexander Hamilton. He told us what Alexander Hamilton had written; I tell the gentleman what Alexander Hamilton did. I challenge him to show that, as a matter of fact, Alexander Hamilton ever put a bounty on any A merican article. I challenge any man to show it. It can not be shown. And in the interest of the protection of American industry and in the interest of the great Republican party, I protest against adopting, after a hundred years, a policy not sanctioned by a single American precedent of the fathers or of the great men of American history from that day to this. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I oppose it on other grounds also. If we pay a bounty on sugar to the amount of 2 cents a pound it will oost in the beginning $9,000,000 a year, and if successful it will cost the nation every year $66, 000, 000, and at the end of fifteen years, if the policy proposed in one section of this bill was adopted, it would cost this nation $100,000,000 a year. I protest, in the name of other American industries, against this policy of taxing one American industry for the benefit of another American industry [applause on the Democratic side] when they are both subjected to local taxation and to all the charges incident to our institutions. It can not be justified upon any theory that has ever been advocated in any Republican party platform or by the Republican party.

Mr. BLISS. How is it about salt? The General Government did not give abonntyon salt, butthe States have done so. New York and Michigan ·have both given a bounty upon the production of salt.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa.. In regard to that there is a wide difference between a State and a nation. A State is comparatively local. It occupies only a small portion of territory compared to the entire Union. The State, without question, possesses the entire reserved mass of powers that are not delegated to the General Government by express grant or by clear implication. The State can adopt such theories as it sees proper, and no one can question its right to do so. My own State has given a bonnty on sup;ar. It has the right to do that. But the General Government occupies a larger area, and I fear the day when there shall be a scramble from this locality and from that locality and from the other locality to see which shall have the highest bounty on the articles it produces.

Mr. BLISS. The gentleman knows what effect that policy had upon the production of salt and upon its price. He knows it brought it from $2. 54 down to the present price of 50 cents.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I do not think so. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] I think the protection afforded by the General Government brought the price down. I remember that I used to pay $2.50 a sack for salt when I was a boy at St. Louis, and I know that to-day we get the same quantity of salt for $1. • Mr. BLISS. I will correct my statement. As soon as the General Government put a high enough duty on salt the State took off the bounty.

:Mr. CUTCHEON. While the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KERR] is on the subject of salt, will be allow me a word?

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Ye.<t, sir. Mr. CUTCHEQtt The little city in which I live made over a mill

ion barrels of salt last year, which is sold to the people of the United States at an average price of 55 cents per barrel.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. And the barrel costs 20 cents. Mr. CUTCHEON. The barrel costs 20 cents. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I think the man is a very mean man who

wants salt any cheaper than we get it to-day. [Laughter.] Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. Do you include the New England :fish

ermen in that classification of ''mean men? ' ' Do you not know that they ask and get free salt?

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Oh, that free salt is given to them, just as a good many other things are given, with the view of getting rid of the Democratic claim that we can not hold the foreign market unless we allow them to have thebenefitoftheraw material in our manufactures.

Mi. COOPER, of Indiana. Now, why should the New England fishermen h ave free salt and the dairymen of Virginia and of other States be denied it?

Mr. CUTCHEON. They will have it if they export their butter.

-.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. My argument answers that question. I say that we have salt now cheaper than it would be if we had not the policy of protection. I justify the duty on salt upon the theory that it is necessary to protect our American industries so that there shall be competition between the home and the foreign producer, because that will give the cheapest possible price to the consumer. If you destroy either the home or the foreign competition, if you exclude either the one or the other by the operation of unjust laws, you thereby put it in the power of monopolies and trusts either at home or abroad to make prices unreasonably high. ,

Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. If I understand your position, then, it is that protection brings down the prices of articles?

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I do say so, and I challenge the gentleman to name a single American article that has not become cheaper under protection.

Mr. COOPER, of Indiana. I have not got through with my question. Then why do you want to put a tariff on farm products? Is it to bring them down in price? [Laughter.]

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I have never been very anxious about a tariff on farm products, because we export more than we import. I think it will be an advantage to men living along the Canadian border or the Mexican border, and, as they desire protection and as I am in favor of dealing fairly with every American interest as against competing foreign interests which are not subjected to our local taxes, I am in favor of the duty on farm articles; not in the interest of my own constituents, but in the interest of the fair development of American interests in every section of the country.

Mr. FLOWER. About this bounty on sugar, how do you make out that it will cost a hundred million dollars in the next ten years?

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Upon the theory that we shall be able by giving a bounty to produce our uwn sugar.

Mr. FLOWER. The gentleman will probablyrememberthatatone time the State of New York gave a bounty of $2 upon wolves' head.sand Connecticut gave a bounty on their tails, and they both paid the boun· ties, so that a man could get two bounties on the same wolf. I did not know but the gentleman figm:ed out his hundied millions in some such way as that. [Laughter.]

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Oh, the gentleman can put that joke in his own speech [laughter], but undoubtedly there will be danger of imposition on the Government for the purpose of getting the bounty.

Mr. PICKLER. Will the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. K~R] state what he does advocate on the sugar question, what his position is? ~

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. The Republican position in the last campaign was that we ought to be fair to every American industry. The average sugar duty to-day amounts to 83 per cent. The average of all other duties is about 43, 44, or 45 per cent., certainly not exceeding 47, and they should be reduced. Two years ago we proposed to reduce the tariffonsngartotheaverageofthe duties on other commodities, about 42 per cent.

Mr. CUTCHEON. Will the gentleman permit me a moment? ])fr. KERR, of Iowa. Yes, sir. Mr. CUTCHEON. I have very great respect for the :firmness of the

gentleman's convictions on this question. I suppose he advocates protection on sugar for the purpose of developing American industry-

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. Yes, sir. Mr. CUTCHEON. And notfor revenue only. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. For two purposes. Mr. CUTOHEON. We must depend in the main upon some other

source than cane sugar, because the cane area is pretty nearly exhausted.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I do not think that is correct. Mr. CUTCHEON. I do. Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I think there is a great deal more cane area

than our statisticians who furnish us in this House with information are inclined to let us believe.

Mr. CUTCHEON. But the remark I have just made was only preliminary to the question I am about to put. I suppose it will be admitted that the present sugar tariff is mainly a revenue tariff; that the duty comes out of the consumers of sugar, and goes thence into the national Treasury for the benefit of a comparatively few cane-sugar producers of the country.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. It is not more a revenue tariff than the tariff upon any other article produced in the same proportion that sugar is in the United States.

Mr. CUTCHEON. The question I was working up to is this: Is there any more absolute injustice in taking, say, $6,000,000a year out of the public Treasury and paying it in the form of a bounty to the sugar producers of the United States than in taxing all the consumers of the country under the guise of a revenue tariff, for the same identical purnose and for the benefit of the same identical people?

~Ir. KERR, of Iowa. I do not believe there is anything m that proposition. I believe that if we tak~ off our duty on sugar the foreign producer of sugar will increase his price. The price may not keep up altogether to the present figure, but the great tendency will be to benefit the foreign producer. He will get four-fifths· of the advantage resulting from taking off the duty. That has been the experience of the

....

,,.

.....

.. ') .. · ... -·..- .. , ··"".'.(" "'· .. ' -~~ ,','\ . .,. ,t:.

,. <


country in regard to everything of that kind and that will be the result of taking the duty off sugar.

We shall lose entirely $56,000,000 of annual revenue, a portion of which we need to carry on the Government, to provide for its necessary expenses, including pensions and other public needs. We shall pay, to begin with, $9,000,000 a. year and an increasing amount every year, if sugar is produced in increasing quantities in this country, until before fifteen years, if we reach the point of producing all our own sugar, we shall be paying $100, 000, 000 a year; and the result of it all will be that at least four-fifths of the benefit will go to the producers of sugar in foreign countries. For that reason I am not in favor of that policy.

Mr. Chairman, I have already occupied a great deal more time than I intended; but I want to call attention to a single article before I close, to illustrate the value of protection to American industry as a means of cheapening the article to the American consumer.

In 1868 the total production of steel rails in the United States was only 7, 225 tons. We had just begun the development of the steel-rail industry under the policy of protection in this country, and we imported from abroad 449,489 tons. In 1874 we had increased our production to 144,944 tons, and the importation from abroad had decreased to 384, 469 tons. In the mean time the price of steel rails bad been re· duced from $158 a ton t-0 $94, and by 1880 we produced nearly all our steel rails and the price had gone down to $28 per ton in some instances.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. WIKE. Mr. Chairman-Every duty on imported merchandise gives t-0 the manufacturer an advantage

e'lual to the duty.-Speech of Senator John Sherman in the Senate, 1867. The doctriDe t'hat dutie11 on imports cheapen the price of the article upon which

they are levied confiicts with the first dictates of common sense. The duty constitutes a part of the price of t.he whole mass of articlea of domestic manufa-0ture as well as upon that of foreign pro4uction.-John Quincy Adam.s's Re'f)ort, 18:-l2.

The tariff of 1846, although confessedly and profeasedly a tariff for revenue, was, so far as regards all the great interests of the country, M perfect as any that we have ever had.-Speech of William B. Allison ill the Home, 1870.

The ta.riff of 1846 was yielding abundant revenue aBd the business of the coun· try WM in a fiourisbing condition at the time his (General Taylor's) administr.1. tion was organized (18!9). The principle embodied. in the tariff of 1846 seemed for a time to be so entirely vindicated and approved that resistance to it ceasetl, not only among the people, but among protective economists and even among mannf~turers to a large extent; so general was this acquiescence that in 1856 a protective tariff was not suggested or even hinted by any one of the three par. ties which presented Presidential caJ,1didates.-James G. Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress, volume 1, page 196.

In addressing the House on the necessity of a reform in the revenue laws of the country, looking to a. reduction of the burdensome taxation that rests so heavily on the industrial, m~ddle, and poorer classes of the country, it is perhaps proper to state that the object is not more to influence the action of this body, however desirable it may be to in~raft the views expressed upon tho legislation of the country, than it is to convince the people of that neceSBity, and arm them with ag~essive weapons to fight for it:s consummation as the surest and qmckest way of securing the desired result. .

The popular idea with reference to the speech delivered in this body by the average Congressman is that it is .rea1ly not so much addressed to the members of the House as it is to his constituency and the country through the presiding officer; and I make no loftier pretension than that for mine to·day, since the futility of any attempt to influence Congressmen, except through the voice of the people of their districts, in these latter days especially, has passed beyond the domain of doubt to the realms of certainty.

We must look to the peopleitherefore, in the first instance, for all needful reform in the laws re ating to the public service and revenue; and it is indispensably necessary for them to S$}nd representative men here who need no reformation in this Hali, but who are right when chosen and elected. The.re is no hope for the settin~ in of any reformation in Congress looking to a fair and enlightened system of taxation until it has taken a firin hold upon the people themselves, and not until they have first with emphasis laid the strong hand of reform on Congress itself through the ballot-box. The day of that lofty statesmanship that goes down among the struggling masS"es to find ways and means for their amelioration seems to have gone by, for the present at least., in the American Congress, and for the past quarter of a century it has been too deeply engaged in the interest of monopoly and aggregated wealth, in r~moving from them the burdens that the necessities of the war imposed, to give n.ny relief to the patient, suffering, laboring poor.

It is not my purpose to discuss the details of the bill before the House, as I shall leave that to the members of the Committee on Ways a:pd Means, and to such other members of the House as may be c1isposed to do so, but shall con.fine myself to a consideration of the general principles of tariff taxation, only pausing to ca.11 attention to the fa-0t, enlarged upon in the report of the minortty of that committee, that the proposed bill, if it sha.11 become a law, will increaso taxation, direct and indirect, many millions of dollars, while the majority are professing to reduce it. These profes.'lions of reauction, however, by the friends and advocates of high duties, can no longer deceive and mislead the public. Such false pretensions so often made by these dissemblers now receive no 01·edit whatever, unless in fact they are taken as indicating the former result, namely, an -absolute increase of tariff duties.

In 1883, while professing the same th.ing, the reduction of the tari:ff, in conformity with the recommendation of the Tariff Commis-

....

sion, which recommended a redaction of 25 per cent., they actually raised it, as they are now endeavoring to do by this bill, in the interest of the protected industries.

The official figures show that in 1883 the average rate of tariff taxes on all dutiable goods imported amounted to 41.63 per cent.7 but in 1884, after "the reduction" in duties, as it was called by the friends of the measure, the average rate of such duties was increased to 42.60 per cent. In 1885 these duties went up to an average rate of 47.21 per cent., while since that time they have averaged over 46 per cent. So that the pretended reduction of tariff duties by the Republican Congress of 1883 did not reduce the average rate at all, but in fact increased the average ad valorem rate to nearly 6 ner cent. in 1885 over what it was before the "reduction of duties,; in 1883. And, profiting by that deception so successfully practiced upon the country, these protectionists are emboldened to attempt a repetition of that lucrative fraud· now. .

The present bill is ·even a. more stupendous bundle of fraudulent pretenses than the one of 1883, and its preparation and enactment are being brought about by methods scarcely less obnoxious than w·ere resorted to then. After excluding the pulllic from one of the beautiful fronts of the Capitol and handing it over to become a Star Chamber for the Committee on Ways and Means, protected industries were invited and received to its inner precincts to formulate their own demands and indicate their own rewards for the "fat" that was "fried" out of them in 1888 by the Republican National Committee, for the purpose, among other things, of making this Congress solidly Republican; and this bill is the result.

The purpose of the majority has been to concede all demands made upon it for protection as the easiest way to satisfy that interest and secure again its co-operation in the next election and in 1892. It developed, however, as the scheme neared completion and publio clamor arose against so great an increase as the bill would make in the revenue whHe the people were dem_anding a reduction, that a. tub had to be thrown to the whale; and as sugar had the fewest producers behind it and put so much money into the Treasury com· pared to what it put into the pocket of the producers, it was in a. manner sacrificed and made the scape-goat, to make easy the way to an increase of bounties on woolen goods of over $10,000,000 annually, and upon many other of the more favored manufactures, making in all a sum greater than was covered by the release of sugar and a few other unimportant articles admitted to the free-list.

If the majority oft.he committee knew....:..and it is amazing they do not-how absurd and irrational it appears to the mass of tax-payers to see the protected interests of the country severally taken into the confidence of this committee, to say whether they were either yet ready to abate any of their greed in the matter of the extortion of bounties from the consumers of their products, or, on the other hand, what additional sacrifices they demanded of the tax-payer, the committee would have taken some other method of ascertaining those facts.

These protected monopolies will, forsooth, consent to the depriva.tion of their hard advantage when other robbers and when thieves and pick-pockets voluntarily return and give up their plunder and willingly walk to the whipping post and surrender their unworthy backs to ·be publicly scourged, and when Shy locks shall forego their claim to the pound of flesh that is secured to them in the bond. But before such things occur intelligent people will not expect the high tariff to be reduced or injured at the reqneet of or by the consent of protectionists in the house of its friends.

We read of Nero .fiddling while Rome burned; but that is hardly worse than these protection bossesinCongresshob·nobbingo.ndconspiring in semi-secret chambers with these robber barons, to compel the bankrupt farmers to make cont.ributions out of their waning stocks and failing busine<;s to increase the· hoardings of protected monopolists, who have already grown opulent out of the robberies perpetrated upon farmers and mechanics, by ma.king their clothing so high their families go cold in winter and their fuel so dear they must burn their food to keep them from perishing!

THE SURPLUS AND WIJAT IT CO&TS THE -PEOPLE.

The !'lame troublesome question of a surplus wreRted from the people by unjust taxation sti.11 confronts us, as. y.nder the last .Administration, but in a greatly modified condition m this, that while the burden of taxa~ion remains the flame it was two years ago the surplus which was then over $100,000,000 annually has been reduced to one-half or more by a criminal profligacy in the administration of the Government that promises fair to consume not only all the surplus, but create a necessity for greater revenues· than alrea:iy hamper the prosperity and happiness of the people.

With the Government economically administe1·ed, which among ot.her things means an honest and conscient.ious administration of the Pension Bureau and pension laws, as well as all other laws and departments of the Governmentt so that no money shall be taken from the Treasury ex.capt in strict conformity to law, there would still be under our present system and rate of taxation a surplus of at least $125,000,000 annually taken from the people that ought to be left in their pockets or in their business at home.

This excess of taxation amounts to an average of nearly $2 per capita; and in order that each intelligent voter may get the full force of the proportions of that excess let him multiply the population of his own town, city, ward, township, county, or State by two, and in

._ ,

I (

'

-'. ;,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4413 that manner be will discover that bis town of 3,000 inhabitants pays woolen goo<ls they buy, as well as on their sugar, salt, and rice, and $6,000 annually alone from unnecessary and excessive taxation; and hundreds of other necessaries, a price enhanced much above the gen:tbe city of 15,000 inhabitants pays $30,000 annually; and the county eral average of 50 per cent. of increased prices upon all dutiable of 35,000 or 40,uOO inhabitants, he will see, pays $70,000 or $80,000 goods, in order that the rich and affluent can buy diamonds, jewelry, annually for the same unjustifiable purpose. stuffed birds, personal ornaments, perfumeries, and other luxuries,

This superfluous exaction is supposed to amount to more annually at rates greatly under the average rate and in very many cases at than the sum of all the taxes for State and county purposes of all the rates not enhanced at all, as a large proportion of luxuries and merStates in the Union; and were such a system offinancesadopted by the chandise in the nature of luxuries are imported duty free. local authorities of the several States the people would rise en niasse, What a mockery on justice to lay a tax on the importation of the without distinction of party, and indignantly overthrow it at the :first rich man's diamonds and jewelry of 10 per cent. and 25 per cent., election. And need one be told that the burden is as great, and the when the sugar, blankets, and clothing of the poor are taxed at the outrage as unjustifiable, and if possible even more so, in the case of rate of more than an average of 75 per cent. Attar of roses, the these excessive exactions by the nation, than would be the case if perfumery of the rich, seal-skins for cloaks, and rough diamonds the same unnecessary exactions were made by the local authorities Y are admitted duty free, while the cheap woolen clothing of the poor,

To raise the necessary revenues for the support of the Government rice, salt, and castor oil are increased in price by the tariff duties out of the consumption of the masses instead of out of the property ranging from 70 per cent. to 200 per cent. Thus the poor are reand accumulations of the country, is wrong and oppressive in itself, quired to pay for these last-named articles nearly two and three but to raise annually $120,00Cl,OOO in such a manner, more than is times the invoice price of the articles by reason of tariff duties, required for tho necessary expenses of the Government economically while the price to the rich of the former articles is not increased a administered, is most unjustifiable and wicked. farthing by any tariff duty whatever.

ENORMous EXTENT o:i.· TARIFF ROBBERY. Window gfass, ri~e, an.d structural iron an~ steel,.are considerably . . . more than doubled m price by the 117 of tariff duties lhereon; but

Enormous, ho~ever, as th1s surplus seems ~o ~e, e.1ther m t~e ag- silk, sachet powder, amber, feathers, and down, rough diamonds, grega~e as. ~pphe~ t~ t?e whole country 0.r m c.etail ~ applied _to fashion plates, ivory, and coral are admitted free, and consequently counties, cit~es, or m<lividuals, the amount is.but a drop i~ the bucket without any increase in price fortariff duties. And these examples comp.a.red with all the unreasona?le an~ wicked ~ac~ions of t~at illnstrating the absurdity of the bill might be indefinitely extended. le~ahze<l ro~bery called a protect.ive tariff, and ~hic_h is not mam-1 The following table shows in parallel columns the unjust discrimitarned.to raise necessary reven?e• but for the unjustifiable yurpose nation against the poor for the benefit of the rich in a very striking of takrng rLway by law the earnrngs of one class of people to rncrease manner. the profits and fortunes of another and more favored class. In thus ' · taxing the many to enrich the few, revenue is only-an incidental Table contrasting the ta1'iff duties on a1·ticle8 in the nature of l16Xuries consideration and used merely as a blind, as a decoy, in fleecing the with those on the necessa1·ies of life; cornpiledfrorn the official reports unsuspecting and helpless consumer by the real instigators and sup- of the Treasury Department for the yem· ending Ju11e 30, 1889, except porters of the policy-those the system enriches and out of whom as to last-named thr·ee c01nparisons, which are takenf1·om tl. former re-''the fat is fried" biennially, for the purpose of carrying elections port of tlie Treasury. to perpetuate the nefarious system. In the nature of Zuxw-ies. Neceuari~s of life.

It is extremely difficult to appropriately characterize that policy Per cent. Per cent. of government that taxes all thoso necessaries of life that are both Diamonds (rough).·---···--··· Free. Sugar ............. ---···---··· 70

manufactured here and imported into the country an average of ~~~:0~f~~::!::::::::·::.::::: Fre!~ ~~~:-r.~1tt~~-e·s·t·~~~::::::::::: ~~ half their value, and thus making them cost the consumer one-half StLaws for juleps··········-·· 20 Salt (in bulk)···-·-·---····--- 85 more than they otherwise would, ost.ensibly to raise a revenue for the Bird's nest ....... ··-··-······-· 20 Woolen cloth (cheap)---·····-· 95 support of the Gove.l"nment, but really to raise $120,000,000 annually Alabaster and spar, statuary Steelancliron beams, joists and more than is necessary (and whicli it can not profitably use, but and ornaments.- .. ····· ····- 10 structural forms·-····-····· 115

which the people so badly need), in oI;.der that the manufacturer ~g!i~~:1~d-;;r;.;d~·bi~dd~r~·:. ~=: ~Y:! !~e:fa.S;~~~::::::::::: g~ may be enabled to add to the price of his productions the like· one- Amber, amber-gris and ber- Window glass ..... ····--···--· 114 half of the necessary and reasonablocost price of the article beman- gamot·--····-···--··-········ Free. Chicory ················-··--· 62 ufactures, to be paid into his pocket by the consumer I Chocolate········-·-·········· 8 Uottoncloth ..... -···--···----· 40to73

EFFECT OF TARIFF DUTIES ON PRICES.

Let us consider the doctrine of protection :first as it affects the price of the articles upon which the tariff dt1ty is laid. In discussing this I shall not advance any new doctrine or theory, but seek only to make over out of old but serviceable material, as the frugal women often do in th~ West with regard to clothing, a new production that possibly some one may examine and utilize who may have never chanced to see the materials before in their more attractive furmL I

The percentage of the burden of tariff duties to the actual cost of the articles varies from year to year under specific rates of duties, according to the value of the commodity at the point from which it is shipped, so that the fluctuation in the price, while the specific rate remains the same, ruakes a different showing from time to time, and the equivalent ad valorem rate of duty varies from year to year, according as the price of the article varies at the port from which it is shipped; and this accounts for the confiicting statements with which we are so often confused as to the rates of tariff duties on various articles.

For the past few years tho rate has ranged so nearly at an average · i·ate of 50 per cent. ad valorem on all dutiable articles that, for the cpnvenience of calculation, and ready comprehension it may be stated at that :figure, though in fact the range in three years past has been between nearly 48 per cent. and something over 45 per cent. It.should not be forgotten that the 50 per cent. is taken as the general average rate of tariff duties on more t.han 4,000 articles, and the intelligent voter will readily see that this adds one-half to the average price of a.11 dutiable imported articles. That is, when the import price, so to speak, is $1, the tariff duty being 50 per cent. would add that much to the price, making it stand $1.50, without freight, insurance, interest, storage, or profits; and all of which, when added by the importer, would have to be paid by the jobber or retailer, who in turn, after adding his own additional costs for transportation, profits, etc., would collect the grand total when he sold it to the customer at the other end of the line. Remember, this 50 cents is only the average rate of duty and that the duty is much higher on some articles than others, and al ways discriminating against the poor in favor of the rich, to enable the monopolist to hoard the gains that come to his coffers through protective tariff.

These poor consumers have to pay for what they buy-the absolute necessaries of life-at a rate much higher than the average rate of du'ties, which has been nearly 50 per cent. in the past few years; that is to say, farmers and poor consumers are required to pay on the

Canes and walking sticks ... - .20 to 35 Burlaps and rotton bagging. __ . 30 to M Sachet powder................. 20 Earthen and china ware....... 57 Amber beads.·-·····-··-···-·· Free. Rice ....... ···-···-··-······--· 117 Feathers (for beds) nnd down. Free. Coarse woolen shawls . __ ...... 88 Sago and tapioca for the gentry Free. Blankets and flannels ..••. - • _. _ 70 to 82 Fashion plates................. Free. Woolen clothing.·-···· .. -·-·· 58 Furs, furskinsandcatgut .. ---- Free. Nails, spikes, tacks, eto ··---·- 52 Plum pudding·-·-·-··-·· ..... - 20 Wool bats and yarn ·--·· .•.... 70 ~ices . ..... ······-···--···--·· 5 to 10 Galvanized wire, iron·--····-·· 72

S~;~~t~f:ds . .".'.".".".".".".".".".":::::: Fre!~ ~~~:t'r~: ~~o~~~1~:::.-:::.-: igg Fossils and joss sticks ... __ . _. Free. Sheet iron._ ... _ ..... _ .•• _ .. _.. 81to 90 Ivor.vcoral (uitmanufactured). Free. Starch .....•.......• ·-··-·--··· 92 Gold size ....... ·-···-··--···-· Free. Tracechains .... ·-·----···--·- 50 Meerschaum·-··-··--···....... Free. Steel railway bars.·-·········· 72 For the rich: _ Per cent.

Fine worsted trousering, costing at factory $3.36 per yard ....• ---·-- 5£1! Beaver cloth, costin~ at factory $3.36 per yard.·-· ... ·--·····-·-··--. 56! Broadcloth, costing at factory $3.60 per yard .. ·-·-·· ·-···· ••••••. ·-· 50!

For the poor: Cotton warp cloth, costing a.t factory 6! cents per yard .. ·-·-··...... 12

12li

Cotton warp melton, costing 24 cents per yard ...... ·--··· ---··· .... 53! Cotton warp reversible cloth, costing at factory 45 cents per yard . . lSOi

The tariff bill now under discussion contains even more glaring discriminations against the poor and in favor of the rich than the present law; for, while it mitigates none of the hardships of the present system, it introduces a more general discrimination, as the following table, compiled from the minority report on the proposed bill, will show:

Articles. Per cent.

For the poor : Lowest ~ade of woolen yarn.----· ... ·--·····--·-··-·-······-··--·· 11~

g~:-r::: ~k:~~ ~i:ik:!~~:::: :: : ::::::: :: :: : : : :: : : : :::::: ::::::: :: ::: m Women's and children's cheapest cotton warp dress goods.··--··.. 106 Lowest grade woolen cloth .......... ....... _. _ ... _ ... __ ..... _ ... _. 125 Cheapest quality knit goods for underwear···-··---····-·-····-··· 112to108 Coarse, lowest grade woolen shawls·-·········· .. ···--··----··---·· 135 Coarse, lowe11t grade wor11ted goods .• __ .....•• _. _ . _. _ ... ___ •• . • • . • . 130

For the rich: ·

~:~ bi:!":k~t~·:::::::::: ::::::::: :: : ::: : : : : ::: : :·:::::: :::::: ::: ::: Finest woolhats ............................... ·---···-····-··--··· Finest quality women and children's dress goods ... _ .........• ___ .. Highest wool cloths .. ···-···-·····--·"'.····--·-· .. ·------······-·· Best quality wool knit goods ···--· ··--···- .. ----· ·-·--- ·---·· ·----· Highest izrade woolen shawls.·-·---·······---···-······-··---···--· Finest quality worsted goods •••••• ·-·- __ ... ·---·.·--- __ ·----· ••••••

72 72 66 73 68 78 90 90

: .. ~

. ·,

. . , . t.. - ,, •

\ .

. .

...

'·

'. ( .

.: '


Table $howing vresent duty and the duty proposed by pending bill on - tlte articles 11a11ied.

Articles.

Worsteds, koit goods under 30 cents •.•••.•.••••••••••••..••. Worsteds, knit goodB, 30 to 40 cents •..••.•.••••• ···-· •••••• Wor teds, kntt goods, 40 to 60 cents .••..••••••••••••.•.••.• . Wor.1tPds, knit goods, 60 to 80 cents .•.••••..•••••••••...••••• Worsteds, kn.it goods, above 80 cents .•..••.•••••••••••.••••• Worsted shawls .•••••..••••..•.•••••••••••••••.••.•••••••..•. Belt for presses (printing} ..••••..•.•••••••..... •• . ••.•••••. Blankets and flannels and hats .............................. . Women's and chlldren's dress goods ..........•.•••••••••.••• Women's and children's dres11 goods .•••••..•••••••..•..•.••. Women's and children's dress goods ..•••••••••••••...••.•.•.

g~~~J!~~me::~:::::::::: ::::::~::::: ~= :: :: : ::::: :::: :: Webbiii.gs and gorings, etc ..••••..••••..•••••.••...•.•••••••. Common w:indow glass. 10xl5 ............................... . Common window glass, 16x24 .••.•..•••.••••••••••••.•••••••. Common window irlass, 24x30 .••••••.•• --------· ••••.•••••••. Common wrndow glass, above that ................ ---··· .•• ll'reest<me, gran!te .••••••.••.. - ......................... - •.••. Freestone, gramte, hewn or dressed .•.•••••••.•••••.••••••••. Cotton-ties.. ................................................ . Tin-plate . .••.••••••• --·· ................................... . Steel ingots, etc., above 16 cents per pound ................. . Wire fence rods, No. 6 .•••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••••••••. Penknives, etc .•.•••.••..•...•..•••••.••.•••... .. ..•••••.•.••. Ta.ble cnUery ............................................... . Shotguns .....•••••.••..•..•..•.•.••.••••.••..•...•.•.••.•••. Mica ...•..•...•.•...•.....••••••••••••••••••••.•..•••••.••••. Horses .••••••...••••••..•.••••••••••••. ·- .••••••••••.••. · • •. Cattle ····-- .................................. •••••••••• ·••· Hogs ........................................................ . Sheep ..••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••.••••••••••••

~f:fn5t8·. ·t;~;: ~i~::::::::::::::: :· :::: : : : :: : :~:::: :::: :: :: :::: !f8~~!~~~::::: :: : : : :: : : : : :: ::::::: :::: ::::: :~:: ::: ::: :: :: : ::l fbi~i~~~a.·~;;era:: ::::::::::.: ·::: ::: : : : : :: :~: ::: : :: :: : : ::: Burlaps .••••..••..•••••.••••.••.•.•••••••••••••••.••••••••••• Brown and bleached linens .••..•••••.••••.•••••••••..••.•• - . Brown and bleached linens •....••..••..•••••••..••••.••.•••. Ya.ms ..•••••••••••..••.••.•.•••••.•• ! ••.•••..••••.•••••.•••••

Present Proposoo duty. duty.

Per cent. 73.20 66. 73 68.49 68.24 52.96 61.82 53.14 69. 70 68 60 85 54 60 6! 67.61

115.il 128. 58 132.29

20.22 20 35 34 36 45 50 35 35 Free. 20 20 20 20 Free. Free. Free. 81 • 40 40 40 30 35 35 35

Per cent. 130 U7 130 112

90 93

101 110 103

73 110

84 82 99 73. 72

123.10 135. 34 138.04

40 50

115 74 45 M 75 50 60 35 'iO 61.94 45. 68 50 32.91 20 52.19

200 100 60 65 50 50 60

100

SHOWING PRACTICAL EFFECT OF TABIFF DUTIRS Olf PIDCEB.

J<"'or the sa.ke of illustration, let it now be observed what quantity of the dutiable articles mentioned a dollar would buy at the customhouse, divested of all other costs and charges. e~cep~ original _invoice price of the article in the country whence it is sh1ppe~ (which is the law of the cu~tom-house), and then, by way of companson, see the amount it would buy with the duty added.

Take sugar for instance, and if the invoice price were 2t cents per pound 1 ~ould pay the invoice price on 40pounds; but when the duty amo~nted to 80 per cent. (which it e.xceeded ~ the two years 1887 and 1888), and which mu.st be first paid by the importer on that 40 pounds of sugar before he can release it from the toils of protection, then the sugar, instead of standing the importer 2t cents per pound, would stand him 41- cents per pound, and $1 wou~d only represent or buy, independently of the other charges, a fraction over 2'Jl pounds instead of 40 pounds. . .

On a. suit of woolen clothes at the custom-house, costmg $10, rnvoice price, with the average duty of 58 per ?e:i;it. added, the suit would cost$15.BO. Now, by the aid of the pencil it wip. be seen that when the duty is paid on the sugar, a dollar's worth of it (when freed from other charges let it always be borne in mina) would represent '56 cents sugar and 44 cents tax or duty; and '?~e dollar's worth in the suit of clothes would represent 68t cents clotmng, and the balance of the dollar-36t cents-would represent the duty, otherwise called taxes.

.At the invoice price of rice Jtt the custom-house $1 would buy, last year, over 52 pounds, but when you add t~e dnty,_117 per cent., at which it rated, you have the 52 pounds of rice bearrng both the ~uty and invoice price or $2.17; and therefore $1 would represent a little more than 24 po~ds of rice, and in the price of that 24 pounds of rice, therefore, which is $1, there would be repr~sented 46 cents ~or rice and 54 cents for tariff taxes; and when this ~4 pounds of rice reached the hands of the laborer or farmer who bought it he would not only have paid 46 cents for the rice, but also 54 cents for the tariff taxes that were paid at the custom-house, and all the other costs, charges, and profits besides, and that 24 pounds of rice which the tariff duty made to cost 1, it is now plain to see, would have only cost without that duty 46 cents.

The invoice price of a gross ton of structural iron or steel, .which builders use in the construction of houses, such as beams, girders, joists, posts, etc.1 at the custom-house during last year was about $24, and the tariff thereon amounted to the modest rate of 115 per cent., or $115 on each hundred dollars' worth. The ton, or $24 worth, when the duty was paid, stood the importers $57.60 instead of $:M, the invoice price, and 8100 worth of this iron, after the duty was paid, stood him $215, so that the consumer had to pay for every dol-

lar's worth of the compound 4{ij cents for the material, and 53-j- cents fo1· the protection of the iron and steel mannfacturers.

The following table, compiled from the official reports of the Treasury of the United States for the year ending Jane 30, 1889, shows the total value of the imported articles indicated, with the average ad valorem rates and amounts of tariff duties, and illustrates the effect those duties have upon the prices of the articles imported after the duties have been added. '

The first column of figures shows what we may call the first cost price in dollars; the second shows the ad valorem rate per cent. of duty; the third shows the amount of duty imposed, and the last shows the total of first cost and amount of duty :

.Average Valu.e of Articles imported. Value atcus- ad valorem Amount of article

tom.house. rate of duty. with duty. duty. added.

Raw wool.·-············ .•.. $17, 432, 758 34.32 $5, 982, 212 $23, 414, 970 Total manufactures of wool. 52, 681, 482 67.15 45, 373, 627 88, 055, 109 Total manufactures of cot ·

ton . ......••••••..•.•..... 27, 105, 510 40.00 10, 841, 969 37, 947, 497 Total manufactures of pre-

10, 720, 504 10.00 l, 072, 050 11, 792, 554 cious stones .•.•.•• ·--· .••. Cotton cloth .•.••• . .•.•.••.. 4, 003, 823 43. 80 1, 753, 73! 5, 757, 557 Total earthen, stone, and

china ware . ......•........ 6,473, 358 57. 07 3, 694, 402 10, 167, 760 Total 11:lass and glass-ware .. 7, 750, 577 58.(0 4, 526, 581 12, 277, 158 Tot.a.I iron and steel, includ-

38.86 16, 909, 340 60, 419, 474 ing tin-plate .•••.•........ 43, 510, 134 Poe.Ket-knives, penknives,

1, 659, 543 50.00 829, 772 2, 489, 315 ancl razors .......•••..•.•. Tin·plat~s ..........•..••••. 21. 002, 209 3(. 66 7, 279, 460 28, 281, 669 Manufactures of silk .••••.. 34, 956, 729 49.61 17, 342, 572 52, 299, 301 Sairar .....•....•....•..•.••. 78, 596, 800 69.85 54, 896, 438 133, 493, 238 Salt (bulk) ...•.•.•••••••.... 233, 339 85. 26 198, 960 432, 299 Rice (cleaned) ..••••........ 1, 229, 873 117.39 1,443, 712 2, 673, 585 Total wood and manufa.ct-

mes .•....•......•........ 9, 768, 644 18.19 l, 776, 611 11,545, 255 Total woolen cloth ..•••..•.. 9, 257, 732 71.93 6, 659, 385 15, 917, ll7 Total dress goodB ..•••••.•.. 19, 793, 2.53 73.83 14, 613, 817 34, 407, 070 Total knit goods .••..••...•. I, 795, 156 63.12 1, 133, 176 2, 928, 332 Flannels .•••....••••.••..••. 1. 136, 659 70. 02 795, 870 1, 932, 529

Total of all dutiable goods imported ................. 484, 856, 768 4:5.18 218, 701, 774: 703, 558, 5t2

PRICES E~'RANCED EVEN llIORE TH.AN BY .AMOUNT OF DUTIES.

It will readily be understood, if the merchant is compelled to invest $500 or $1,000 more to purchase a. stock of goods for his customers than he would have had to do without the tariff, that he must charge more for his profits alone than if he could have bought without the tariff duty. That is to say, if the retail grocer has to pay the importer $800 more on a $1,000 purchase price of sugar, as that is made necessary by the 80 per cent. tariff duty, then he would have to charge his customer more, as profits on the more costly article, than he would have had to do if he could have bought the sugar duty free; so that at last the consumer is not only bound t-0 pay the 80 per cent. duty on the dollar's worth of sugar that the importer paid, but the profits and interest on that 80 per cent., as well as upon the original invoice price of the sugar.

The invoice price of enough common woolen cloth to make a suit of clothes-say 8 yards, would be about $5, but the tariff duty on such goods is95 per cent., which would be$4.75. Increasing this invoice price by that much brings the price up to $9. 75 to be paid at last bv the consumer, who thus finds himself compelled to pay on each dollar's worth of the compound of cloth and tariff 51 cents for cloth, and 49 cents for the taxes alone. For the .benefit of those desiring to pursue the fruitful subject of calculating how ta.riff duties increASe the price of some of the articles entering into common use a.mon{J' the people, the following tables, which I have carefully preparel'froru the public records, are appended: Ave1·age ad valoreni rates of tariff taxes on imported articles indicated,

for year endirlg June 30, 1889, M coni1Jiled froni official records of the Treasury Depa1·tnient, ailding 1 cent when f1·actions exceed onellalf ce-nt a11d oniitting the fraction tohen less than 0110-half oent.

- Per cent. Raw wool. .••..... ~· ························~·················--·average.. 34

~f~8!:::it~!':r\~.~~i:::: :: : : ::::::::::: :::~ :: : : : : :: :: ::::: ::: : :~~=: :: ~ All manufactures of cotton ....•••.•...••..••..••......•........... do.... 40 All manufactures of cotton cloths ..•....••••••..••.•..••••..•••..• c1o.... 44 Iron and steel and manufactures thereof ....•••••••••.•••.••••••.•. do.... 39

j~~~~;~~--~:~~-~-~:~:{~t~:~~i{=;··_j:~j:::~~:···ll~:-: j Iro.; and steel without tin-plates, nearly •.••••••.••.•••••••••.•.••• do.... 44 Steel railway bars ....••.•••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••• do. ... 72 Steel raiiway wheels, tires, etc .••.• ················-···············do.... 83

~~~:~a'h1'~:!~~a~~·-~~~:: :::::: :: : ::::: :: :::: :::::::: :::::::: :::::::g: ::: ~~ Steel beams, joists, girders, etc., all other structural forms of

steel oriron ········--·······-·······-········-··················do.... 115 GalvaniZ"ed-wire of iron •••••••••••••••• ~--~--~···~··••n••--····do.... 72

- .. \ .

<·.:..;· .... \ -: .. : ':"'.'-: _.. -~ .. • i~ ~··· .. - ... - ' ~ . ;- •· . -. ~ . -:

·:.· - -,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.· 4415 At:erage ad valorem rates of tarijfto.xes, etc.-Continued.

Percent.

f.~?u~:::~=~~:_:~::;:::_::_:::~~~~~-~~~:~~:~~~~:~=::~~~£~~ 1~ Flax and linseed oil ......... - ..... _ ....... _ ..................... - •. do.... 45

~~~:.~ :·. :::-. :: ·.:-:::.:: :: ·.-. ·::.:::::~ :-.:: ::::·.:·.::::: ·::.-.:·:.~ :·.::::1~: ::: ~t ~~~~~a:~~~;~::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:::: g f/;;f~;ei1°:s~::::::: :: ::::: :::: :: :: : : : ::: ::: : : :::::: :::: :: ::: : : :::::: :~~:: :: ~ !i~~~-: ::: : : : : : : :::::: :: :: : : : ::::: :::::: :::: ::: :: : :: : : : : :: :::~:: :J~: ::: ~ Brussels carpets ·-···· ...... ·······-·· ............................. do.... 60

t~~f ~~~f~~;;;;-~;;;~-~-~E~~~~~~~~;~~-~ii~E~~~~~; ... :~ Woolen cloth. _ . .• ...•••• - .............. _ ............. general average.. 72 Woolenshawla (cbeap) ................... _ ........................... -..... 88 Woolen shawls (fine) ........................ _.~···············--··------- 62

~i';,1-~~J~J.c!~}~~:::::: :: :::::: :::: :: :::: :::::::: :: :::::::::: :::::::::: ~~ Flannels ..•...... ----· ... ·---............................................. 70

~il~r&ii~~~i~~i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i~ Cotton cloth 1chea.p, bleached) ................. - ...... - ........... -··----· 69

~~e\~~~~-:~~~~~ :::::::::: ::::::: ::: :::::: :::::: :: ::::::::::: :::::: ~~ Spool thread---·-·-··-·········-······-----·--·-------···-···-·------··--·· 61 :Bagging (jl'.nnny bags and bntlapa). ·---···--·--·--··--·---·-·---···--···· ao to 40

~~~i~~. ~~~~o-~~::: ._::: :: ·.-:::. :: : : : ·:.:: :: ·.-.:::: :: : :: ::::::: ::·:::.:::::::: 4i to~ ~~t~;~i~~~~-:~~~~-=:::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::~::::::::: ~ FilM---·-----------··--··--··-·--···---··-~·----···--····--·--··-·--·---·· 61 ~h!!i.l:o~~6•6.t~- .~?~~~~:: :::::: :: ::::::: ::: : : :: : :: ::::::: :::::: :::::: :::: 81 to~ Wood-screws--- ··-····-·-······-·····---····-···-···-···-··-········--- 50 to 73 Peanuts (shelled) .......................... ................... -······--·-- 68

The people are prone to forget the import of these percentages as constantly applied to tariff duties, but they should not, and a,t their perH must not, forget that the meaning of 80 per cent. duty on sugar is to ~uire the importer to pay before he can sell it in this country 80 cents more on each dollar's worth as imported, or $80 on $100 worth, or $8'>0 on $1,000 worth of it; which means he must pay not only-fille $1 or the $100, or the $1,000 for the sugar, but the 80 cents and the $80 and the 00, respectively, besides for the tariff duties, as well as the increased costs and profits by reason of these extra payments.

Viewed now from the standpoint of labor, whether it be on the farm, or in the workshop, or in the coal-mine, or upon the railroad, it is all the same, and amounts to this: that for every custom-house dollar's worth of sugar the laborer buys he must work at the rate of ten hours to pay for the sugar, while he works eight hours to pay for the tariff taxes upon it. For every. dollar's worth of custom-house structural steel or iron the builcler uses in the construction of houses, churches, or other builuings, the owner thereof must work at the rate of ten hours for the iron or steel and eleven and one-half boors more for the tariff taxes thereon; or if the laborer were worth a dollar per day it wonld take twenty-four days' labor to pay the custom-house price for 1 ton of this structural iron and twenty-seven and thrce:fiftbs days' laborto pay for the tariff duty thereon, or three and tbreefiftbs days more to-pay the taxes than it took to pay for the material. To bay a dollar's worth of custom-house rice he .would ha-veto werk at the rate of ten hours for the pa.yment of the rice and eleven and seven-tenths hours for the payment of the tariff duties, or considerably more than twice as long for the custom-house price of 56 pounds of rice as he would without the duty. To buy a custom-house snit of cloth.,,s be would have to work at the rate of ten hours for the clothes and five and one-half hours for the custom-house taxes. And to buy a bolt of calico or sheeting be would have to work at the rate of ten boars for the material and from four to seven hours for the taxes alone.

'l'he farmer can easily substitute a bushel of wheat or corn for hours or days in the foregoing calculation, arid thus see the appalling rate with which the tariff taxes eat up the fruits of his labor and farm. It is thus demonstrated that for the custom-house sugar he could buy without a tax for the proceeds of 10 bushels of wheat he now has to pay at the rate of 17 bushels, and that for the custom-house rice he could buy with 20 bushels, if it were not for the tariff taxes, he now has to pay over 43 bushels; or, to put it in.a still more practical light, if possible, to -boy the articles as I have indicated, the farmer would have to plow at the following rate: t-en rounds for sngar and eight rounds for taxes thereon. To buy the iron indicated, ten rounds for iron and eleven and one-half rounds more for tariff duties. To buy his woolen clothes he would have to plow ten rounds for clothing and six rounds for the ta.xes thereon and to buy bis rice he would have to plow ten rounds for rice and eleven rounds and a half for ta-riff taxes ; and, finally, throughout the entire range of the 4,000 tariff-taxed articles, he ha-s to pay in money, produce, or work an avera.ge of $10 for the articles and $5 more for the tariff du.ties on them.

This doleful tale is still by no means all told, for the farmer is compelled to devote the same share of his lauds, and the capital invested to carry on his farm, for the ignoble purpose of paying these tariff-tax extortions that he has of his labor; and all, too, for the declared purpose of protecting the manufacturer by fu.creasing his profits or by giving him profits where he would otherwise have none.

The farmer has been only reasonably prosperous in a few sections of the country for years past where the crops have been usually bountiful, but where the crops have been short or but moderately fruitful, the reverse is true; and taken as a whole, the depression in agricultural pursuits has been marked, and is universally recognized and deplored by the entire community, M well as by those engaged in it. The causes that lead up to this unsatisfactory state of things are the low prices received for what they produce as compared with the cocresponding relatively high prices they pay for all they are c.ompelled to buy.

The farmer should no longer be deceived by the protection representation that everything the farmer buys has been rendered cheaper by reason of a protective tariff, for the fact is legislation can not render anything cheaper unless it be labor, except by removing the shackles and restraints that unwise legislat.ion, by restricting cummerce and encouraging trusts, has placed in the way of the free interchange between man and man of the fruits of his resources and toil.

Does the imposition of an internal-revenue tax on tobacco and whisky in~ase the price on those articles T And, if it does, who pays the increased price T The person would be considered a fool or a knave who would seek to maintain that tax on the ground that it made those articles cheaper or that it was not the consumers who paid it. But such a contention would be no more ridiculous, false, or absurd than the same contention is when applied to tariff duties and their effects upon the articles upon which they are imposed, and as well upon like articles manufactured in this country, whether that article be steel rails or woolen or cotton goods.

Legislation can and does cheapen labor by oppressive discriminations in favor of those who reap the benefits of the products of labor, but no amount of legislation can enhance the price of grain, or hay, or beef, or pork, or any other product of the field or farm (unless it be wool alone), except by encouraging trade and commerce so that a greater demand may be created for the produce the farmer raises. Therefore, the remedy for the amelioration of the farmers' depressed condition, as well as that of the laboring masses, is to be found, not so much in an endeavor to enhance the price of their own productions by legislation, as in the effort to free theIDBelves from the payment of the innumerable and grievous exactions that have been placed upon them by reason of the tariff duties on the 4,000 articles of consumption to make them higher for the benefit of a favored few in the land, who prosper at the expense of the many. If the products of the farm would procure in exchange twice the

amount they <lo, or on an average once and a half as much more of the merchandise the farmer must consume, and they would if tariff duties were removed, then the farmer would be in as prosperous a. condition as he would now be if be were getting $1.50 per bushel for his wheat or 50 cents per bushel for his corn, or, say, 50 per cent. advance on all he raises for the market. The farmers' produce may possibly not be made to bring more money by law, but it can be relatively increased in value by removing the artifioial values that tariff duties have placed upon the manufactures for which he is compelled to exchange such produce.

THE CHEAPENING OF PRICES NOT DUE .TO TARIFF DUTmS.

Protectionists, having thus succeeded in increasing the prices of the articles they manufacture to such an alarming degree, find it indispensable to hide the enormity of these unconscionable tariff exactions, and at once proceed to mystify their deluded victims by a labyrinth of misrepresentations, such as are indicated by their stock phrases: "The higher the tariff, the lower the goods." ~'The foreign manufactures and exporters pay the tariff duties out of their own profits." "Protection to home industry." "Home market." "Tariff duties cheapen production." "Protect American industry against the pauper labor of Europe." And so on, through a long list of high sounding but worthless platitudes.

These phrases are seized upon as texts for ample and elaborate articles, speeches, and sermons by the apostles of protection to carry out the delusion and intensify the mystification.

The senior Senator froc Illinois published an article recently in a popular magazine on the benefits the farmer gets from protection; and as a matter of course, as the whole theory and fabric of taxing one man's industry or labor to support another man's industry and make it more prufitable, is a delusive imposition, all argument designed to bolster up such a fraud and delude the people into its support must partake of its nature and be an imposition also. The principal point sought to be developed in the Sena.tor's argument seems fo be that high protective ta.riffs make goods cheaper; and the Sena.tor, for -the most part, to pro-ve this, rests his case on the illustration or argument that railroad bars made of Bessemer steel ha.ve decreased in price from $166 per ton, about the time the Bessemer vrocess was coming into nse, to $27.50 per ton in 1888. How aurprisrng it is that a grave and dignified Sena.tor of the United States, from

.:

·.

.. . . . . r,.li ··.'-.

'-·. ·~ :9f .. ·· .-~ -':~ _c: ~; ' ... 1

;-.• .......... ' .~ .. ·~ ~- . ' ~ ., -~

' .

4416 CONGRESSIONAL' REOORD-HOUSE. MAY 9,

so great and intelligent a State as lliinois, should make such a statement as an argument to induce a ta.x-ridden people to accept as satisfactory the imposition of a 75 per cent. increase on the price of steel rails sold in the United States for the year 1888, the duty of $17 per ton being extra profits, if you please, for Mr. Carnegie's benefit and for the benefit of such other monopolists as are engaged with him in that business. If it is protection that brought steel mils down from $166 to $27.50

per ton, then what is it that raised that price from $27.50 to $37 at the present time t Why could not steel rails be manufactured now as cheaply as they were a year ago t

But if protection reduced the price of steol rails in the United States, as claimed by the Senator, what reduced the price still lower in free·t.rade England, where for the ten years prior to 1888 it averaged $14 per ton cheaper than in the United States Y What reduced the price of sewing-machines in the same time from $150 to $20 and the harvester from $400 down to $LOO and $125 Y · The Singer sewingmachiue conld be manufactured at a c.Jst of $8 and the McCormick reaper for S30 to $35 to-day if it were not for the taJ'iff duties on the materials that enter into their construction.

What reduced the price of wheat in New York from $1.50 per bushel in 1860 to 75 or 80 cents per bushel a month ago and corn from 75 cents to 36 cents¥ It would be much nearer "the truth to answer this interrogatory by saying ''protection did it" than to say it cheapened iron or steel or woolen or cotton goods.

How "childlike and bland" the Senator's statement sounds that "there bas been nothing like a monopoly of the business" (referring to the manufacture of steel rails), "except that which was due to the patents which have now expired." How much, Senator, had protection to do with the expiration of the patents f And bow much had the expiration of the patents to do with the reduction of the price t Why, not as much as the expiration of the patent on the sewing-machine had to do with the reduction of its price? Protection had far more to do with the redaction of wages than it had with the reduction of the price, for it did, with the aid of Mr. Carnegie's Winchester-rifle policy, succeed in reducing wages, and thus turning out that gentleman a clear profit of $1,500,000 in a single year on )lis iron plant in the State of Pennsylvania. As to how much protection has to do with the lowering of the price, in comparison with the expiration of the patent, let the history of the sewing-machine ancl reaper, already alluded to, answer.

Itis, however, a favorite contention with protectionists that dut ies imposed for their benefit cheapen the price of the articles on which they are imposed, and Senator CULLOM is not alone in maintaining it; and his unfortunate mnstration is akin to many others of the same sort, and probably one of the best of its kind.

Cotton goods, for the most part, are cheaper in this country than they were one hundred years ngo or fifty years ago; but it i_s clearly due to the following facts instead of taxation. Seventy-five years ago a man: with a hand-loom, working steadily one week, could turn out 40 yards of cotton shirting; now one girl, tending four to six power-looms, will easily weave 1,500 yards of finer material in a less number of hours, or nearly forty times as much as the man could do seventy-five years ago. Is it then protection that makes cotton goods cheaper now than they were then f

Less than one century ago one hand with a spinning-wheel turnecl off in one week 5 hanks of No. 3'2 twist; now, one man, with the aid of two boys, on a pair of self-acting mules, at moderate speed, will turn off easily in thesametimeover55,000hanksoreleven thousand times as much as one hand did at the close of the Revolution.

Mr. Wells says in his recent book on Economio ChangesThattheequiva.lentof labor of one operative in the cotton factories of New Eng

land increased from 12,165 yards in 1850 to 28,032 in 1884..

Is it then protection that has cheapened the price of cotton goods in this country t

Pins are cheaper now than they were a century ago. Adam Smith, a hundred years ago, . told how, by a. division of labor and the use of machinery, ten men could make 48,000 pins a day, or an average of 4,800 pins to the man, a wonderful achievement for that

. day; but now three men, by the aid of such machinery as they can manage, are enabled to turn out 7,500,000 pins to the man, or more than fifteen hundred times more than one man could do one hundred yea.rs ago with the machinery then in use. Is it therefore the tariff that makes pins cheaper now than they were .a. hundred years ago f And so we might proceed indefinitely.

It would be as logical to contend that tariff dut.ies had been the instrumentalities in cheapening the sewing-machine and the reaper and in reducing the price of cotton goods and of pins as to insist that they were instrumental in cheapenin~ the price of steel rails Qr in fact in cheapening anything else in this broad land of ours, excepting the rewards of labor and of the cultivation of the soil.

The fact is these articles of manufactures that have become cheaper since the enactment of protective-tariff laws have become cheaper independently and in spite of the.tariff enactments, and they would be much cheaper to-day tha.n they are if it were not for these laws that are maintained upon our statute-books for the express purpose of making them dearer, to enable the protected manufacturer to sell his productions of like articles at the enhanced prices occasioned thereby.

But the constant reiteration of the cheap clap-trap that "high tariff makes low goods" gains credence with the thoughtless, since it is so easy to conclude that because goods do grow cheaper during the prevalence of the protective heresy they do so because of and through the influence of that blighting curse. It is just as rational to suppose, to use the oft-repeated illustration, that because the lame man dances and the blind man sings th4'y do so because of their infirmities, quite forgett.ing the fact to be that they do so in spite of them. To attribute i cheapening progess of merchandise in general or manufactures vf protected industries in particular to the influences of protective tariffs is a-s illogical a.nd absurd as to attribute the increase in population that goes on in a country during and in spite of the prevalence of cholera, yellow fever, or a war (as this country did durin~ the period of the last war) to the influence of so.ch pestilential v1sitations.

The most discouraging feature in the effort to establish the supremacy of revenue rnform in this country is the proneness of the people to the mistake of attributing the progress and prosperity of the country to the ruinous curse of a protective tariff, when the fact is the youthfal vigor and the virile energy and power emanatin~ from the marvelous natural resources of a limitless country and tuo indomitable energy and superior motive power of a free people alone prevent an utter collapso and downfall of all industrial and business interests, to which the debilitating influence of the policy of protection unalterably tends.

Bn t if high prices do make goods cheaper, then of course goods would be cheaper in this country than in free-trade England, and pro tectionists during the beat of political campaigns assert they are. During such times especially we are treate(l with numerous tables of comparative prices between the two countries, compiled and furni shed by "intelligent travelers" aud experts who know the facts "by actual purchase and carefnl observation," to show that manufactures are cheaper here than in England. These intelligent and observing travelers, when it comos to fixing prices, double discount the "oldest inhabitant " on weather prognostication.

To correct the erroneous impressions these false and fraudulent tables are calculated to induce, the following carefully prepared and official table is given from the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Massnclrnsetts Bureau of Labor Statistics (see page 48 of" Compru:ative wages and prices") by Mr. Carroll D. Wright, who is also the chief of the Government Bureau of Labor Statistics. It ~ill not tletrnct from the conv incing character of this statement in the estimation of Olli' Republican friends when it is stated that Jtir. Wright is, and al ways has been, a Republican in politicA, though just w by he should be or how he could be it seems difficult to divine:

Summary of percentages oonsoli<lated in, tabular form,, showing the difference in the cost of living in Great Britain and in Massachusetts.

Higher in Higher in Massa· Great Articles.

chusetts. Britain.

Per cent. Per cent.

~~~~!f~~s·:: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: :: : :: : :: : : ::: :: ::: : :: : : : : · ·· · ~~: ~~ · 23. 08 Fuel . .. . ...................••••..•...•..•••....•••••••• ··-·.. 104. 96 Dry goods, all grades ..• . ... . ..•. ,_ •••• ,_.................... 13. 26 Dry goods, three lower gradeR --·········-···············-··· .90 Boots, shoes, and slippers, all grades ........• - - . • . • • • • . • • • • . 62. 59 B rott'\ , shoes, and slippers, three lower grades ...•......• - . . . . . 42. 75 Clothing, all grades ............•.......••..•.••.....••... :.. 45.06 Clothing, three lower grades .•...•. - •..••••..•....•••• - .•• - . 27. 36 Cloth ing, lowest grade . ........•.....••.• ·--··-····-···-··-·. 18. 00 Clothing, two highest grades .......••• ·-····................ 56. 57 R.ents . . ...........•........•..•. -· •. --· ••..... - •..•...••.. - . . 89. 62 Board and lodgin$ ....•.• ·-·· •..•••••..... --·. ·-· ·-· ..•••. ·-· 39. 01

p

Mr. Wright, in the same report, puts it this way, after another tabulated illustration:

This table means that $1,000 worth of the specified articles (articles entering into the cost of supporting a family) in the proportion stated, in Great Britain, if purchased in Massachusetts w.ould cost $1,232.93. (See page 56, id.)

Besides the foregoing table, to illustrate the difference in prices between this country and England, the fact may be stated that the average price of steel rails in the United States from 1878to1887 was $44 per ton. In Great Britain, for the same period, it was $30 per ton, which shows a. difference of $14 between the prices of steel rail in the two countries. Ilut of all kinds of steel there was consumed in the United States, fo1· the ten years indicated, say 20,000,000 tons (19,127,000 tons manufactured in the United St.ates, and 859,000 tons imported); then taking the difference in tbe price of steel rails as the basis of calculation, which is mnch too low, and it shows that the people of this country paid $2~0,000,0~0 more in t~e~en years for the steel it consumed than the price wal:l m Great Ilntarn. And yet Mr. CULLOll wrote a long article to show the farmer of this country that our tariff duties had made steel rails cheaper. Such are" the benefits farmers get from protection I "

Mr. Wells, in his recent admirable work on Economic Changes, at page 472, says: .

T!!.ltlng, therefore, ~be lowest grades of iron and steel as a standard in this computation of the disparity of ooet or price from 1878 to 1887, the aggregate ex·

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4417 cess of cust of iron and steel in ten years, to the consumers of the United Sfates, above that paid in Great Ilritain, bas been $560,000,000, or at an average of $56,000,000 per annum; and on a separate compntation, made 1n the same way, for tho year 1887, the disparity in price for the United States rises for that single year to $80,000,000.

Now while Mr. Wells has taken the lower grades of iron and steel on which to make a comparison of vrices, if be were to -take the average prices instead, and which would better represent the actual differences between the two countries, the figures would show even a greater amount than I shall claim further on for the increased price of iron and steel, by reason of the tariff taxes.

lIOW TARIFF DUTIES AFFECT PRICES.

The fnglemen and drill-masters, however, of the party of pro-. tection, when forced to admit these obvious truths, still maintain that, while the ta.riff taxes may enhance the selling price of the importeu article to the extent of the dutii'~iimposed, yet this does not enhance tho price of the like articles tl 'fare manufactured in this country. Let us look at this doctrine for a moment.

The ignorant and in fact many intelligent, but too confiding, people were long deluded by the falsehood, asserted with ~uch persistency by protection apologists, that the consumer does not pay the duty even on dutiable imported merchandise, but that it is paid out of the profits of and by the fortiign manufacturers. This nonsense is no longer maintained by any but the demagogue or ignoramus, and protectionists are driven to the other equally false and erroneous doctrine, that articles manufactured in this country are not rendered dearer to the consumer by the duty imposed on the like imported commodity. When the robbers are driven from this last roost the country will be free from the degrading curse of protection. The masses are at last awakening to the conscious inquiry that if the duties levied by a protective tariff do not enhance the price of the manufactured article, where does the protection claimed for home industries come in and for what purpose, then, is a protective tariff imposed if it does not benefit the manufacturer by giving him better prices f It is obvious the manufacturer himself could produce his goods

cheaper if he were not compelled to pay enormous tariff duties, not only on his raw material that he uses in the manufacture of his commodity, but in the course of the construction of his factories, warehouses, and other structures, and in the purchase of his tax-ridden machinery, to say nothing of the greater amount of benefits he would derive from the increased usefulness of the overburdened, impoverished, and robbed employes, who and whose families are taxed from the soles of their feet to the crown of their heads, and from their cradles to the grave, if they, too, were free from the exactions of protection. ·

But I repeat the tariff duties are made protective for the express purpose of making domestic manufactures dearer, in order to give the home manufacturers greater profits or to give then a profit where otherwise they would have none.

It is utterly impossible to establish and maintain two different prices for the same article at the same place and at the same time ; and consequently when the cost of an article is enhanced in price 50 per cent. of its value by the addition of that much tariff duty levied on its importation, then it could not be sold at all by the side of an exactly similar article, manufactured in this country, which is being sold at the same place at a lower price. The mere statement of the proposition provoo to every fair-minded man without any amplification that there can not be two prices maintained in the same community for identically the same kind and quantity of article, as one price for the imported article and another for the same kind and quality of home manufacture; and that consequently, as it is conceded that the duty increases the price of the imported article, it; must also follow that the price upon the home-manufactured article must be in a like manner increased. This is an axiom, and as such the gates of falsehood and misrepresentation can not prevail against it.

To illustrate this matter still further, we shall ~uppose an importer to have arrived in New York Harbor with a cargo consisting of ten thousand suits of woolen clothing, the invoice in his pocket showing the cost to be $100,000, or $10 per suit. He iR met on the dock by the custom-house officer, who demands of him the payment of, say, 60 per cent. ta.riff duties, which we will suppose to be the rate the law fixes for the class and quality of the goods embraced in the cargo. This would amount to the comparatively enormous sum of $60,000. The merchant, in amazement, demands to know the reason for this unconscionable exaction, as he had supposed his enterprise was in the interest of the poor and those engaged in industrial pursuits in the United States as well as in his own interest, since it was pis purpose to sell these goods to them for 510 per suit, with the cost of carriage and a reasonable profit added; but if he had to pay this exaction his suits, instead of standing him $10 each, as a basis, would stand him, with the 60 per cent. added, $16 per snit, and which the last customer, the consumer, would QO compelled to pay. With great astonis4ment the importing merchant inquires wnat sort of Govermpent this is that compels its citizens to pay $16 for a suit of clothes that he (the importer) proposes to sell for $10.

The custom-house officer explains to the merchant that the very object of the law that requires the payment of this 60 per cent. duty on his cargo is to make his goods dearer in the market, "so that.,"

XXI-277

cc..ntinues the officer, pointing across the docks to a large woolen mill and clothing factory in full operation, "the proprietors of that large institution over there engaged in the manufacture of the same kind of cloth and clothing that you propose to sell, may sell their goods at the rate of ~16 per suit, instead of $10, and if you were permitted to sell your goods at $10 per suit they would ·have to do the same, and the policy of our law is to tax the masses $6 per suit on this kind of clothing, so that those manufactures who have wheedled Congress and dfiluded the country into the notion that they should be made a favored class can put the extra $6 per suit into their pockets at the expense of the consumert1.

''The $60,000 that you pay, and that is paid at the other end of the line by the consumers, goes into the Treasury, but the $60,000 extra that the consumers pay for the goods of that establishment over there, by reason of this protection machinery (and they manufacture $100,000 worth every six mcnths), goes into the pockets of those manufacturers." And that is protection in a nutshell.

That tariff duties on imported goods have the effect to enhance the price of the like manufactured article to the extent of the duties is clear enough to the protectionist, or he would not go about the country imploring the people to sustain these levies in order, as he pathetically proclaims, to protect "American industry against the pauper la.bor of Europe," but at the same time, with charming consistency, he wishes the people to believe that they do make them cheaper.

The Republican party is Janus-faced on this question, and changes colors in dfacnssing it, as rapidly as the chameleon. ·while the thimble-riggers from the stump start out in their discussions with songs of praise for the beneficent effect the tariff has wrought in the reduction of prices, t'hey invariably close with an exhortation to stand by the system that enhances prices, so that American manufa.ctnrers and laborers may not be required to compete with the "pauper labor of Europe." You can never locate the little joker any more than you can in the other thimble-rigging game. When yon think you have placed it and tackle it accordingly, it suddenly and invariably turns up under the other thimble.

Now yon see it and now yon don't. A penny yon hit it, a linppence yon won't.

And thus the people are confused and confounded until they really do not know, as the saying is "whether they are afoot or ahorseback."

The majority on the Ways and Means Committee, in order to secure the passR.ge of this bill through Congress, are pleased to admit that tariff duties enhance prices for the benefit of American industry, but they will doubtless, each and all of them, in their individual capacity on the stump next summer and fall, join with Senator CULLOl\I and others to show that tariff duties cheapen prices, and their party will probably so resolve in their platforms all over the country. Here is what the majority report of the committee states on that point:

We seek by the increase duties recommended not only t-0 maintain, but t-0 enlal'e;e onr own manufacturing plants and check those supplies from abroad which can profitably be produced at home. The general policy of the bill is to foster and to promote American productio.n and diversification of American industry.

We have not been so much concerned about the t>rices of the articles we consume. as we have been to encourage a system of home production, which shall give fair remuneration to domestic producers, and fair wages to American workmen, and by increased production and home competition insure fair prices to con· sumers.

Protected monopolists who have plenty of money have a great contempt for low prices, and broad-clothed nabobs and silk-stocking gentry always see nothing but very common people in cheap and common clothing; hence Mr. Harrison, in March, 1888, voiced the same se~timent when he gave utterance to the following high-toned express10ns:

I am one of those uninstrncted political eoonomisf.s that have an impression that some things can become too cheap, and I can not find myself in full sympathy with this demand for cheaper coats, which seems to me necessarily to involve a cheaper man and woman under the coat.

·That is, I suppose, Mr. Harrison meant if a man bought a suit of free-trade clothes in England in excha~ge for 15 bushels of wheat and got $9 to boot, and voted the DeJ)locrat.ic ticket perliaps, he would be a very ordinary and common sort of a fellow; but if be exchanged it with a protected monopolist for a high-priced suit of clothes and paid the $9 or more to boot and voted the Republican ticket, he would be. ~deed a very highly respectable gentleman.

Authonties would seem to be superfluous to sustain so clear a proposition as the one in question, that tariff duties enhance prices, especially when the converse of that doctrine involves its advocates in so many palpable absurdities. But to meet and to answer the old paraphrase "the higher the tariff, the lower the goods," and to arm those who may desire to use such weapons against such arguments as are advanced in Senator CULLOM' s article alluded to, and who may chance to hear or read these remarks, I shall incorporate several authorities bearing upon the question, as well as to illustrate several other phases of the tariff question touched upon in the course of these remarks.

Mr. Cleveland said in his third annual message to Congress: But our pre11ent tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable. and illogical source of nn·

necessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. . These laws, as tht ir primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all

articles imported and subject to duty by precl8ely the sum paid for such dntie10 Thus the amount of the dnty meastire$ tlie fax paid by those who plirchase for"

.. :

.,.

, I

·.

.·

·~ ' • .. J ~ f'iv- <~--~

·. · .


use these imported articles. Many of these things however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures because they render it possible for those of oar people who are manufactnrers to make taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while compnra.tively a few use the import~d articles millions of our peoJ?le who never use and never saw any of the foreign products purchase and use tlnngs of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced pri.::ewhich tho duty adds to the imported articles. Tho8e who bay imports pay the duties charged thereon into the public Treasury, but the great llllljority of citizens ·who buy domestic articles of the same class pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufa.ctnrer.

And again he says in tho same message: Nor can the worker in manufactures fail to understand that, while high tarifl is

claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remuneratiYe wa.,.es, it certainly results in a very la.rge increase in the price of nearly all sort.a of manufactures, which, in almost countless forms, he needs for the use of himself and family. He receives at tbA desk of his emT>loyer bis wages, and perhaps before he reaches his home is obliged, in a. purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own labor, to return, in the payment of the increase in price which the tnriff permits, the.hard-earned compensation of many days of toil.

The farmer and the agriculturist, who manufactures nothing, but who pa.ys the increased price which the tariff imposes upon every a,gricultural implement, upon all be wears, and upon all be uses and owns, except tue increase of bis flocks and herds and such thing~ as bis husbandry produces from the soil, is inviteu to aid in maintaining the present situation.

The following is ta.ken from President Cleveland's letter of acceptance:

I suppose, too, it is well understood that the effect of this tariff tai:ation is not limited to the consumers or imported arl,icle;r, but that the duties imposed upon such articles permit a coITesponding increase in the price to be laid npon domestic productions of tho same kind, which increase,laid by all our people as con. sumers of home productions, and entering e'l'ery merican home, constitutes a form of taxation as certain and as inevitable as though the amount was annually paid info the bands of a tax-gatherer.

John Quincy Adams said in a. report in 1832: The doctrine that duties on imports cheapen the price of the article upon

which they are levied conflicts with the first dictates of common sense. The duty constitutes a. pa.rt of the price of the whole mass of articles of domestic manufacture as well as upon that of foreign production; upon the latter it is a burden for which we are compen ated by the making an«l executing of our laws, while upon the former it is a. burden imposed upon ourselves to pay bounties to home mannfactories. The repeal of the tax or tariff reduces the price of the article, whether it be domestic or foreign, and as long as importation continues the duty or tax is, z.nd must be, paid by the purchaser and consumer of the article.

Mr. Webster, in bis debate in the House in 1824, said: We could cause a euclden transfer of capital and a Yiolent change in the pur.

suits of men. We could exceedingly benefit some classes by these means. But what, then, becomes of the interests of others?

For my part, I see very little relief to those who are likely to be depri'l'ed of their employments or who find the prices of the commodities which they need raist>.d in any oft he altematives which Mr. Speaker has presented. It is nothing to say that they may, it' they choose, continue to buy the foreign article: the answer is, the price is augmented; nor that they may use the domestic article; the price of that is Rlso increased. Nor cau they supply themselves by the substitution ot' their ovrn fa bric. How can the agriculturist maktl his own iron i How can the ship-owner grow his own hemp 1

General John A. Logan said in the Senate: And then thert1 are the men in tho Northwest who produce corn, wheat, oats,

pork, and beans, etc. ; they Rre the producers and con'inmers, ancl are not protected; and it is they who pay this large amount of monev into the pockets of the manufacturer. And when a gentlem:in stands upon tliis floor a:iu telli me this Wgh, this extraordinarily high tariff is for protection of the laboring men, I tell him that I do not understand how he can substantiate such a thnory.

Benjamin F. Butler said in an interview with the reporter of the Hudson (N. Y.) Register:

I am one of the largest woolen manufacturers in the United States. I <lo not say this boastingly, but to show that I am not selfish in the views I hold. The cloth I wear fplacmg his han«l on his coat sleeve] is of my own manufacture, and I notice several gentlemen around me who wear the same. On these goods there is a tariff of 60 per cent. Republican orators and newspapers tell you this tariff is to protect the mill laborers. Twenty per cent. will pay our entire labor expenses. What do you suppose becomes of the other 40 per cent.1 These same Republican oratora and newspapers tell yon thatitgoes intothe United States Treasury. Not adollarreaches there. Every cent goes into my pocket [slapping his hand on his pocket vigorously to give emphasis to his words]. And ever.v one of you is p:i.ylilg this bounty to the woolen manufacturers. The whole tariff scheme is an imposition and a fraud on the Americ;i.n people.

President Grant in bis message said in 1875: All duty paiu on such articles [raw materials] goes directly to the cost of the

article, when manufactured here, and 1mlst be paid for by the consumer. These duties not only come from the consumer at home, but act as a. protection to foreign manufactures in our own a11d distant markets.

He did not say that foreign maunfacturers or exporters paid the duty, but he did say in the same message that these duties not only eome from the consmners at home, but "that they act as a prot.ection to foreign manufactures in our own and distant markets."

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, said in June 1864, in a speech in Cougr€ss:

With the tariff considerably increased, and even if we had no internal taxes to pa.y, our people will hardly find it less difficult to compete with foreign produc· ~.aml manufactures than they did in times of peace without any increase of

* In making an estimate of the effect of such a war ta.riff as is now proposed, it

is important that we sh1mld bear in mind that a.~ we increase the cost of any article we diminish the number of those who are able to consume it.

Again, he s::i.id: I know sound policy dictates that for the proper encouragement of manufact

urers all raw materials should be free.

The following, from a speech of Mr. Kelley delivered January 21, 1864, illustrates forcibly two points: The one is that tariff duties "increased the <!ost of the necessaries of life" and the other is that they were not levied for protection, but to raise revenue:

The increased cost of the necessaries of life is but the price armed treason is compelling them to pay for the preseITation of the unity and the Constitution of the country to which they are so devoted.

The Republican party must have recognized the fact that tariff duties raised prices and created something of a burden upon the people, when, in 1884, it incorporated the following plank in its national platform: ·

The Republican party pledges itself to correct tbe inequalities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus by such methods as will relie>e theta.x-payers without in. juring the laborer or the great productiYe interests of the country.

And to the same eftect and looking to a reduction of duties is the report oftbe Republican Tariff Commission, appointed by a Republican Congress, after investigating the subject thoroughly and going the rounds of the United States for that purpose in 1882. (See Report Tariff Commission, 18 2, volume 1, page 5.) It says among other things :

Early in its deliberation the commissiOn became con\"inced that a substantial reduct;on of tariff duties is tlemu1ded, not by a mere indiscriminate, popular clamor, but hy the best consen-atiYe opinion of the country, including that wWch has in former times be&n most strenuous for the presen·ation of our national in· dustrial defenses. Such a. reduction of the existing tariff the commission regards not only as a recognition of public semiment and a measure of justice to consumers, but one conducrre to the p;eneral industrial prosperity, and which, thou~h it may be temporarily incon>enient, will be ultimatoly beneficial to the special m: terests affected by such reduction.

And further on the report procec<ls to say: Entertaining these views, the commission has sought to present ·a scheme of

tariff clnties in which substantiaJ re<luction should be the distinguishing feature. The average redaction iu ratos, includinrt that from the enlargement of the freelist and the abolition of the duties on charges and commissions, at which the commis6io:i bas aimed, is not less on the average than 20 per oent. and itis the opinion of the commission that the reduction will reach 25 per cent.

As early as 1872 the necessity for n. reduction of tariff duties was keenly felt throughout the country and was recognized in high places.

Governor Morton, of Indiana., said in the Senate, April 30, 1672: Now, I wish to say to the Senate that I am strongly conYinced that wo should

go further and reduce the taritf in material respects upon many other articles. The country expects a large reduction; the country knows that it can be lllllde; the country has been promised thL'! redaction, and tile dominant party here is responsible to the country for this reduction, and it will be held responsible if it is not made.

The follow-in~ extract from a speech of Mr. Kelley, delivered in the House April 2'2, 1872, is yery appropriate at this time, and its prayerful consideration is earnestly commended to the other side of this Honse. Mr. Kelley said: If we adjourn on the 29th of Mny we shall have repealed no tax or tlut;r and the

people will ask ns in every paper and at every corner why we have oontmued the system of taxation so lar;:tely in excess of the demands of the Government, and the reduction of tho public debt at the rate of $50,000,000 per annum, outside of what is already pronded by law. On neither side of the House can justification be found, nor do I believe apologies for hating hastilv adopted a resolution of adjournment, which will prove entirely satisfactory to· the tax-payers, who are loa<lPd at every point and whose profits are absorbed in the ex.cesafro Treasury of the Government.

Secretn.ry Folger said, in his annual report of l&i"2: All agroo that a reYision of tho tariff is necessary. The action of Congress

creating a commission for that purpose renders discussion unnecessary. The Secretary earnestl.v recommends a careful review of the tariff with a view to sub· stantial reduction.

Senator SHER.'1A..." said in a. speech in the Senate, in referencf' to the question of tariff duties, while discussing the subject of a necessity for a return to the resumption of specie payment by the Government: If you converse with intelligent men engaged in the business of manufacturing

they will tell you that thoy are willing to compete with England, France, Ger· many, and all tho countries of Europe at the old rates of duty. If you reduce their products to a specie basis and put them on the same footing they were on befortj the war, th,e present rates of duty would bo too high. It would not be necessary for scarce any branch of industry to be protected to the extent of your present taliff law. They do not ask for T>rotection airainst the pauper labor of Europe, but they ask protection against the creation of your own laws.

And Senator SrmRMA-~ also, in his report on an International Monetary Standard, on page 180, dated June 9, 1868, "ery pungently and

·, truthfully says: E"ery advance towards a free exchange of commodities is an advance in civili

zation; every obstruction to a free exchanJl:e is born of the same narrow, despotic spirit which planted castles upon the Rhine to plunder peaceful commerce; every obstruction to commerce is a tax upon consumption; every facility to a. free exchac~e cheapens commodities, increases trade and production, and promotes ch·ilization.

Senator John F. Miller, Republican, from California, forcibly shows not only the degrading effect of tariff duties, but places the responsibility for it where it belongs. He said in the Senate iu 1882:

The average American manufacturer is interested generally in two things1 namely, the highest protective tariff and the cheapest labor. * * .. It is noli difficult to pereeiYe the origin of that political economy, which suggests high protective tariff and at tho same time advocates the admission of serrile laborers mto this country without the limit. It means high prices for the labor which pro· C.uces them; the aggrandizement of capital and the debasement of labor; greater wealth to the wealthy and greater poverty to the poor.

In relation to the prevailing dissatisfaction with the high rate of tariff duties, and the danger to that institution if this dissatisfac-

!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~-~1~'~:-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~1~~7)~~,~~~~~?~~~w~~~~:~~~~~·=., . , . . \ . '

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ... 4419 tion is not heeded and removed, the language of Mr. MORRILL, in a speech on the tariff, delivered in March, 1872, is apropos. He said: If the present high rates of dntv, unexampled in our country, and higher by

nearly 50 per cent. than they were m 1861, are maintained on metallic and textile fabr1ci after we have repealed the very internal taxes which gave rise to them and after we have substantially given them their raw material free of duties, wo shall have a fooling of dissatisfaction am.on~ the other interests in this country which will overthrow the whole system ann do greater harm than oan possibly be done by a moderate reduction of the present rates of duty.

And in the same connection I commend to the protected industries throughout the country the warning sounded by Mr. Garfield July 13, 1878. It is as follows:

Unless tho tariff men take heed, unless they consent to a rational and considerate adjustment of the tariff 11uch a.s only oan be made by the full light that a careful statistical study of the subJect will bring, I fear from them, more than any other source, a reaction which will brin~ us by and by into free trade and all its consequences of evil to the manufacturmg interests of the country.

I desire to say that, in my judgment, it is not the best mode of defending a tariff to denounce every man who does not pronounce the shibboleth after our fasb ion as an enemy of the tariff.

nut while Mr. Garfield was not in favor of a sudden removal of the tariff duties, he seems to have been, nevertheless, a consistent member of the Cobden Club, as he looked forward to at least the ultimate adoption of its principles. ·He said in 1870:

Duties should be so high that our manufacturers can fairly compete with the foreign products, but not so high as to enable them to drive out the foreign article, and enjoy a monop<>ly of the trade, and regulate the prices as they please. This is my doctrine of protection. If Congress pursues this line of policy stead· ily, we shall vear after year approach more nearly to the basis of free trade, because we shafi be more nearly able to compete with other nations on equal terrus. I am for a. protection which leads to ultim~te free trade.

The effect of tariff duties on prices and the inception of their application as a protective feature on woolen and cotton goods are thus stated in an article on prices iu the Cyclopedia of Political Science, volume 3, page 337:

Tho tariff of 1816, having a special reference to cotton and woolen manufact· nres, was passed, and is the first reallv protective tariff. It marks the beginning of that long course of legislation w h1c'b. has materially affected prices of manufactured goods, and henceforward this mm1t always be taken into account, as it artificially raises prices and introduces a disturbing influence.

Benjamin Franklin, when a committee of the House of Commons asked him if the Pennsylvania colony did not practically relieve the land-owners aud others from taxation and imposo heavy taxes on merchants to the injury of England's trade, replied:

If such speoial tax was imposed the merchants were experts with their pen and added the tax to the price of their goods and thus made the farmers and all land-owners pay their part of the tax as consumers.

David A. Wells states a very obvious truth when he says: Any primar.v tax-payer-A.nd that of course includes the importer, when he pays the tariff

duties at the custom-house-Any primary tax-payer, who does not ultimately consume the thing taxed and

who does not include the tax in the price of the taxed property or its !Jroducts, must literally throw away his money, a.nd must soon become bankrupt and disappear as a competitor; and accordinirly the tax advancer will add the tax in his prices if be understands simple addition.

Senator SHERMAN, in a speech made in 1867, embodied the truth of the whole matter of the influence of the tariff on prices as tersely as I have seen it put anywhere, and have therefore used it a great deal in the d.it!cussion of this question. He said:

Every law imposing a duty on imported goods is necessarily a restraint on trade. It imposes a burden upon the purchase and sale of imported j!:oods ancl tends to prevent their importation. The expression a "free-trade tariff" involves an absurdity.

Ilut he says further, and which, if possible, is still more explicit: Every duty on imported merchandise gives to the manufacturer an advantage

equal to the <luty.

The people must choose whether the surplus revenue is to be obviated by a reduction of taxes upon the necessaries of life or upon spirits and tobacco; and the following citations are given as indicating the true policy as against that policy adopted in the Republican national platform of 1888, proposing to make whisky and tobacco cheap, in order to furnish a pretext for making clothing and other necessaries of life dearer.

President Arthur, in his annual message in 1882, said: A total abolition of the excise law woulil alrno..t inevitably prove a serious, if

not an insurmountable obstacle to a thorough revision of the tariff and t-0 any con· siderable reduction in import duties. The present t.ariff system is, in many respects, unjust. It makes unequal distributions, both of its burdens and its benefits.

Secretary Folger further said, in his auuual report of 1883: :My last report said that the taxes upon spirits a.nu tobacco, being things not

needful, should be retained rather than tho.so upon tile common necessaries of life; which, as a proposition, is not to be controYerted. But it was conceded by all that a substantial reduction should be made upon nearly all imported articles subjected to duties.

Mr. ALLISON, in referring to the causes which led to the enactment of the present tariff laws1 said:

The large internal-revenue tax was mauo the excuse and the cause of tho advance of the tariff of July 14, 1862, and June 30, 186!. I quoted the language yes· terday, of the then chairman of Ways and Means in 1862, Mr. Thaddens Stevens, himseU a protectionist. * * * He made a pledge upon this floor in 1862 that

. "'

those additions of duties npon manufactured articles imported in this country were mads_ necessary because of the internal-revenue taxes. Both be and :Mr. MORRILL, an bsequently chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, declared that the a.ct of June 30, 1864, was a temporary measure, a war measure, and was not intended as a measure which should remain upon the statute-book as & protective tariff in time of peace.

Mr. ALLISON indicates plainly when tariff duties should be reduced. He says : It is admitted by all that the increase of the tariff was commenced and carried

on npon the basis of the protective duties of the Morrill tariff of 1861; the increase of direct taxation, added to the price of domestic manufactures, rendered an increased tariff necessary in order to prevent our country being fiooded with cheaper foreign productions. Certainly, then, UJ>On the decrease of internal taxation the tariff may be, and ought to l'ie, decreased in proportion, the danger being no longer in existence which was sought to be averted by these increased duties.

l\Ir. ALLISON yielded the floor for a moment to Mr. Cox, and that gentleman said:

I desire to say, in addition to what has been said by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLIBO:t), that I was on the committee of conference upon the tariff of 1864. The reason why that conference report was made as it was made, the reason given by Mr. MonRILL and M.r. Fessenden, was that the internal tax had been raise<l, but that the moment the tax was reduced they would be in favor of reducing the custom duties. That was understood when the report was made upon the tariff of 1864; it was one of the conditions leading the conference committee to report that measure.

Mr. MORRILL, in the concluding portions of his speech, referred to by Mr. ALLISON, used the following language:

This is intended as a war measure, a temporary measure, and we must give it our support as such.

Again he speaks of it as-A war measure, im:Qosed by the necessities of the Government, the scarcity of

laborers, and the enormous d1roct taxation. To the same import are the following extracts taken from a speech

of Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, delivered May 19, 1870: At the same time it is a mistake of the friends of a sound tariff to insist upon

the extreme rates imposed during the war, if less will raise the necessary revenue. And: Whatever percentage of duties were imposed upon foreign goods to cover inter

nal taxes upon home manufactures should not now be claimed aa the lawful prize of protection when such taxes have been repealed. There iii no longer an eq ui valent; * * * protection has here no legitimate claims, and it may be taken off whenever direct taxes are repealed and less revenue is desired.

President Cleveland, in his annual message, says in relation to the internal-revenue tax on whisky and tobacco: It must be conceded that none of the things subjected to internal-revenue tax

ation are, strictly speaking, necessaries ; there appea.rs to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.

Senator SHERMAN expresses himself as follows in relation to reduction of taxes:

Theu spread the balance of your reduction on the external taxes r.nd do what little good you can until the Tariff Commission enables us to reduce the whole system in the course of external taxes:

A.gain he said : But do not give away of our eurplus revenue more than half of it on an article

(t-0bacco) which is the :proper source of revenue, the legitimate subject of taxation, on which the tax is more cheerfully pa.id and more easily collected than on any other in the whole range of the gamut of taxes.

.A.ncl now, concluding these quotations, lest I may be accused of rn;ing in the course of my remarks epithets, as applicable to the system of protective tariffs, that are impolite or too harsh or severe, the following precedent is cited from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the caso of the Loan Association vs. Topeka (20 Wallace) :

To lay with one hand t.he power of th.e G<ivernment on the property of the citizens, and with the other t~ bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and built up prh-ate fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of ln.w and called taxation.

If that language is riot too severe in as. dignified a body as that august tribunal, I trust I shall be excused for using language no harsher and no more unparliamentary.

This chapter of quotations ought to be a sufficient light and guide to the feet and understanding of enough misguided Republicans in leading them out of the dismal darkness of protection iuto the broad light of revenue reform, to bring the country back to its moorings from which it drifted, as a necessity of the war, in 1861.

L"TER:S-AL All'"D EXTERNAL TAXES.

The present high-tariff duties were not originally exacted for protection, no matter what may be now said to that end, bat in the interest of the revenue made necessary by war; and they have been seized upon, since that necessity for revenue has ceased, by the greed and avarice of the beneficiaries engendered by the system. It is true, however, as appears by the authorities cited, that these hi~h duties were largely to compensate manufacturers and others for the heavy internal-revenue taxes then imposed, but with the distinct understanding and emphatic promises that these high duties should be reduced as the internal taxes were removed. Instead, however, of this being done, although all the internal-revenue taxes have been removecl that were levied, except upon tobacco and spirits, the tariff dutiea remain, and are even more than 8 per cent. higher now than they averaged during and at the close of the war-the average

" .

--: ..

·. , .

,. '1

: ">,-

·- -... ... .. -. ...-. .. ..


rate of duties for the last four years being 46 per cent., and for the four years, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865, being only 37t per cent.

Tbereport of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for 1880 (see page 159) shows that the internal-revenue taxes in 1866 amounted to the enormous sum of $310,906,984, and which were collected from faterests in the country much bE'tter ablo and calculated to bear and furnish it than those which last year furnished the $220,000,000 revenue received as tariff duties on imports; but instead of and without relieving the consumer from these oppressive duties, as bad been promised, the authorities in power proceeded to relieve the millionaire and millionaire interests from the internal-revenue tax, and repeal it, more than twenty-two years ago, to the extent of$236,236 -037, as the following table will show: '

Table showing amount and kind of internal revenue repealed since 1866 (front Re11ort of Commissioner of I11tenial Revenue for 1880).

1. Manufoctu~ing pr?dncts ...•••••..••••.•••••••••.••..••••••••.•• $127, 230, 608. 66 2. GrosR receipts, railroads, etc................................... 11, 262, 429. 82 3. Sale~, stocks, gold, otc . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . • • • • • . • • • • . . . . . . • • . . • • • . • 4, 002, 282. 91 4. Special taxes, eto ........••....•...••.•.......••............... 14,S«,418.05

~: ~~;Er~~~·:::::::~-~-~-~·~-------~-~-~-~--:·:::·:·:-::··~-~-~:::::::-~~·~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~--:·:·:·: 72, m: ~~: ~ 8. i M" ll 5 1, 693, 122. 73 9. S isce aneous ....••..••••••.•••••••••.•.....•...........••. l 3,750,J37.32

Total •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 236, 236, 637. 37

EFFECT OF DUTIES O.li COTTO~ A..,qD WOOLEN GOODS.

Wohave considered heretofore how the application of tariff duties or rather their addition to the cost price of individual articles or a. dol~ lar's worth of them, increased the prices of various articles. Now, let us look at the more general effect of these additions to such articles as relate to totals and grand totals, for it is through such illustrations that doubting but thoughtful persons are led to an understa.nding of the true situation.

There were imported into the United States in the calendar year 1888 woolen goods to the value of $52,681,482.56, invoice price on whi~h was paid a tariff ~uty or ta.x amounting to $35,373,627.05, thus makmg a compound to fix the prices of the country for such articles (not the value, mind you, for the invoice price fixed that), and which sums of goods and tax, when added together, make the sum of $88 -055,109.61. ~here w~re manufactured in this country, however, f~r the same period of time woolen goods to the estimated amount of say, $450,000,000, at prices .fixed at tho factories to correspond, as w~ have seen, with the prices increased by the tariff duties levied upon the imports of woolen goods at the rate of more than 67 per cent. above the actual invoice price.

Nowt it will at once appear by the application of the proper arithmetical rules that the amount of the estimated value of manufactures of woolen goods for the year 1888 as stated, divested of its 67 per cent. of increase by reason of the tariff protection, would only amount to about tho sum of $270,000,0CO, or $180,000,000 less than manufacturers could have procured for their goods, had it not been for the ta.riff duty of 67 per cent. on woolen goods. So that therefore, while the tariff on woolen goods imported for the year 1888-'89 took less. t~an the sum of $35,500,900 out of the pockets of the people and put it mto the Treasury (which was a little over 50 cents per capita for the entire population of the country), it took S180,000,000 more out of the pockets of the people, or about $3 per capita and put it as a bounty into the pockets of the woolen mannfac~rers. That is, for every dollar that went into the Treasury on account of woolen goods imported, between five and six dollars more were taken from the pockets of the consumers of woolen goods, that went into the pockets of the manufacturers, for whose benefit this system of robbery was invented and is now maintained.

There was imported of cotton goods into the United States forthe same year, 1888-'89, the amount in value of $27,10~609.75, and on which was paid into the Treasury as tariff duties qiil0,841,969.54-making nearly an average rate of duty of 40 per cent. There was manufactured of cotton goods in the United for the same period, in e~cess ?f exports, say, $375,000,000 worth: which is thought to be a fair estimate. Now, by the same system of reasonins and arithmetic we adopted in the case of the woolen goods, if the price of the homemanufactured article would be increased by the average rate of the duty on the imported goods, say, 40 per cent.-and that figure would not vary more than a cent and a fraction from the exact percentagethe amount of increased prices of the goods the consumer would have to pay for the same by reason of that daty would be $111 000 -000. That is, while the tar~ff taxes t?ok out of the pockets Qf the consume:rs of cotton goods imported mto the country in 1888 the sum of $10,842,000 and put it into the Treasury, that same duty rol)bed the consumers of about $111,000,000 and paid it as a bounty to the cotton manufacturers. Thus it is apparent that on account of protection, leglslated to the manufacturers of woolen and cotton goods alone, the people of the country pay in duties and bounties the sum of nearly (in round numbers) $300,000,000 annually or nearly $5 per capita on the estimated population. '

There were imported la.st year iron and steel and manufactures thereof to the amount of $43,510,133.66, and there was paid into the ~asury, as tariff duties thereon, the sum of $16,909,340.15, which

sums added together make the sum of $60,419,473.81 to fix the price of these articles in the market.

ON IRON Alm STEEL.

The amount of iron and steel manufactured in the country during the same period, on a. low estimate, may be placed at $550 000 000 and leaving out of the calculation tin-plate, which is not m~nufac~ ured in this country, the average rate of duty would be considerably ov~r 40 per cent. (nearly 44 per cent.) on what was imported, but taking that rate as the average there would be in the amoun~ consumed as stated the sum of $158,000,000 in. bounties-and on the principle that "the manufacturers have an advantage equal to the duty," this robbery amounts to nearly $2.50 per capita, and demonstrates, wh}le less th~n $17,000,000 i~ taken out of the pockets of the people on llllported iron and steel m one year and is put into the Treasury, the sum of ~158,000,000 is taken out of their pockets and put as bounties or enhanced prices into the pockets of the protected manufacturers.

Adding up separately the duties and bounties on woolen and cotton goods and on iron and steel consumed in the United States last year, you wili find that in round numbers the duties that went into th:e Treasury am<?unted to $63,000,000, or about $1 per capita. on the estimated population, and that the amount of bounties to manufacturers was ~bout $450,000,000, or more than $7 per ca.pita. This makes .a sho.wmg of nearly $30,000 taken from the municipality of 30,000 m~ab1tants, or $200,000 for each Congressional district on these art1~les a~one, for purposes of revenue, while at the same time the same mhab1tants are robbed of$210,000 in such municipality or

.$.1,400,000 in each Congressional district for the purposes of prot~ct10n to the manufacturers of these articles alone.

EFFECT ON TOTAL MANUFACTURES.

It is pleasant to contemplate what would have been the result if the country had not been robbed of this average of $7 per capita every year to pay to the cotton, woolen, iron, and steel manufacturers in bounties, through the exactions of the protective tariff I

By applying these simple rules, it is quite easy for every voter in the land to d~termine from the inha~it~nts of his municipality, whether county, city, town, or sJhool district, how much it would save on these three artieles of manufacture alone if the system of protective ~obberY: were abolished and free trade in these articles prevailed as it does m England. But we have made the calculation on woolen cotton, ironi and steel manufactures alone, and find the extent oftb~ robbery to De $7 per capita, or, including the $63,800,000 revenue J?ai~, $8 p~r capita every y"ar, w!iich is $48 for every head of a family of si.x persons; but go on with the calculation till you have embraced the entire range· of tariff duties which are levied on more than four thousand articles, then contemplate the result. T~e duties on th~ $123,400!000 worth ~f woolen and cotton goods

and iron and steel imported mto the Umted States paid $63 300 000 in revenue to the Government, which would be about an av~rad.e of · 51 per cent. on the invoice price of those articles, or only about 5 per ceut. above the general average of the ad valorem rate of duties on all dutiable artic~es; and this, as we have seen, cost the people $450,-000,000 more, which they had to pay to the manufacturers of similar articles in .the United States for protection. These two sums, then cost the people $513,300,000 last year on these articles alone, so that' by putting them on the free-list, the people would have saved that enormous sum in a sin~le year.

The ~mount of that krnd of merchandise imported last year is only a fract10!1 over the one-fourth part of our dutiable imports, which amount m all to about $485,000,000 on four thousand articles. So ":e see that if the ~eople woul<;l sav~ more than $513,000,000 by puttm~ one-fourth part of our d ~tiable imports upon the free-list, as the duties on them averaged but little above the general average, it mi O'ht be supposed that by putting them au upon the free-list the people would sa.ve four times as much, or $2,500,000,000 annually. This, however, would not be so to the full extent, as not so great an amount comparatively of other kinds of merchandise imported is manufact~ed in this country as th.ere is of the woolen and cotton goods and iron and steel; but, making due allowance for that fact and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration our ablest economists and scientists place the amount tho people of this country have to pay as indirect taxe~ on the merchandise they purchase and consume by reason of the tariff duties levied upon such articles, over and above what they would otherwise have to pay therefor, at the sum of $1,000,000,000 to $1,200,000,000 annually.

PROTECTION FOR FARMERS.

It is not therefore contended that in all cases the rate of tariff duties governs the increase in the selling price of the article, for that is obviously not true of such articles as we export in competition with the markets of the world; hence it is not true of scarcely anything farmers produce for market. It can be true only of such articles as are imported and sold in competition with our home protected articles or that would· be so imported and sold were it not for tariff duties. If it were true as to all the bounties instead of being limited to the sum stated it would be swelled to near one and three-fourths billions of dollars.

That the proposition is not true as to farm products is because there

• .,.. .. _ .... ! --. ...

--...: :> -·''

. . ... - I• •• • • ,·

1890. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-HOUSE. 4421 is no competilion in their sale in this country from abroad, and their production being so largely in excess of home consumption there never can be. This exhibits the hypoorisy of the demagocrical scheme of putting on paper large promises of protection to the farmer by increasing the duty on the kind of products he exports, and which can in no wise possibly be imported to come in competition with him here, to decrease in the slightest degree the prices on what he has to sell.

Here are some of the importations the farmer last year bad to contend with as shown by the official figures of the Treasury Department: $88 worth oflard, $978 worth of pork, $1,212. 70 worth of corn, $352.75 worth of corn meal, 16 bushels of rye, and 1,946! bushels of wheat, while of these six article& the United States exported during the same time over $142,000:000 worth.

The farmer will not only appreciate the attitude these demagogues put him in before the country by estimating his intelligence no higher than to suppose he can be duped by such miserable hypocrisy, but they will also appreciate the grim sarcasm of the professions to protect him on wheat and corn by raising the duty on the few bushels that are imported, when they realize that every grain of it that is brought into the country is bought by the farmers as seed, for the purpose of improving the production and character of their own crops.

We have in our arithmetical calculations applied the doctrine of Senator SHERMAN,. that "every duty on imported merchandise gives to the manufacturer an advantage equal to the duty," only to woolen and cotton goods and to iron andstee1, to illustrate the general principle; and not wishing to deceive any one who may be disposed to confide in my statementsj I do not even claim that in all of the varieties of those manufactures the benefits fully equal the duty, but that they io so substantially I have no sort of doubt. In some instances where a class of articles are practically excluded from importation by high duties, manufacturers corner and control the market and sell their goods greatly above what they might be imported for with the tariff duties added. Of course this could not continue long at any one time .as to any particular article, but under skillful manipulation, in connection with trusts and combines, monopolists are constantly changing their lines and tactics as to the enhancement of prices, until practically it is safe to adopt the rule we have relative to the influence tariff duties exert in relation to prices, and the estimate that the aggregate enhancement from that cause alone ib not less than from one billion to one billion two hundred million dollars annually is thought to be extremely conservative.

If, however, these estimates were esteemed excessive, it woulcl not destroy the argument or weaken the conclusion8, if they should be reduced, for, when reduced to suit the most conservative view, the reasoning would still apply in all it.a force though tho final result would show a reduced set of figures, so that after all, if in the main our reasoning is correct, the system of protection must fall, under the calcium light that is thus shed upon it.

Taking the lowest figures and making a practical application of them will have a strong tendency to open the eyes and understanding of the confiding consumer to the extent of the robbery perpetrated upon him. It amounts to about $15.50 per capita on the population every

year; and it bas been going on ever since tho war with a steady increase. Every town, city, or township of 3,000 inhabitants contributes -annually $413,500 to this merciless robbery, and every county of 30,000 population furnishes yearly of this blood money $465,000, and every Congressional district gives up to this vicarious sacrifice an average of $3,100,000 annually!

The material prosperity that woulu have resulted from leaving these annual excessive exactions for the last quarter of a century in the pockets of the people are simply incalculable. Instead of beggary and want and of depression and bankruptcy, there would now be au abundant prosperity. These benefits would have to be enjoyed to be fully appreciated, and it is only the future now that presents the opportunity for such realization.

This robbery is no more startlincr in the enormous extent of it than in the enormity of the principie involved, for the $63,300,000 raised by it for the Treasury on the four articles alluded to is itself an unnecessary and fraudulent exaotion that ought to be dispensed with to relieve the Treasury of its troublesome surplus, and to that extent, and to the extent of the $450,000,000 bounty money, relieve the people of that much of their more troublesome deficit.

It will be seen very clea,rly from this consideration of the subject that if the Government were economically administered and $100,-000,000 thereby saved to the country, and if $130,000,000 were then raised from an income tax such as contemplated by the resolution I introduced into this House early in the session (but which the Ways and .Means Committee have not considered, and will not consider), then all tariff duties which realized last year $220,000,000 could be repealed and this country led up to free trade which Mr. Garfiel<l said should be the object of all protective tariffs.

Let us look a little further at the practical operation of this iniquitous Republican tariff, as it is worked by protectionists dis<Yuised in its "home market" domino, to see the method by which th~\Vest is impoverished to enrich the people of the industrial States.

WHO PAYS THE BOUN-TY A.."1\""D WHERE IT GOES.

Take the article of cotton goods to illustrate the subject, and when that is understood it will prove a convenient key toj;he solution of the effect of all other bounties paid through the operation of this class legislation, in the interest of protected manufactures.

We have seen that the consumption of cotton goods amounts to an average of say $5.50 per capita annually, and as there is a bounty in this of 40 per cent. to the manufacturer, who has" an advantage equal to the duty," be it remembered, it would amount to $1.57 per capita. That means that Illinois, wi'.ih her estimated 3,900,000 inhabitants, contributed last year, to pay the bouBty on cotton manufactures occasioned by the protective tariff, $6,1~3,000. Every village of 1,000 inhabitants contributed $1,570; every city of 3,000 inhabitants contributed $4,710, and every county or municipality of 35,000 population contributed for the same unjustifiable purpose (cotton bounties alone) the sum of $54,952.

This amounts often to more than all the State and county taxes put together. The people fully realize the burden of thes~ latter taxes, but they are paid willingly, as it is the necessary price paid for the maintenance of good order and for civilized and christian society; but the payment of the former is enforced so insidiously and dexterously by the various legerdemain paraphernalia accompanying not only their collection, but in the matter of hoodwihking the people into its endurance, that the burden when taken altogether, though far greater than the sum of all the other taxes, is not realized or appreciated in any way approximating its full extent by the community at large; otherwise it woulu not be endured patiently for a single moment.

BOW DUTIES ON COTTO~ GOODS AFFECT ILLINOIS AND THE WEST.

The people of the State of Illinois, as that State has no C'6tton manufactories any account of which has ever found its way into the Census or any other official report (and the same is substantially trne of all the Western States), will very naturally be led to inquire where this exhausting, constant drain goes, and what the people of Illinois get for it all in return. Here is the answer:

According to Ba.1.>cock'i:; Report on Textile Fabrics in the United States for 1889 this country had for that year between 14,000,000 and 15,000,000 cotton spindles. Of these the South had about 2,000,000, New York and Pennsylvania had 1,530,000, and New England about 11,000,000. Rhode Island alone, with 2,069,600 spindles, equaled the entire Sonthern States. Massachusetts, with her 5,554,117 cotton spindles (and Dockham's Textile Directory for 1889 gives her 5,905,875 cotton spindles, an increase of 575, 755 in two years; and that is Boston authority over New York), nearly equals all the other States, leaving Rhode Island out of the estimate, while Rhode Island and Massachusetts, with a united population scarcely exceeding 2,000,000 in 1880, excel in the number of spin lea, and consequently in cotton manufacture, all the other States of the Union.

The six New England States, with a. population of a good deal less than one-thirteenth of the entire population, manufacture about four-fifths of all the cotton goods manufactured in the country. Rhode Island, with a popu~tion about as large as one Congressional district and three-fourths of another (276,000inhabitantsat last census) and having two Representatives in this House, manufactures more cotton goods than is consumed in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, with a population of nearly 6,000,000 in 1880 and having forty Reprnsentatives on this floor. So that therefore Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa., having literally no cotton manufactories, may be said, for the sake of illustration, to contribute their share of the bounty on their consumption of cotton goods to Rhode Island. And they having a. population now, say, of 8,000,000, the sum of such bounties would be $12,560,000 annually. Is it any wonder then that the New England States, instead of being bankrupted with mortgage and other indebtedness, should present such a contrast with the West as is indicated by the condition of the national and savings banks of the two sections of country, which is shown in the following tables Y

Table showing the loans and discounts, capital stockj and the surplus and undivided profits of national banks in the States indicated, with the pe» capita on the population as estim,atcd by the Government actiiary for Jtme 1, 1889.

MASSACHUSETTS.

Estimated population. -.......................................... _. 2, 103, 000 Loans und discounts·-·-·· ..•. ········--··· ... ······-·· .•••••.••••• $102, 000, 000

Average per capita ofjopulation ..••...• -... .•••••. ........... $50 Capital stock, surplus, an undivided profits .....•••••.........••. $64, 000, 000

Average per capita of population ..•. ··-·····.................. $32

RHODE ISLAND.

Estimatoo population ..•• ·-···· .......... ··-··· ••••••.••..• :...... 343, 000 Loans and discounts ................. _ •• _ •.••..••..•....• _... . . . . . . $36, 000, 000

Average per capita of population .•••.•.•••• _ .••.•••••• ·--·.... $105 Capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits ..•..••••• ··-····· .••• t26, 800, 000

Average per capita of population ....•• ·····-···-·-............ $78. 01 ILLINOIS.

Estimated population .••••• ···················--···-···- .. ••··••••• il, 699, 000 Loans and discounts ..• ···-· .................. _ •.••.•• ·-·······--·· $40, 300, 000

Average per capita of population .••...••••.. ·-··.... . ......... $11 Capital stock, surpius, and undivided profits .••• ·-···-·-··-- .. ·--· $21, 800, 000

Average per capita of population.--···· .. --··-··· .. --····-··· $6

'··

-/

. ~. ..

-'·

4422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. M.AY 9,

Tabl6 showing the amollnt of deposits in the savings-banks of the six New E11gland States and in six Western States named, and the number of depositors, witk the average deposit to eaok individual in each State, for the ye.ar 1889. Compiled front the repo1·t of the Co7np t1·ol1 er of Currency for 1889. (See page 225.)

SIX NEW ENGLAND STATES.

States. Amount of Num'?er of I t::~~~e deposits. depositors. depositor.

Massachusetts ••••••••••.•..••••.••..••. Connecticut .•..•••••••••.•.•••.••••••••. Rhode Island ..•••••••••••..••.••.•••••• New Hampshire .••..••••••..••.•.•• .. ••• Maine ..••.••••••••••.•.•••.•••••.••.••.. Vermont •••••••••.••••.•••••..•.••.•....

Total. ..•.••••••••.•••••••••••. -••·

$315, 185, 000 105, 850, 000

57, 700, 000 57, 301, 000 ,0, 970, 000 17, 801, 000

594, 807, 000

983, 202 287, 776 123, 102 145,021 124-, 562

61, 759

1, 725, 422

$320 370 468 395 330 288

----3!5

----------------'-------'------'----~ SIX WESTERN STA.TES.

Michigan ••••••••.•••.•••••••••••.••.•••. Iowa. .•••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••. Illinois .•••••...•.•.•••...••.••.....•.••. Minnesota .•••.•••••••••••..•••••••••••..

~~~~:si~: :::: :: ::::::: ::: :: ::: : : : ::::::

$24, 015, 000 13, 125, 000 7, 621, 000 3, 979, 000 2, 776, 000

48, 000

Total...... • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • . . . 51, 564-, 000 I

99, 245 $242 4-3, 669 301 29, 605 257 16, 797 237 11, 696 238

519 92

201, 5a3 206

lfanyprofitable comparisons and contrasts will suggest themselves from an inspection of these tables, but I know of none more suggestive than that the many millions t.hat have gono into the pockets of the people of the little State of Rhode Island, from year to year, contributed, as stated, by Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, have helped to swell its savings-bank deposits till they exceed those of the six Western States combined.

ll0l1E M.lRRl<:T RACKET.

Protectionists insist, however, that the farmer is recompensed for these enforced contrilmtions by the building up of a "home market" to absorb bis surplus produce! But how does this help the farmers in the WeRt, since the niue industrial States (so called) in the East raise substantially_ all the agricultural produce themselves that they consume Y And while the State of Rhode Island-the little jokeroharges the States of Illmois, Iowa, and Wisconsin some twelve and a half million dollars annually, extra.-that iR, more than England would char~e-for the cotton goods alone that they consume, there is probably not a Congressional district in my State, outside of Cook County, that does not fill brace some single county, that does not raise more surplus produce, annually, than the whoie State of Rhode Island consumes. Aud my Congressional district alone, taking one year with another, will raise more surplus farm produce than is imported for consumption by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which manufactprobably one-half of the woolen a:id four-fifths of the cotton goods ure for the entire United States.

Such is the pernicious ancl delusive character of the "homemarket" humbug when stripped of its most deceitful and highsounding endearments.

But the policy of compelling people to buy at home, and pay two prices for what they buy, and obtain half price for what they sell in order to build up a "home-market" is in keeping with all the other absurdities of protection ; and it is preposterous to insist that the "Western farmer should be taxed on all the manufactures he consumes to build up a homo market, when he is compelled to send wha.t he raises, and which is not consumed in the West, out of the country to a foreign market in competition with pauper labor, and especially when the homo market he is building up by this process is a home market for the Eastern farmer only, who gets for his produce as much more th:m the Western farmer does as it costs tho latter to b·ansport it there, which would be from ~O per cent. to 50 per cent. of the entire price.

No less untenable is the pretense the co1mtry is richer by exclusive domestic exchanges.

Is the country richer or poorer when it sends out a cargo of 100,000 bushels of wheat, worth $100,000, and brings back in exchange for it a cargo of sugar worth $200,000 Y The answer -is obvious; yet protectionist.a assure the farmer it would be better for the country if he would exchange his bushel of wheat with the sugar trust in Now York for 10 pounds of sugar than it would for hi.m to send it abroad, whence he could bring back 50 pounds in exchange for it if ho were not prohibited from doing so by law, or if he would exchange 15 bushels of wheat at a home market for a suit of protected clothes, instead of sending it abroad and bringing back for it, not only a better suit of clothes, but 89 in money besides! In this last transaction bow much poorer would the country be for having exchanged $15 worth of wheat for $15 worth of clothing and $9 in money to boot! And bow much better off would the farmer be who did this than his neighbor who, a disciple to the home-marke~ deception, had exchanged his 15 bushels of wheat at home for a protected suit of clothing!

PROTECTION TO INCREASE WAGES.

The grim humor that such a subject for an essay as "the benefits the farmer gets from protection" suggests to my mind is only equaled by that of the other twin absurdity, that the laboring man, the wage-worker in this country, is benefited by being taxed heavily, either directly or indirectly, on almost everything he consumes, from the cradle to the grave, while even these latter outfits are not exempt from the insidious imposition.

Without stopping to discuss the influence of tariff duties on wages or to expose the false pretense that a protective tariff is necessary to enable the manufacturer to pay higher wages in this country than in the old, the following table is given, which contains all the elements on which to base numberless comparisons and arguments that will suggest themselves readily to the close observer.

It will be seen from these tables that the tariff duties, in~ead of merely compensating the manufacturers for the difference in the price oflabor in this and the old country, which they pretend is all they ask, average more than double the entire labor cost of ipost of the articles manufactured; and the manufacturer, out of the benefits arising from this burden imposed upon the country, pockets a large percentage of the tariff bounties over and above his legitimate prof· its, after paying his entire labor account out of the bounties due to tariff duties. ·

Table compiled from, the Tentk Censns by Mr. Seaton, Superintendent, showing value of various manufactu1·ed products, per <'ent. of labor cost, and 1·ate of duty existing and proposed.

Ad valorem rate. Percent-Value of Industries. product. Labor. f~o~~ Present Proposed tariff,

1888. rate.

---·---Carpets .•.•••••••••.••. $31, 792, 802 $6, 835, 218 21. 5 46.31 60.88 Cotton goods .••••••.••. 210, !)50, 383 45, 614, 41!) 21. 6 40 *38 Bolts. nuts, t'lto .••••••. 10, Ota, 330 1, 981, soo 19. 7 32. 7 30 N ail1:1 and spikes ...•••. 5, 629, 240 1, 253, 171 22. 3 52.12 41 Iron pipe. wrought .••. 13, 292, 162 1, 788, 258 13. 5 74 62 Oil, castor . ............. 653, 900 H, 714 6.8 200 125 Oil. linseed ...••.•••.... 15, 393, 812 681 , 677 4.4 44 53 Screws (smallest} .••••. 2, 184, 532 456, 512 20.9 72 84 \Vool bats (cheap) ..••. 8, 516, 569 l, 893, 215 22.2 68 111 Woolen goods .•••••.•• _ IGO, 606, 721 25, P36, 392 16.1 67 90 Worsted goods ....•.••. 33, 5t0, 94.2 5, 683, 027 16. 9 67 tl03

*Clothing made, 50 per cent. t Some worsteds increased to 130.

That the difference in wages between this conn try and England is due to protective tariff cluties is a false assumption as evidenced by the fact that the difference was much greater under the low tariff of 1846 than it is now; and the following tn.ble clearly demonstrat.es that other influences than tariff duties operate to make differences in wages:

Table showi1tg the relatiL•e average wages in the several Slates, computed from rehwns relating to wages take-nfroni the Tenth Census 1·eports of the Uniie(l States, estimaNng three hundred working days in the year.

States.

South Carolina .•••••••••••••••••..•..••..• Nor th Carolina .•..•••.••.•.•••••.•••..•• _ G eorgia . ..•.•.•••••.•••••••••••••.••••.... Maine ...•.•••••••••••••••••••..•..••..••. Vermont ....••.••••••••••••.•••••••.•••.•. Now Hampshire ..•..•...••.•••••••••.•••. Ohio .•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•. Michigan .•••••.••••••.•...••....••.•...•. Indiana ...•••••••.•••.•••..•••••.•.•.•.... Wisconsin .••.••••••.•...•..•••••••.•..•.. Rhodo Island .......••••..•••••.••••...•.. Pennsylvania ....•..•••••••••••••••••..•.. Iowa. ..•.•....•.•••••.•••..•.•••••••.•••• Massachusetts ..••.•••..••.••••.••••.•••. New J e1·sey ••••••.••••..••••••••••••••••. _ New York ..••.••••.•••••••••..••..••.•••. Connecticut •••••••••.••.•••••.••••••••••• Colorado •••••••.••.•....•....•...••.•••••. Illinois ••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••.••.

Do .•.•••.•••••.•••.•.••.••...•....•. Do ....•...•..•.••.....••...•.••.... . Do .•••••..••••••••.••••.••••...•....

California .••.••••••.•••.•••.•..•..••...•. Do ...•••.••..•..•..•.•••••..••.•.... Do .....•.••.•.••••••••••••..••...••. Do ..•...•..•••.•..•.••..••.••••..••.

1111BSonri. ..•.•...•••••••••.••••••••••••••• Do ...........•.•.•.•...•.•.•••••.••. Do .....•.•••..••••.•.•...•.•••••.••.

Wages.

$0.43 • 50 .70 . 88

Per cent. Than those inhigher-

. 92 •••••• ·-·· 1. 01~ .•••• - •••. 1. 06 1.09 1. 10 Lll 1.13 1.15 1.15 1. 21 1. 22 L28 1.28 1. 53 L 32 25 Ohio. 1. 32 50 Maine. 1. 3'.l 47 Vermont. 1. 32 10 Massachusetts. 1. 59 377 South Carolina. 1. 59 57 New Hampshire. 1. 59 70 Maine. 1. 59 30 Massachusetts. 1. 27 « Maine. 1. 27 05 Massachusetts. 1. 27 20 Ohio.

It will be seen by the foregoing table that the wages in Illinois ($1.32) are 25 per cent. higher than in Ohio, 50 per cent. higher than in Maine, 47 per cent. higher than in Vermont, and 10 per cent. higher than in Massachusetts. Wages in California ($1.59) are 319 per cent. higher than in North Carolina., 57 per cent. higher than in New Hampshire, 70 per cent. higher than in Maine, and 30 per eent.

·.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4423 higher than in Massachusetts. Wages in Missouri ($1.27) are 44 per foundation of the whole question of tariff legislation as it effects cent. higher than in Maine, 5 per cent. higher than in Massachusetts, prices, while in it lies as well the true relation between capital and and 20 per cent. higher than in Ohio. labor.

HOW SHALL REVE:t\"UE BE RA.ISED i

Now·, whilst I belie>e in the principles of free trade and favor the substitution of an income tax in the place of tariff duties on raw materials and the necessaries of life, and eventually on substantially all other articles of commerce, yet I do not favor this being done in such haste or with such violence as to compel manufacturers to ahandon their business and retire to private life on the millions they have wrested from the people, and thus throw a portion of the community, small though it would be, temporarily out of employment; but these burdens upon the people should be reduced gradually, and, while not "tOO rapidly, their removal should be begun immediately, and be prosecuted with such dispatch as to restore this country to a.u enduring prosperity within at least the lifetime of &ome of those who have wrought the country's subjection to ruinous taxation and commercial bondage.

I might as well say, once for all, in anticipation of the usual freetrade howl, that I have discussed simply the general effect of tariff taxation upon prices, etc. 1 and compared the condition of things as they now exist in the premises with what they would be without any tariff t:.:i,xes whatever; as there would be none at least beyond the expenses of proper comme1·cialregulations, in case the income tax should be adopted and the internal-revenue taxation properly maintained.

I ::i,m by no means in hostility with my party in this contest, and most heartily join it in emanding a reduction of the war taxes, and if I go a little further and ask that this rednction shall continue with all convenient speed till the country shall be assured of their ultimate extinction, I am not aware that there need be any difference between the Democratic party and myself in that particular, since it has never advocated a tariff duty for any other purpose than the collection of necessary revenue for the economical administration of the Government; and whenever that purpose can be better subserved in a juster manner it baa no further use for tariff taxation at all.

The people must not be frightened by the cry of free trade, if they desire to see the income tax supersede the present oppressive system of taxation; and the mechanic and laborer most not be dismayed by the bugaboo of "competition with the pauper labor of Europe." These are all ghosts and goblins that will disappear as you courageously approach them with the torch of enlightenment and the steady step of determined purpose.

REDUCE THE COST OF PRODUCTION.

The subtle argument of protection that free trade paralyzes manufactOl'ing industries must yield to stubborn facts, and after the heresy of a protective tariff is incontrovertibly confuted by irresistible logic, it is don bly satisfactory to find that our theory of tariff reform is fully vindicated by the truths of history. Senator CuLLOM's magazine article already alluded to is one of the special efforts to induce the country to believe that if protection is abandoned as the legislative polioy of the country the farming and other industrial interests will be overrun by those seeking employment and business, who have been thrown out of work by the ruin wrought to the manufacturing industries through the substitution of a freetrade policy; and such is the theory of the whole body of protectionists. The answer to it all is found in the fact that the reduction in the cost of production and in the price of the article that would follow such a policy, and in the increased consumption and demand that would necessarily follow such reduction in prices, would necessarily increase manufactures, a.nd this in torn would create a drain on the other overcrowded industries, and thus wages in all the industries of the country would be rapidly increased.

It must be always remembered this cheapening process comes about through the cheapening of the cost of prodoctlon on the one hand, aa well as through the cutting down of artificial and excessive profits to the proprietors of protected manufactnres, occasioned by giving to such manufacturers "an advantage equal to the duty" levied by virtue of the protective tariff. This wholesale cheapening -process results of necessity in adding coITesponding comfort and happiness t-o the masses of the people, while I am free to confess it will be limiting and remitting monopolies and protected industries to legitimate profits, and make less rapid the accumulations of gigantic fortunes; bot while cutting down the excessive accumulations of protected industries it will, at the same time, in a legitimate and most substantial way, tend to make permanent and desirable the true and provident wealth of the country, and thus enable our manufacturers to compete with the manufacturers of foreign countries in the markets of the world.

Permanent wealth, so far as wealth can be permanent (for wealth must in a manner constantly be undergoing a reproduction), especially so far as relates to matters of personalty, is the difference between the price of the article or subject and the cost of its production; aud consequently unnecessary cost of production is waste, and waste of course retards the accumulat.ion of wealth and reduces the fund from which both profits and wages alike are dra. wn. This theory alike applies to individuals and to na.tions, and goes to the very

LOW TARIFF MAKES PROSPEROUS TIMES.

Then if our theories which seem so plausible are the true ones, they must be verified by the facts of history, and, as we have said, they are.

Now what are these facts' When what is called the" free-trade tariff" of the Democrats was

adopted in 1846, instead of mining manofactill'ing business ancl. decreasing the price of labvr, as it was predicted then as well as now a revenue tariff would do, it bad directly the opposite effect., as in fact our own theories demonstrate that policy will necessarily al ways procluce.

The number of manufactories increased fro,m 123,025 in 1850 to 140,433 in 1860, or more than 14 per cent., while under high protection they increased less than 1 per cent. from 1870 to 1880. Capitalists, instead of being compelled to withdraw their capital from ma.nu factures after the "free-trade tariff" was adopted iu 1846, actually increased their capital, from 1850 to 1860, 90 per cent., while the in crease from 1870 to 1880 was only 32 per cent. under a high protective tariff, and production increased from 1850 to 1860 at the rate of 85 per cent., and only 15 per cent. from 1870 to 1880.

The total estimated true wealth of the country rose in round numbers from seven billions in 1850 to sixteen billions in 1860, or an increa~e in ten years of 129 per cent., while the increase was only 45 per cent. from 1870 to 1880; so that these statistics show that manufactures and total wealth nave increased more rapidly under the period of low tariff than under high tariff for like periods of time. This most gratifying showing for low tariff is not con.fined to manufactures only, but extends to all the other branches of business in the country.

These comparisons are shown in a most gratifying manner by the official figures taken from the last census report and tabulated as follows:

Table showing the 1·elative increase in the nianiifactu.ring interests, and the total toea.lth in the United States during the two decades from, 1850 to 1860- and front 1870 to 1880, compiled front the United States census 1·ep01·t for 1880.

I Number Years. of establish-

men ts.

1850 ···-··-·--·· 123,025 1860 --·-·-····-· 140,433

-----Increase in 10

years .•. - ••. . 17,408 or 14 per cent.

1870 ·----· ·--··· 252,148 1880 . - •• - •• - .•.. 253,852

Increase in 10 1, 70i years .• _... . . or less than !

of 1 per cent.

Amount of cap- Total product Total wealth ital invested (millions). of country

(millions). (millions).

$533 $1,019 $7,13 6 1,010 1,886 16,16 0

----------------$i77 867 9,02 4

or 90 per cent. or 85 per cent. or 126 per cent.

2,118 4,232 30,06 8 2,790 5,370 43,Gi 2

682 1,138 13,574 or32 per cent. or 26 per cent. or less than 46

j per cent.

And to the same effect is the following table, which shows that during the ten year8 of low tariff indicated from 1850 to 1860 the principal manufacturing industries were so prosperous and independent of foreign competition in the markets of the world that the exportation of cotton goods increased 134 per cent. and that of iron and steel 200 per ceut., while the exportation of the former fell off 9 per ceut. from 1860 to 1880 under high tariff, and the increase in the exportation of the latter for the last-named period increased only 121 per cent., or 79 per cent. less in twenty years of high tariff than for the ten years of Democratic low tariff from 1850 to 1860. The exportation of the manufactures of wood increased for the first period of ten years 109 per cent., but for the last period of twenty years only 62 per cent.

Table showing exports of 1nanufactw·es of cotton, iron and steel, and wood front the United States for years indicatell.

Years.

1850 .. ·······-······-·········-·· 1860 .. -·-·· ·-·-·-··--···--····--·

Manufactures of cotton.

$!, 700, 000 11, 000, 000

Manufactures of iron and

steeL

$1, 900, 000 5, 700, 000

Manufactures of wood.

$4, 800, 000 10, 000, 000

Increase in ten years.·--· 6, 300, 000 3, 800, 000 5, 200, 000

1880. -.•. ·-·· ···---. ··- ••. - -·. - •. 1880 ....•••. - -·· -- . ·- ...••.. --· ..

Or 134 per cent. Or 200 per cent. O~ 109 per cent.

11, 000, 000 10, 000, 000

5, 700, 000 12, 600, 000

: 10, 000, 000 16, 200, 000

-------!·--------------Increase in twenty years -1 1, 000, 000 6, 900, 000 6, 200, 000

Or 9 per cent. Or 121 per cent. Or 62 per cent. (decrease).

-.

I

..

; '

......

4424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MA.y 9,

Facts are stubborn thin~s "and the facts embraced in these tables and the arguments deducible therefrom annihilate the contention that a reduction of the ta.riff duties would ruin the country, since its prosperHy was at its height during the period of low tariff, when they ranged downward from 26 per cent. to less than lBt per cent. on dutiable imports, while for the Ia.st four years they have averaged above 46 per cent., and if this bill becomes a law, they will, in less than two years range largely above an average of 50 per cent."

COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF TARIFF ON COMMERCE AKD Sllll' llUILDING,

The most painful and melancholy view of the effects of protection as compared with comparative free trade is to be found in the influence it exerts over the shipping and commercial interests of the country; not, perhaps, because the baleful results are greater here than to agricultural interests, but l>ecausc they can be more accu-rately observed, measured, and stated. .

Let us first compare the total exports and imports under the two periods of protection, the one ending with the fall of the old Whig .tariff in 1846, which bad been the outgrowth of the old Harrison and Tyler campaign of 1840, and the other beginning with the establishment of the present tariff in 1861, with the fourteen years operation of the Democratic low-revenue tariff, adopted in 1846 and ending with the fiscal year of 1860.

The exports and imports of the country which, for three years prior to 1846, under the old Whig protective policy, bad averaged only $200,000,000 annually, increased to $007,000,000, or over $302,-

·000,000 annually, for the three years immediately following the year 1846, under the influence of the low revenue or Democratic tariff. T.lmt is, our foreign commerce increased in throe years more than 50 per cent. in fav:or of the reduced tariff duties.

In 1845, the year before the adoption of the low-tariff policy, our total exports and imports amounted to the sum of $233,000,000, or $11 per capita of the estimated population, but th~y increased to $762,000,000, in 1860, being an increase of 230 per cent. and amounting to $Z4.50 per capita. In 1888 the total exports and irnportd a.mounted to $1,525,000,000, being an increase of 100 per cent. over 1860, ancl the per capita. of the population .estimated at 63,0001000, being $24!, or less than in 1860. •

This melancholy contrast between the two periods, the one of fourteen years under the Democratic low tariff, between 1846 and 1860, and the other under tho highest tariff dutie~ known in the history of the country, being twenty-eight years, from 1860to1888, onght to be accepted as the strongest possible argument for the abolition of protective duties. In the Democratic period, so to speak, the increase, as we have seen, was 230 per cent. in fourteen years, while the population only increased 55 per cent., yet in double that time, or twentyeight years, being an extraordinarily high protective tariff period, . the increase was only 100 per cent., while the increase in the population was nearly in the same ratio thus showing a difference in favor of the low-tariff period over the other of more than 250 per cent. when the lengths of the two periods are considered. It shonlcl be kept prominently in mind in studyincr this contrast that tariff duties went down before the close of the iow-tariff period below an average of 18t per cent., while for the year 1888 they averaged above 47per cent.

Sometimes our Republican friends contend that free-trade tariffs, as they delight to call them, turn the "balance of trade" against ns. While this "balance of trade" delusion is too complex and lengthy a subject for discussion here, yet, as from the standpoint of our political opponents they seem to deem it important, it might be well to call their attention to the fact that in 1846, at the close of the 6peration of the Whig tariff, the balance of trade was against us over $8,000,000, and in 1888, after twenty-eight years of the high protective tariff, the balance of trade was against us abont $48,000,000, while in 1860, at the close of fourteen years operation of the Democratic low tariff, the balance of trade was in our favor about $38,000,000.

These same Government statistics also show that in 1860 American ships carried 66i per cent. of our foreign commerce, and that now, while that carrying trade bas doubled, our ships carry less than 14 per cent. of it. American vessels, therefore, receive less than $34,000,000 out of the estimated $250,000,000 pa.id annually for carrying our foreign commerce. Our ships at the close of the "golden Democratic" period just referred to carried $507,000,000 worth of the $762,000,000 of our foreign commerce, while, now that commerce has doubled, they carry only $191,000,000 worth, or a. little over one-third as much as they did twenty-eight years ago, and absolutely more than $13,000,000 less than in 1840, fifty years ago.

The trade of ship-building, that forms so important a part in the industries of a prosperous nation, has suffered in the same disastrous ratio during the decades of protection.

The last official report of the Commissioner of Navigation to the Secretary of the Treasury (sec pages 191 and 192) shows that for ten years prior to 1R46 there were built in the United States steam and sailing vesse]s to tl10 capacity of less t.han one and one-fifth millions of tons, or an average of a fraction over 200,000 tons per annum, while in the ten years following 1846 there were built like vessels to the capacity of over 4,000,000 of tons, or an average of 400,000 tons per annum. And in the last ten years the falling off has taken us back again to half the average for the ten years following 1846.

Such is the ruin wrought to our maritime industries and to our

once proud and commanding commercial supremacy. What a sad commentary upon our present tariff and shipping laws these figures present; and what a startling contrast with the prosperity of the golden period from 1846 to 1861.

TA.RIFF LEGISLA.TION-IIISTORICAL.

But, Mr. Chairman, I ·wm not dilate on the beneficent effect of the Democratic "free-trade tariff'' of 1846 further than to say it was accepted by the whole country as entirely and absolutely satisfactory up to the time the requirements of the war gave rise to the necessi~ for greater revenues. In 1857, after that law had been in operation eleven years, the Republican party, then in its infancy and for the :6.r~t time in its history coming into the control of this Honse, joined with the Democrats in making those low-tariff duties still lower. Th& beneficent effect of the tariff of 1846 is attested as well by the action of Congress and of Republican statesmen contemporaneous with the operation of the law as it is by the fact.a o;f history and the indorsement of the Democratic party.

The tariff bill of 1846 passed the Honse by a voie of 114 yeas to 93 nays, all the Massachusetts Representatives votin~ against it and New England giving 19 votes against it to 9 votes in its favor. Now, observe bow the foregoing statements as to the satisfactory workings of the law are verified. by the incontrovertible testimony of the record itself.

In 1857 the law by which wool was put np<1Il. the free-list-and other tariff duties were reduced still lower than they were by the act of 1846-passed the House by the vote of 118 yeas to 72 nays, with allot Massachusetts' votes having changed to the affirmative and New England giving 18 votes in its favor to 9 agi:t'inst it, thus completely changing front on the question in eleven years. So satisfactory was the working of a Democratic ta.riff! The old Whig high protective tariff of 1842, and which knocked the Harrison Whig par"ty out in 1844, passed the House by a vote of 103 yeas to 99 nays, New England sustaining protection by a vote of 26 yeas to 7 nays.

The following interesting table is given showing the changing vote of New England in the lower Honse of Congress on the tariff faws of 1842, 1846, and 1857, as well as the total vote compiled from Senate document, first session, Forty-eighth Congress:·

18!2. 1846. 1857.

Yea-. Nay. Yea. Nay. Yea.. Nay.

---------------Maine .....•.•••••.••••••...• - . 4 2 5 1 6 0

0 4 3 1 2 1 4 2 ............ ~ ....... 3

New Hampshire ... ·-··-· ••••.. Vermont ......•.••.••••.•••.•.. Massachusetts .•••••. ··-··· .••. 10 1 0 9 9 0 Connecticut ..•••••..••.•...••.. 6 0 1 4 ' Rhode Island .••.••••••.••.•• _. 2 0 0 2 1 1

---------------Total .•••••..••.•...••... 26 7 9 19 18 9

Total•ote in House ...•. =m==gu=m~==m1====n

It may be interesting to remember that the low-tariff bill of 1846 passed the Senate on a. tio vote, by the casting vote of Mr. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, the Vice-President, in its favor.

As he was a Democrat from what is and what was then regarded as the stronghold of protection in this country, tariff reformers should join bands in the erection of a monument to his memory for that act alone, if for none other. He, however, left one for himself when he cast that vote that will be as enduring as the memory and history of the protective tai·iff struggles in this country shall be. In casting that decis:ve vote the Vice-President said: It ought to be remembered that this exercise of the taxin"' power was origi

nally intenued to be temporary. The design was to foster feeb1e, "infant" manufactures, especially snch as were essential t-0 the defense of the country in time of war. In this design the people have persevered until t.hese saplings have taken root, have become viirorons, expanded and powerful, and are prepared t{) enter witb confidence the field of fajr, free, am\ universal competition.

The arrival of this period of time has been anxiously looked for by a large portion of our fellow-citizens, who deem themselves peculiar and almost exclnsive sufferers by the policy of protection.

They have sometimes, perhaps imprudently, endeavored to anticipate it. Their numbers, at first entitled only t-0 influence from their patriotism and intellip;ence, barn gone on gradually increasing as the system ripened to its fruit, and they now constitute a decided majority of the people o.f the Union.

Thus do we find illustrated the old proverb that "history repeats itself," as the times are once more ripe for a return to that policy that brought forth such gratifying results from 1846 to 1861.

There are not wanting abundance of authorities from among Re.· publican statesmen attesting the beneficence of this misname<_l "free-trade" policy, but as I have already consumed much time in the quotation of authorities, I will add but three or four more, for the benefit of our protection friends only, since our Democratio brethren need none.

Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, afterwards Vice-President of the United States, in a speech in the Senate when the proposition to reduce the Democratic low tariff of 1846 still lower was pending in the Senate in 1857, said:

'.rhe manufacturers, M.r. President, make no war upon the wool-growers. They assume th11.t the redaction of the duty on wool, or the repeal of the duty aJ.tdgether, will infuse vip;or into that drooping int.erest, stimulate 1.ome prodnctioll.

... ~ --i~· ~·~..:. ~':~~' ~ ~-~~ :_' _-- ;, ·,~· . ·;-..,~ ' • • - 'I. . •

_ .. t ._ , .. ,.,.-·. -.-·

,•

- ··'I, • ·:- •

, - ,

... -\

'-· .·\'>

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4425 dimini.eh the importation of foreign woolen manufactures, and afford a steady and increasing demand for American wool. They believe this policy will be more beneficial- to the wool-growers, to the agricultural interests, than the present policy. The :manufacturers of woolen f11.brics, many of them men of large experience and extensive knowled~e, entertain these views, and they a.re sustained in these opinions by the experience of the great manufacturing nations of the Old World.

Since the reduction of the duties on the raw materials in England, since wool was admitted free, her woolen manufactures have so increased, so prospered, that the_production of native wool iucreast:d more than 100 per cent. The experience of England, France, and Belgium demonstrate11 the wisdom of that policy which makes the raw materials duty free. Let us profit by their example.

• * * * * * If our manufactures are to iucrease, to keep pace with the population and the

growing wants of our people; if we have the control of the markets of our own country; if we are to meet with and compete with the manufacturers of England and other nations of Western Europe in the markets of the world, we must have our raw materials admitted duty free or at a mere nominal rate.

* * * ... * * We of New England believe that wool, especially the cheap wools, manila, hemp,

flax, raw silk, lead, tin, brass, hides, linseed, and many other articles used in our manufactures can be admitted dutl free, or at, a mere nominal duty, without in· juring ~any exten_t any cons!derab e pr2ductive i1!_terests of !he countr?. .

In closing, Mr. Prefildent, the remarks I ha~e felt it to be my dut_y to submit to the Senate, I wish to say to the Senate and the country, that the Commo:n.wealth I represent in part on this floor-I say in part, for my colleague f Mr. Sumner], after an enforced absence of more than nine months, is here to-night to iPve his vote if he can not raise his voice for the interest of his State-has a. deep mterest in the m-0dification of the tariff of 18!6 by this Congress. Her merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, and business men in all the departments of a varied industry want action now before the Thirty-fourth Congress passes away.

They are for the reduction of the revenues to the actual wants of an economical adminJBtration of the Government; for the depletion of the Treasury, now filled with millions of hoarded gold; for a free-list embra-0in~ articles of prime necessity we do not produce; for mere nominal duties on articies which make up a large portion of our domestic industry, and for snob an adjustment of the duties on the productions of other nations that come in direct competition with the products of .American capital, labor, and skill as shall impose the least burdens upon that capital, labor, and skill.

Do not forget that this speech was made by one of the greatest Republican leaders the party ever had, and that it was made to reduce the Democratic "free-trade tariff" still lower, and in this he was indorsed by his party in both Houses of Congress and throughout the entire country. And yet we hear the blatant demagogues of that party to-day cryin~ out that a reduction of tariff duties will ruin the country, when at tne same time the proposed reduction leaves tliem IJlOre than 100 per cent. higher than they were when the present high duties were established during the war.

The sagacious and consistent Mr. Ar.USON, of Iowa, said in the House, .March 24, 1870, in regard to the nature and character of the tariff of 1846:

( The tariff of 1846~ although confessedly and professedly a tariff for revenue,

· was, SO far a.s regaros all the great interests of the COtllltry, as perfect as any that we have ever bad.

Mr. Garfield, in this House, in March, 1878, after a long ancl careful statistical review of the condition of the country from 1850 to 1860, in answer to the chQJ'ge that the year of 1860 had not been one of prosperity because of the prevalence of the low-tariff duties, said in concluding:

We can find ample ~ound for the sufficient protection of .American manufacturers without distorting the history of our cotLDtry. The gentleman's position lays him open to this dangerous reply, that if the low tariff and insufficient volume cf currency of 1860 caused the alleged distress of that year, how will be account for what he admits the p:reat distress of 1877, with a. much higher tariff and three times the currency of 18601 ,

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the decade from 1850 to 1860 was one of pea-00 and p:eneral prosperity. The aggregate volume of real aud personal property in the United States in 1850 was iu round millions $7,135,000,000; in 1860 it was $16,159,-000,000, an increase of 126 per cent., while the population increased but 35 per cent. Yet to suit a theory of finance we are told that 1860 was a year of great distress and depression of business, equaled only by the distress of the present year. I hold that the facts I have recited establish, in so far as anything can be established by statistics, that the year 1860 was a year not only of general peace, but of very general prosperity in the United States.

And Mr. Blaine, as a historian, not as a politician, said in the first volume of his book Twenty Years in Congress (volume 1, page 196), in reference to the same tariff law and the effects of it upon the country during the period for which it was in force, that-

The tariff of 1846 was yielding abundant revenue and the business of the cottntry was in a flourishing condition at the time his Administration (General Taylor's) was organized. Money became very abundant after the year 1849. Large enterprises were undertaken, speculation was prevalent, and for a considerable p"riod the prosperity of the country was general and apparently gemµne. The principles embodied in the tariff of 1846 seemed for a time to be so entirely vindicated and app;oved that resistance to it ceased, not only among the people, but among protective economists, and even among manufacturers to a large extent. So general was this acquiescence that in 1856 a protective tariff was not su~gested or even hinted by any one of the three parties which presented Presidential can· didates.

Mr. Chairman, I have yielded so much of my time to the eminent statesmen from whose speeches and writings the many quotations embodied have been taken because their statements are more forcible than I can put them and because their opinions are entitled to and carry a great deal more weight than mf own; and therefore no apology need be offered for introducing them here in such profusion, and I shall conclude the picture of prosperity wrought by the Democratic low tariff of 1846 l>y a quotation from the very able speech of our most eminent and popular associate and former Speaker of this House, Mr. CARLISLE, delivered May 19, 1888. He said:

Instead of paralyzing the industries and pauperizin~ labor in New England, or any other part of the country for that matter, the tariff act of 1846 infuse<l new life and vigor into our languishing manufa<:tures and secured more constant em-

ployment and higher wages to qur laboring people; and the consequence was that even the strong prejttdices of New England were removed by actual experience, and in 1857 every Representative fro~ that part of the cotLDtry who voted at all voted for a bill maJd.Ilg an almost uniform reduction of 20 per cent. from the ra~s imposed by the act of 184;6 and placing many additional articles on the free-list. * * * Two-thirds of the men chosen by the people of New England to repre· i;ent their interests in Congress declared by this vote that a further reduotion would be beneficial to their industries, and thus the tariff act of 1857, which we have so often heard denotLnced on the other side of the Houge, became the law of the land by the votes of Republican and New England Representatives.

These Representatives of the greatest manufacturing section of the country had seen their industries grow and J?rosper as they had never grown and prospered be· fore; they had seen capital realizmg adequate returns upon 1ts investment; they ha<t seen the number of laborers employed constantly increasing and the rates of wages· continually rising; they had seen at the same time the agdcultural and commerr cial interests of the people in all parts of the cotLDtry fl.ourishin11: to an extent which the wildest enthusiast had scarcely dreamed of before. .All these thing11 . they had seen, Mr. Chairman, but there are other things with whicQ. we have: irrown perfectly familiar in these times of high tariff and class legislation whicli: they did not see. They did not see yea.t monopolies and trnsta creat$1 to limit the supply and control the prices o the necessaries of life. [Great applause.) They did not see enormous fortunes accumulated in a few years by corporations and individuals engaged in favored in<lustries, while the great mass of the people.' were strue;gUng bard to live comfortably and pay their taxes; nor did they see at anytime during that period, as we have seen, thousands ofhonestlaborers parading the streets of our cities clamoring for work or assembling around our mines and factories with a hired police to watch them. (Applause.)

This was the experience of the Representatives from the New England State& durinj!; the eleven years from 1846 to 1857 under a low tariff; and is it any won· der Mr. Chairman, that they came here and by a unanimous vote demanded a stni further reduction in the interests of the manufacturers~ (Applause.] And if this bill shall pass and become a law, I predict that within less than eleven years from this time the ~entlemen who now represent New England on this 1 floor, and oppose this bill, will be here voting for a further reduction, or the peo· ple will send somebody here who will so vote. [Applause.)

CONCLUSION.

The masses of the people have been long-suffering, patient, and expectant, but are now becoming restive. While they have looked, to Congress and have a:vpealed to their Legislatures for relief from that progressive paralys1s that is gradually overwhelming our agricultural and ind us trial interests and prosperity, occasioned by the unreasonable exactions of arrogant monopoly and consolidated wealth, their condition is growing worse continually. They should wait no longer for relief from these sources, but at once take the question of reform in their own hands and, as was stated in the commencement of these remarks, send men to Congress, not to reform its members, but to reform its methods-men who need no reformation here, but whom people know to be true to their interests before they are selected and sent to make their laws.

In order, however, to make these judicious selections, the people must see to it that they themselves are not worshiping false gods or bowing down before golden images, They must awake to a full knowledge and consciousness of the wrongs and injustice they suffer from the ceaseless robbery of a protective tariff and become thoroughly imbued with an indomitable detennination to not only resist the further encroachments of bounty and subsidy legislation, but to throw off the galling yoke of bondage that protection, in the hands of the money-power, has already fastened upon them. When such consciousness and such a determination shall move the people to sweep from the statute-books the last vestige of protection, then agriculture, commerce, and manufactures alike becoming free, there will be ushered in a new era of prosperity surpassing any the country has ever enjoyed. And that prosperitv will endure as long as the Democratic doctrines of economy, finances, and revenues shall be permitted to prevail as the policy of the nation.

[Mr. FITHIAN withholds bis remarks for revision. See Appendix.] Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman there is a fable of mythology that

Hercules Qnce on a journey came to two roads. From one there emerged a maiden in gaudy attire and beckoned him on her way, and Hercules said, '' What is thy name?'' and she answered, ''My name is pleasure, but my enemies call me vice." From the other emerged a maiden in modest attire, and Hercules said, ''What is thy name?" And she answered, ''My name is virtue, the road is difficult, but the end is joy and peace.''

Now, while I can not hope to add anything to the exhaustive and learned ar~ents of the distinguished gentlemen who have addres.sed the House upon this question, yet I am impressed with the gravity of the situation.

Like Hercules, we have come to two roads: protection and free trade. The eyes of 60,000,000 of American people are upon us, and our decision as to which road we will travel is one big with consequences to the state and nation and to the welfare and prosperity of ~enerations yet unborn.

Under the wise protective policy of the Republican party under which we have lived for a quarter of a century, this country bas enjoyed a development and a prosperity unprecedented in the history of states and nations, and we are soon t-0 decide by our votes whether that policy shall be continued or whether we shall reverse that policy and return to the policy of free trade, which has been distinctly shown by the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded me, McKINLEY, of Ohio, and BURROWS, of Michigan, twice and thrice to have brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy and financial ruin.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a great country. It spans a continent. In a line drawn east a.nd west including Alaska, San Francisco is in the center. In this vast country of ours, upon which the sun never sets,

J

"' ·

. ..,

·.

-.


we manufacture, mine, and produce between the lumbering regions of Maine and the Golden Gate of California, between the fur-bearing seals of Alaska. and the tropical fruits of Florida. and Louisiana-I say we manufacture and produce everything that goes to adorn and embellish civilized life and nearly everything that is needed for the wants of man.

l\Ir. MORROW. San Francisco is 135 miles east of the center of the country.

Mr. MORSE. The honorable gentleman from California says the Golden Gate is 135 miles -east of the centre of this vast empire of ours. The vastness of the country, its possibilities when the valley of the Mississippi, Missouri, end the Ohio, shall teem with millions of living souls-when our hidden 1md as yet undiscovered mineral resources shall be developed; why, Mr. Chairman, the contemplation of the future possibilities and probabilities of this great country of ours confuse and astound us.

The great Gladstone says, "This continent will ultimately contain and support five hundred millions of living souls.

Bot it must be borne in mind that we have diversified interests, conflicting interests, in this great country of ours, and it is only b.Y. mutual concession that satisfactory laws applying t-0 the whole CQUiltry, or a satisfactory tariff bill can be enacted.

Wise, thoughtful, and patriotic men are pondering seriously over the question as to whether or no our country is not too large to bold together, as to whether or no these conflicting interests can be reconl'iled and harmonized. Surely they can not on any policy or line of legislation that leads to free trade. Certain I am that the great manufacturing interests of this country will never permanently consent to such a ruinous and destructive policy.

The last Presidential campaign was fought on this issue. The DemocratiS went into the campaign with the President's message and the Mills bill, which meant ultimate free trade, as their rallying cry. The Republican party inscribed on its banntr ''American markets for American manufacturers and American wages for American workmen."

The Democratic party chose as their banner the red bandanna and on it they wrote "Free trade." Against the red bandanna we unfurled the flag of our country, inscribed with "Protection to American industries, :i and by thatsiJ,!;n we conquered; and the Republican party here and now proposes to redeem the promises made during that campaign by passing the McKinley tariff bill, which proposes to give protection to every article which we manufacture and produce and free trade upon the articles which we do not manufacture and which will not come int-0 competition with the American workmen.

I have said that any bill which we could pass, even upou the lines which I have laid down, must to some extent be a compromise. The district which I have the honor to represent on this floor is very largely a manufacturing district. The city of Taunton, containing 28,000 inhabitants, has over $5,000,000 invested in the manufacturing business, largely of iron and the smaller iron products, with two and one-half millions invested in shipping.

The city of Brockton, containing 30, 0-00 inhabitants, has untold thousands invested in the manufacture of boots and shoes ancl is one of the great leather markets of the world.

The city of Quincy, the burial-place of two Presidents of the United States, with twelve or fifteen thousand inhabit.ants, has large business in the quarrying and manufacturing of granite.

While some of the heavier iron manufacturers of my district would have preferred a lower duty, or no duty at all, upon iron and coal, and while the largest cordage company in the world, located at Plymouth, Mass., in my district, would have preferred to have hemp on the free list, yet, upon the whole, I think the bill will give general satisfu.ction in Massachusetts and New England.

The continuing of hides upon the free list, where they have been for sixteen years, will give great satisfaction to the boot and shoe ind us try of my district.

Mycolleague [Mr. W .ALKER, of Massachusetts] has figured the present duty upon sugar to amount in New England to aper capita tax of $1.25 for every man, woman, and child. This bill wipes out that tax and thus relieves one of the prime necessities of life from an onerous and oppressive tax which the Mills bill proposed substantially to continue. The sugar produced in this country is a mere bagatelle of what we consmne and use, and it is proposed to protect and stimulate that industry by a bounty of 2 cents per ponnd, which, I believe, bas the hearty in· dorsement of my constitutents.

This bill increases the duty upon finished granite from 20 to 50 per cent. My constituents in Quincy are snffering from foreign competition in the granite industry. Last year $49, 950 worth of finished granite was imported from Scotland into the port of Boston alone, 8 miles from the quarries of Quincy.

The freight on granite to this country from European quarries is nominal, it being brought here as ballast, thus bringing our American workmen into direct competition with the underpaid laborer of Europe. This bill proposes t-0 correct that injustice, and I submit that we have rocks and stones enough in this country without bringing any 3, 000 miles across the Atlantic from Europe.

Thiil bill says: "American granite and American marble for American buildings and American wages for American stone-workers," and this section of this bill, if it shall pass, will give great satisfaction to my constituents in Quincy and to everybody in New England sa'\"e a few importers of foreign granite, who have misrepresented and misstated the facts, as I shall be abundantly able to show if this section of the bill is disputed or contested.

The thousands of yards of beautiful red granite capping from Red Beach, in Maine, surmounting the terrace on the west of this Capitol building gives the lie to the statement that this country does not produce as handsome red granite for building or monumental purposes as can be found upon the face of the earth.

I have presented here the petition of twenty-four firms engaged in this business in my district affirming the facts set forth above. I have presented here the petition of six hundred and ninety-one granite workmen in my district alone, to say nothing of the thonsands from other sections of the country that have been presented here, asking that the duty on granite may be fixed at 50 per cent., as called for by this bill.

To my mind the whole protection system of the country stands or falls together.

This bill imposes a duty on coal and iron. My constitnent.s could get those minerals somewhat cheaper in Canad:i,, though the Canadian products are said to be of poor and inferior quality. On the question of free coal and free iron the views of the great scale manufacturers of New England, located in close proximity to Canada, are importantand are appended here:

LFrom the Bo&ton Journa.l.j The statement has been extensivelycircula.t.ed that Messrs. E. & T. Fa.irbanlaJ

& Co., of St. Johnsbury, Vt., were among the manufacturers who had signed a. petition for a reduction of the duties on pig-iron, scrap-iron. and scrap-steel, and for free importation of iron ore, coal, and coke. The statement is emphatically contradicted by Mr. Franklin Fair ban ks, president of the company. Mr. Fairbanks says:

"Vle never joined in any petition for reduction of tariff duties or for free iron and coal, and it would be a sorry day for St. Johnsbury when said duties are removed. A very large share of our sales of scales a.re made to iron manufacturers, and anything tending to break down the blast furnaces or rolling-mills of Pennsylvania or of any other State would greatly reduce our manufacturing and necessitate a.large reduction in our help. We are to-day buying coal from Pen•nsylvania and .Maryland at a less price than we paid for English and Picton coal under a free tariff."

l\Ioreover, Mr. Fairbanks, commenting on the assertion that nearly nll the iron and steel manufacturers of New England joined in the petition for free iron and coal, observes that this was not the case, but "the petitioners were mainly importers of foreign iron and steel." The position of the Fairbanks firm upon this question has been so misrepresented in current newspaper articles and in debate, that Mr. Fail banks's explicit declaration that "we are not in favor of free iron and coal" deserves particular attention.

Certain it is the iron manufacturers of New England can not expect or ask protection for their products, unless they can concede protection to iron and coal. If they demand protection to the manufactured iron product of New England, they mnst concede the same to the coal and iron miners of the country. And .there is little or no analogy between free hides, in which my district is largely interested, and free coal and free iron. Our product of hides, especially sole-leather hides, is a mere bagatelle of our consumption, while the coal and iron mines of the United States that are here demanding protection would supply for thousands of years, not only our own country, but the markets of the world.

This bill places a duty upon agricultural products, upon eggs, wheat, and barley. Massachusetts raises very little of her own food supply, and we can buy those articles of food cheaper in Canada. since the interstate-commerce law was passed than in the far West, but how can I ask the miners of Pennsylvania to vote to protect the manufactured products of New England if I refuse to vote to protect theirs?

How can I ask the farmers of the West to vote to protect the great industries of Taunton, Brockton, Plymouth, Quincy, Weymouth, Whitman, Abin~on, Mansfield, Attleborough, Randolph, Canton, and the largest shovel manufactory in the world at Easton, if I refuse to vote to protect theirs? .

No: sir, in the interests of my constitutents I shall vote for this bill. Pass this bill and the Republican pn.rty will take another lease of power for twenty-five years, and this conntry will enter upon another era of prosperity and development, unprecedented in the bistoy of any nation on the face of the earth.

Every talker on the Democratic side of this question has bad a good deal to say about the depression of the agricultural interests of this country. OhJ how they love the farmers. The distinguished gentlemen who have preceded me have shown that the same conditions exist the world over, and the remedy in this country is in the direction of this tariff bill which we are now considering, which will foster and encourru?:e manufactures and create consumption of farm products and give our people other employment than agriculture.

This policy will enabM' the farmers to lift the mortgages about which our Democratic brethren have so much to say.

Wipe out the accursed whlsky traffic by prohibition and divert the millions that are worse than squandered and. wasted in the saloon to legitimate channels of trade, and the thrift and prosperity which would follow the annihilation of the whisky traffic would very soon solve the mortgage question .

..

'.I.:· "~ ~- :~_.-·_ -

-· 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4427

On Thursday morning, when the distinguished gentleman from Mis- a few such articles the freight may be lower than formerly, but on the souri [Mr. DOCKERY] was dwelling upon the fact that the farmers in great mass of merchandise shipped over the country the freight has the West were burning their corn for fuel, I interrupted him with an been much higher than prior to the passage of the interstate-commerce inquiry which I considered pertinent. I asked him if he did not be- law, and the name of the law should be changed if it is to contmue; lieve that the interstate-commerce law, which barred the free inter- it should be styled "A law to prevent the interchange of commodities change of commodities on long hauls at nominal freights between the at low freight and to protect the trunk-line monopolies." different sections of our country, not the tariff, was largely and princi- To illustrate: suppose three inland cities to occupy the corners of a pally responsible for the depression complained of in the agricultural triangle, with the laws of railroad competition left to themselves, one, sections of the country. His answer was unsatisfactory and evasive. two, or more railroads occupying two sides of the triangle would carry

I believe it is. I believe the interstate-commerce la.w is a despotic for the same, or perhaps a trifle less, than the railroads occupying one and unjust interference with private rights; is a. law that prevents side, and thus pay part of the expenses of the several roads. Under competition in the carrying business, and interferes with free and un- this law they can carry none of the long·haul freight unless the local restricted trade between the States and Territories of the Union; a law business is done at a rate inside the long-haul price. The result is that prevents the interchange of commodities at nominal freights be- the two cities nearest together are deprived of competition, and must tween remote sections of the country; a law that encourages consolida- submit to such prices as the direct road chooses to charge, and the local tion and monopolies; a law that give.s despotic and kingly power to patrons of the longer routes, occupying the two other sides of the trithree commissioners; a law that drives business away from American angle, must pay higher passenger and freight rates to make up for the railroads to competing Canadian and foreign railroads; a law that in- loss of the long-haul business. creases the cost of the necessities of life and injures th~ whole people. The statement of the commissioners, in their .first report, that the

Mr. KERR. Does not the gentleman from Massachusetts know that law has been highly beneficial to railroads thus far, if they refer to freight is lower than before the passage of the interstate commerce law? trunk-line railroads, is most undoubtedly true, and it has been at the

Mr. MORSE. I will say in reply to the honorable gentleman from expense of the people, not only for luxuries, but for necessaries of life. Iowa [Mr. KERR] that I don't know any such thing. It may be lower The law was supposed to be in the interests of the people against the in spots, but the whole freight of the country bas vastly increased, and railroad monopolies. It is proved to be exactly the opposite, and it has has injured no section of the country more than that which the gen- strengthened the chain it was intended to loosen. tleman has the honor to represent on this floor, and if the gentleman During the debate in the English Parliament several years since, a from Iowa will give his attention I will brace this -statement with member arose and demanded to know how it was that American farmquotations from principal newspapers of his own sections. The gen- ers, who lived a thousand miles from the seaboard, could lay down flour tleman from Iowa, and the country, has no correct source of informa-- and grain in the English markets at less than English farmers could tion in the rose-colored view of the workings of the law that are sent produce them and pay twice the wages paid by the English farmers over the country by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Did the .A. member arose and answered it was due to the superior enterprise of gentleman from Iowa ever know to Commission to die? They have a .American railroads, and the sooner we repeal this law and return to snake in South America, that if you cut him in two a head will grow the let-alone process under which we enjoyed this railroad development on one end and a tail on the other, and y01i will have two snakes. and prosperity the better.

It is so with these commissions. You can not kill one, and they I am in favor of the repeal of this law because, while I believe in never propose to die. It must be borne in mind tha.t the reports of the the protection of American farmers, and manufacturers, and miners workings of this law are seen by the Interstate Commerce Com mis- from the competition of the pauper labor of Europe, at the same time sioners through a salary of $7,500 each, and from a drawing-room car, I believe in the largest possible free trade between the forty-two great with a dining car attached, hauled around the country at Government States of the Union, with which this law interferes. expense: When the country has correct information upon this subject To impress the fact upon the House and the country I repeat in this this capitol building will thunder with the protests of the people, connection that in this great country of ours between the lumbering and I ask here to insert in my speech some remarks which I made be- regions of :Maine and Michigan and the tropical fruits of Florida and fore the Committee on Commerce at the opening of the present session Louisiana, between the manufacturing and mining industries of New in favor of the repeal of the interstate-commerce law: England, Pennsylvania, and New York, and the Golden Gate of Cali-

rnTERsTATE-co~RCE LA.W. fornia, and the fur-bearing seals of Alaska, we manufacture, mine, and Mr. Chairman, I have introduced two bills bearing on the subject of produce nearly everything needed for the wants of man or that goes

the interstate-commerce law: one for the entire repeal of the law and to adorn and embellish civilized life. one for the repeal of the fourth and fifth sections, known a..-; the long Under the former state of things the producer or consumer or manand short haul and the anti-pulling sections. First, I am for the en- ufacturer paid a high rate to a competitive point, and then got nominal tire repeal of the law; failing in that, I am for a radical amendment of freight on long hauls from such point io market, resulting in an interthe Jaw in its most objectionable features. change of commodities and products throughout our vast domains at

I am for the repeal of the law, first, because I believe it to be a safe nominal freight on long hauls, to the mutual advantage of the whole and wise axiom in the affairs of states and nations, as well as individ- country. uals, to let well enough alone. I say thA agriculturist or the manufacturer or the miner paid a high

Before this law was passed, and when we had free and untrammeled price to reach a competitive point, and under the former state of things competition in the transportation and carrying business of the nation, the local business paid the expenses of a road. Having reached a comthis country enjoyed a prosperity and had a railroad development un- petitive point, he obtained a nominal freight from there to market, precedented in the history of states and nations. and bis whole freight was much less than now.

The law has had the effect to largely stop railroad development and The manufacturer of New England or New York or the miner of building, and it is estimated on good authority that it has shrunk the Pennsylvania exchanged his goods for the food products of the West value of railroad property in this country more than $200,000,000, with- and the sugar and cotton of the South, or the lumber of .Michigan, of out any compensating advantage to the people. Maine, and ~be fruits of California, at nominal freight on long hauls,

I charge that the interstate-commerce law fosters and encourages to the mutual advantage of the producer and consumer. monopoly by the consolidation of railroads. In the first annual report All this is changed now under the operation of this law. The hamof the interstate-commerce commissioners they state "that the ten- blest artisan, mechanic, or farmer now finds a small advance in fuel dency of the freight rates has been downward.'' They also state that and every article that he eats or wears, luxuries and necessaries as well, the freight business during the past year has been highly favorable to and when he becomes educated up to the fact that the advance in all the railroads. these articles is owing to this law, which bars the free interchange of

In answer to the first statement, that the freight rates have decreased, commodities which has heretofore existed under the untrammeled laws it would be interesting to the business men, ~anufacturers, and agri- of trade and business, he will be heard from. culturists of the country if they would tell us where. At about the If the law is to continue, tbe effect is more and more to reverse the time they made the report five of the largest beef·paeking companies formel' condition of things. The people of New England, who have of Chicago came out with a statement in the public prints that their water-power and natural facilities for manufacturing and have exfreight, namely, of these five houses alone, had increased since the law changed their products for food products with States possessing agriwent into effect to the amount of $950,000. They stated the rate then cultural advantages, must now plow a rocky, sterile soil deeper, with quoted was 14~ per cent. greater than the average published rate for a view to increase her own food supply, on which freight is increased. the same service for the preceding six years. The manufacturer must locate near the cotton-fields, the iron or coal

I speak advisedly when I say that the statement of the interstate- mine, and his principal market, in consequence of a largely increased commerce commissioners in that report, at that time, to the effect that freight. the tendency of the freight rates had been downward as applied to the If the law has righted any wrongs it has created vastly greater ones whole country, was absolutely and unqualifiedly false, and that the by interference with competition in the carrying business. If there is freight not only for the meat products of Chicago had been largely in- any reason for regulating this kind of competition, why not regulate creased, but upon nearly every other product, by the working of the others? Why should not the Government regulate the price of pig-iron interstate-commerce law. and coal, or cotton and wool?

There are perhaps a few articles-farniture, drain-pipe-that b.Y some I Let no man who defends this law ever say any more about State means procured a very low classification from the railroads, and upon rights or centralization of power in the hands of the National Govem-

·- ..

" . ;.... . . ,'

;;

,...

··.lo..: ..... - _.;. ... ;,-¥.::.:-: II . 1 '.'_,-' -. ·~·~· • ') . .,.:-;. ,.._, -~ '·1 , : ~" .... ':/'

\.

.· _:_,_ 't - ,-61

' -4428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·MA_y 9,

ment. I submit that the Czar of Russia. would hardly dare to enact such a despotic and far-reaching measure as the interstate-commerce law· and the believers in State rights will not take kindly to the intimat'ion, on page 72 of the third report of the c_on;tmissioners, that the law should be extended so as to give the comml881onerspowerto regulate State as well as interstate railroads, clearly an unconstitutional proposition.

I denounce the fourth section of this law because it confers upon three commissioners the power to suspend or apply that section at their pleasure and as their j~d~ment may dictate. No ma~ter how wise or just these tliree commissioners may be, such despotic power should never be conferred upon a commission of one, two, or three men, under a republican form of Government; I say no commission should ever have the power to apply or suspend a provision of the law affecting whole sections of the country and millions of our people. In short, I denounce the whole law, and this section in particular, as undemocratic, unrepublican, un-American.

I bate not a word to say against the high character and ability of the gentlemen who compose the Interstate Commerce Commission, but human nature is the same the world over, and these gentlemen are interested to perpetuate this lucrative commission, and it is not surprising that these gentlemen should see the law in its most favorable light.

I submit that the makers of the Constitution never contemplated, by reserving to the National Government the right to regulate commerce, any such condition of things as exists to-day. The railroad and the telegraph, lacing and interlacing the country, annihilating space, boundaries and State lines, were never dreamed of. Had they been no such rese'rvation would have been placed in the Constitution.

Undoubtedly this reservation in the Constitution was intended to apply to an entirely different s~te and conditioD; of things an~ to ~ntirelv different subjects than railroad tranSl)Ortation. UJ?on thIS pomt Hen Ty Wood, of Boston, says :

This la.w is baseJ upon that clause in the Constitution which includes, among the duties of Congress, the regulation of commerce between the States. The plain intention of the framers of the Constitution wa.s to forever prevent, by any State the erection of any customs tariffs, so that State lines should be no obstruciion to the free currents of commerce. The idea. o( regulating, directly 1 ~e market price for carrying freight or passengers probably neYer entered tne1r minds. The basis for a. national legislative interference with the legitimate, free, competitive business of common carriers is therefore strained and unna.turaL

If the law is constitutional, I am so much of a St.ate-rights man thatI would amend the Constitution and wipe out that reservation.

Once more, if an interstate-commerce law is good for the United States, why is it not good for Canada? And is it not a strange law that drives millions of business yearly away from American railroads to the Canadian Pacific and other Canadian railroads coming in competition with our own? and this loss to American railroads on account of competition with Canadian milroads is OD the increase and will be so long as this foolish law is continued.

One effect of the Jaw is to give all the business to the trunk-line monopolies and to embarrass and eventually to ruin the circuitous railroads; and let no one suppose that the loss of $200,000,000, according to the Railroad Gazette, entailed upon the circuitous routes, fl\olls upon the rich alone. The savings of the poor, of widows and orphans, and trust funds, in this country, are largely invested in railfOad securities.

Congressman Rice, of Worcester, correctly stated when this bill was put upon its passage that the Czar of Russia would not dare t-0 enact such a despotic and far-reaching measure and such an interference with private rights as the interstate-commerce law. Congressman Ely, of Massachusetts, protested against its passage. My distinguished and illustrious predecessor, whose absence from t~ese.~a.11~ ~a nati?nal misfortune, Congressman r~ong, also foretold its lllJUrlOUS and disastrous effects to the country, and all that these statesmen predicted in reference to it has been more than realized, and it has been especially injurious and disastrous to the section which I have, in part, the honor to represent.

The law is wrong in principle. It decrees that the railroad shall sell the same at wholesale as at retail; that it shall draw one car as cheaply as twenty-five cars, in contravention to all sound business principles.

A few little illustrations will be in order as to how the thing works in my section. There is a stone quarry at Fitzwilliam, N. H., that prior to the interstate-corumerce law was getting out paving stones for Western cities. The cars came East loaded with grain, and rather than go back empty the railroads would take these paving stones back at a nominal rate on the long haul.

The long and short haul forbids this, and the cars ar~ drawn back empty, and Cincinnati and other Western cities buy their paving-stones nearer hol)le. The quarries at Fitzwilliam were closed and two hundred and fifty New England men were thrown out of employment.

Much is now being said against trusts. The interstate-commerce law favors trusts. The sugar trust had four refineries in New England under the former condition of things. There is no rE}M~m why sugar can not be refined as cheaply in New England as anywhere, but the long and short haul leads them to close three of those factories permanently, running one to supply the New England demand and throwing t.he emplOyes of all the others out of work, and they manufacture the

balance of the sugar elsewhere, in New York and other places nearer the market where it is sold.

A railroad man of large knowledge and experience told me that th~ :figures showed that fully 30 per cent. of the railroad business formerlj done by the New England r<?ads had been lost to them by the inte~ state-commerce law, which may be partly due to the autocratic and despotic power which this bad law lodges with the interstate-commerce commissioners, and which they have used to discriminate against Boston and New England and in favor of other cities, against the long and loud protests of the merchants of Boston and New England, and I say here and now that the interstate commissioners have turned a deat ear to the merchants of Boston and construed the law most unjustly to New England.

Referring to the discrimination against Boston, the great commercial city of New England, the Boston Traveller says: It would perhaps be unfair to bring against the Interstate Commerce Com

mission the charge of incapacity or favoritism, but its action or non-action relative to rates to Boston can not be regarded in any other light than as the most unfair discrimination against Boston. The question of equal rates of east-boun<J. merchandise is one of the greatest importance to the commercial and businesll interests of Boston. Its superior harbor, its ~rea.ter nearness to European markets, Us direct lines to the great producing mterests of the Northwest and Canada ought to give, were not arbitrary obstacles thrown in the wa.y, Boston a great advantage over New York; but the cast-iron rules and the unfair inter• preta.tion of the interstate-commerce la.w which has been given by the Interstate Commerce Commission are in the interest of New York a.nd against Boston.

I submit it should never be in the power of any commission under our form of government to inflict an injury such as here described upon any section of the country. Boston and New England will take care of herself if let alone. She won her greatness from unfavorable surroundings, from a rocky, sterile soil, but in the name of my constituents I protest against this hostile legislation and this unjust discriminatiQP against our people of the interstate-commerce commissioners. and if there were no other grounds to demand the repeal of this law, or the repeal of the fourth section at least, I demand it on the ground of this unjust ruling of the commissioners against my constituents.

Some more illustrations: This same gentleman told me that once where he had seventy car-loads of s-.1gar shipped from the refineries of New England to the West he now had but five car-loads. Caustic sod~ from New England and palm oil from Africa, for the great soap manufacturers of Chicago and Cincinnati, formerly went through the port of Boston and were forwarded over New England railroads.

Soda ash from England for the paper manufacturers of the West, dyewood from South America for Chicago and St. Louis, rags from London and Liverpool, bound for Cincinnati, Middletown, and Miamisburgh, Ohio, all formerly went through the port of Boston and over New ED gland railroads, but the long and short haul clause of the law and the ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission, discriminating against Boston, forbid this business, and to get the lowest freight it must seek inland ports, via the St. Lawrence River, via. Canada, via New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and all this business is lost to New England in consequence of the law.

The boot and shoe business, one of the largest industries in New England, is moving West and South for exactly the same reason, and in my judgment much of the depression in business that is charged by our Democratic brethren to the protective tariff is entirely due to the unwise and unjust interference upon the part of the Government with competition in the carrying business and with free and unrestricted trade between the forty-two great States of the Union.

Another reason for the repeal of the law is that it is and is likely to be imperfectly enforced. While it is enforced on some roads and in some sections, in others it is not, and thus great inequality and injustice are done.

I do not know in my acquaintance in New England one single manufacturer who is not opposed to the law. Charles Francis Adams, certainly a railroad authority second to none, said in a speech in Bostoµ. last year the law works badly and if continued needs radical amendment. He said further the anti-pooling clause has accelerated consolidation and the long and short haul clause bas operate4 to build up the big commercial centers at the expense of the smaller ones, instead of otherwise. He says the smaller distributing points are deprived of their markets, for those who formerly bought of them can get the same goods on better terms from larger and more distant centers.

The old local system is broken up in favor of the centralized systeiµ. This fact is now making itself apparent to the manufacturers and jobben• of the smaller cities aa a~ainst Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, but as surely as the law of gravitation applies to all places and works under all circumstances, this same long and short haul clause will next make it.self felt in Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, and in favor of New York. Mr. Adams does not hesitate to say that, in his opiniori., the interstate-commerce law is the root of most of the railroad evils of the hour.

Henry Wood, of Boston, says that the sentiment for the repeal of this law is daily growin~ stronger and more pronounced.

Mr. Carpenter, of the well known firm of J. W. Carpenter & Son, of Detroit, says: -

Every shipper a.nd everr consumer, from Maine to California. a.nd from Minnesota to the Gulf ot Mexico, should say "God speed you" in the good work

... ·.,

•

• ; r~ .. . ;; ~--, t . ·-. ,

1890. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-H(}USE. 4429 of repeal of that infamous law known as the int.eretate-commerce law. It is doing more injury to the country at large thl\n any law that has had the approval of Congress for fifty years. !tis simply damnable. lt is a law for the protection of a few t-o the destruction of many. Our Southern brethren, and the entire West aud Northwest, in fact th~ w~ole ooun?-Y, as I have befor~ sta.ted, consumer as well as shipper, and the entire tr~vehng public s~ould ar~se lI_l a mass and say amen to your able and much desired movement m the direction of the repeal of this law and if every interested party in the country would express itself, you would r'eceive such encouragement as has not been accorded to a Representative in the House or Senator in the Senate for many a long day.

The above letter was address~d to my namesake, Leopold Morse, who introduced a bill into the Fiftieth Congress for the repeal Qf this law. Where Leopold Morse threw down the glove I take it up and throw it down again.

A commercial paper printed in Chicago has this to say with reference to the law:

Can any shipper, can any business man, point to any benefits they have won in their business from it? Has it given them any better !!hipping facilities? Has it done anything ~x'cept to shrink t.be value of railroad property nearly $1.,000,000 000? It.bas taken the income away from thousands and thous~nds of people w~o had i':1-ve.e~d their little all in i:ailroad securities. ~th~ stopped the building of rntlroads all over the land. It has paralyzed our uon mdustry. This infernal bill is sap_ping the life-blood out of the two great industries we have, the railroad and the iron business. We ask: a.gain, what have we gained? Is not this a subject to think over seriously and take action upon before it is too late?

Governor Ames, in a recent interview, charges the intersta~-commerce law as in part responsible for the low condition of the New England iron business, and says that he regards the law as a needless and unwise interference with the laws of trade. He aays that the railroads ought to be fr~e to compete as they please nnder the natural condition of tioade, without interference on the part of the Government.

Fiuaily, Mr. Chairman, the greatest man the nineteenth century has produced, the man who perhaps stands upon the highest pinnacle of worldly fame to-day, the great Gladstone, of England says that "that nation is gove1ned best that is governed least.'' The interstate-commerce law is complicated and difficult of enforcement, and I ask it.s repeal because I believe few and simple laws are best and because I would return to the '' let-alone policy '' under which our railroad prosperity, so wonderful, was born and fostered.

I append here a few out of hundreds of remarks of the press I have received from different sections of the country since the delivery of the above remarks before the Committee on Commerce, but these are specimens of hundreds in the same line:

[From the Iowa State Register.] It has closed up nearly every Iowa manufacturing institution which shipped

goods out of the State. The worst stab the manufacturers of Iowa have ever recelved was in the abolition of the cheap long haul, and it bas been almost equally disastrous to farmers..

[Portland (Oregon) Oregonian.] It is the fashion to commend the interstate law because it cuts off the" cheap

long haul ; " but iu fact, as everyone knows who examines the subject, the change bas hurt the producer and the interior merchant and manufacturer far more than it has helped them.

[The l\Iountain News, Denver, Colo.] Representative MORSE, of Massachusetts, has introduced a bill to repeal the

long and short haul clause of the interstate-commerce law. As nine-tenths of the great trading points of the country, on account of water connections, are exempt from the opera.tions of t~is clauseJ it is practically a dead letter and is appealed to for the purpose of harassing snippers rather than protecting them.

[From the Omaha (Nebr.) Bee.] It is not questionable that there isa considerable number of people who agree

with the views of the Massachusetts Congressman. They are most numerous iQ New Englarid, where investigation has shown the belief to be pretty general that the interstate-commerce law has been inimical to the interests of that section. There Is s9m~ eentiw,ent in the Northwest also unfriendly to the law, and opposition collid doubtless be found elsewhere, for the reasons in whole or in part urged against it by Mr. l\IoRSE.

[Detroit (.Mich.) Press.} AMENDING THE ACT "TO REGULATE COMMERCE."

The interstate-commerce law is one ot the best of modern illustrations of that princip,le in legislation which Dickens so aptly pictured in the " circumlocution office.' More perhaps than any other bit of modern legislation it exemplifies the art of "how not to do it." Designed as a check on the growing powers of . the railroad corporations1 its effect has been to strengthen the railroads as against the people; and though it has been productive of a good deal of strife among the former the settlement of the contests has almost invariably deprived the }JUblic of some right or privilege.

The farmer, for whose express benefit the law was said to be framed, bas certainly not profited by it; and while it is unquestionably possible by an honest enforcemeqtofthe law-to make all railroad charges, whether for freight or pa.ssa~e, much more nearly equal than they formerly were there is a general impression that in some way or another there is as much discrimination as ever.

The law is, at any rate, not in good odor. fFrom the Philadelphia. News.]

In his recent speech in the House, at 'Vashington, Representative ELIJAH A. l\IORSE, of l\Iassachusetts, made some telling points against the interstate-commerce act., and bis criticil>ms of the long and short haul and an ti-pooling clauses have a refreshing novelty because they do not m~nce words.

Mr. l\loRSE says that the law, to a large extent, has stopped railroad-building; that good authorities estimate it has causlfd a shdnkage of more than $200,000,-000 in the value 9f railroad property in this country; that under the operations of the interstate ac;it the old custom of high rates to competing points and nominal rates for long hauls has been abolished, and the manufacturing States have no longer easy methods of exchanging their products with agricultural Commonwealths.

If the law has righted any wrongs, in Mr.11'1oRSE's opinion it has made greater ones.

He may be wrong in many of bis assertions, but the widespread complaints against this act deserve the most careful investigation under the authorization of Congress.

[From the Burlington (Iowa) Hawkeye.] One of the strongest appeals against the interstate-commerce law in its pres·

ent form comesfror,n ti\~ farme~. 4n immense petition has been sent to Oongress bt. ag'ticult~ist,S of the West, askin~ for a repeal of the" long and sh9,'f~ haul" clallSe. '!'his provision of the \aw, it will be remembered, was avowedly enacted in the interest Qf large business centers, and it bas by no means provea satisfa-c'tory tQ them. It has, however, so the farmers claim, been little short of disastrous to theiJ' interests.

One of the chief elements in building up the farming interests of the West was the cheap through rates to the seacoast. The railroads were in the habit of making those rates as low as possible to meet their expenses, and repaid themselves from local rates with a. larget ma,rgin of profits. The long and short ha.ill provision of the in tetstate law strl,lc~ at t.his custom by forbidding through rates lower than local rates between intervening points on the same line. Then the State Ledslatures, as for instance in our own State of Iowa, came in with their limitations of rates on local traffic, ahd thus the railroads, in self-defense, kept through rates at such figures as the cost of worldn~ their roads dei;nanded. Under this state of affairs the farmers f!&Y. they a.re ~eatly injured; those in Kansas and Nebraska iµ particular attribute the low prices of produce in their localities to this cause, and they now demand that the pa.rt of the law which is proviug a grievous burden to t4em be repealed. It thus appears that the interstate legislation has by no means juatifiea itself as yet.

[From the Kansas City .(Mo.) Journal.] Congressman !'40RSE, of Massachusetts, urges the repeal of the interstate-com

merce law, which, he says, has already shrun1' the value of railroads over$200,000,000. Congressman MORSE can produce some facts to back up his assertions. The interstate-commerce law is far from being a model me&.slire. Its results wQqld have been much more serions, however, had not the enforcement of its prov~ions been i1;1 the 4and!! of a comrpissJon with enough common sense not to demand strict cotnpliance where it would be ruinous.

LFrom the Chicago (Ill.) News.] Representative MORSE, of Massa,chusett8, is after the interstate-commerce law

with the sharpest kind o( a scalping-knife. He is bent upon proving that the law enables railroads to charge a freight rate which bears h\1-rdly upon New England, which has to trade inanufactqres for food-stuffs. The mcreased freigb t is just so much more li(ted out of their earnings. If this be true of New Eng· land it is also true of other sections of the country, and if it be a fa-ct that freights have increased, as Mr. MORSE paas~ouately declares, then it is worth while looking int-0 this interstate-commerce law. It is dangerous to put too heavy a burden on commerce within the boundaries of the nation.

[From the Denver (Tex.) Herald.] Mr. MORSE'S claim that the law had stopped railroad development and ca.used

a shrinkage of over ~.000,000 in the value of railroad property, without compensating advantages to the people may be difficult to prove by cold facts and figures, but he is unquestionably right when he says that the old custom of high rates to competing points and low rates for long hauls is infinitely more satisfactory t-0 the people at large tl,ian the present custom established by law. He knows what he is talking about, too, when he declares that the law, by not applying to Canadian roads, is throwing millions of dollars' worth of traffic over to those roads which formerly went to American roads.

Senator REAGAN, the father of the interstate-commerce law, so it is reported, will not 'be a candidate for re-election. Possibly the report is put out as a "feeler." but our observation goes to show that such action on the pa.rt of Mr. REAGAN would not 1µeet with a very strong protei,t in any quarter unless perhaps fro1µ certain raUroad magna~ a.nd the well fed members of tbe Interstate Commission. What the SeJ:lator intended should be the crowning glory of his Senatorial c,areer has proved to be a millstone about his neck. Li~e Dick Deadeye, he" meant well, but didn't know."

[From the Brockton Gazette, Democratic.] Congr.essman MOR.SE hrui made an able address before the Congressional Com

mittee oh Commerce against the interstate law. In this he represents the interests ot all New England. We tlre a manufacturing people, and must ha.ve cheap trapsportatfon to and from the West in order to enable us to hold our own: This law is intended to drive manufacturers nearer the sources whence they draw t_he ra.w inaterial and whence comes tbe food on which their employ~ must live. W~re New England not already settled such a Ja.w would tend to prevent its settleau~nt. Its continued operation will inevitably tend to its depopulation and impoverishment. Our business men, especially our realestate owners, owe it to therns.elves to back up Congressman MORSlil m~st unanimolisly. Labor and capital can follow the demands of trade; real estate can not.

[F_rom the Brockton Enterprise, Republican.] Congressman Mo~E's ungloved assault upon the interstate-comm.erce law is

receiving much com~en.dation in New England. 'Vhen l\Ir. MORSE argued that the law is working ~nfury to business interests in this section of the country he k::iew what he wae talking a.bout.

[From the Taunton Gazette, Republican.] Congressman MORSE told some solid truth about the interstate-commerce law

in the address before the Committee which is printed elsewhere in this paper. He is about the only man wha has dared to stand up in public and riddle the humbug law as it deserves, and tl:j.e manufacturers 6f New England ought not only to thank him, but back him up in any effort to abolish the affair.

[Frorn the Taun•on News, Democratic,] Congressman MORSE is a. busi°'ess man more than a politician, and his bold

and fe~rle_ss attack upon ~e i~ters~a~-commerce law will ~eet the ap~roval of busineS8 men of all parties m this city. The law was beheved to be m the interestS of the consumer and the people, as against the railroad monopolies. It has proved to be e:i:actly the opposite.

[From the Attleborough Sun, Republican.] We find opportunity of shaking hanilll with Congressman l\1oRSE. We mean

his battle against that great, big humbug, the interstate-commerce law. With all its incoherencies, i?lequalitles, discriminations-of interpi;etation and language-:-its interference with matters that are purely business in their character and not proper subjects for national or other interference, M;r. MORSE can use his time to no better purpose than to consolidate the opposition to the law and break up, if he can, the commission, which d oes not earn its salary.

[From the New England Grocer (Boston), Non-partisan.] On Saturday, before the House Committee on Commerce, Hon. E. A. l\IORSJ,i':

made im able a.rgument in advocacy of his two bills, one for the entire repeal of the interstate-commerce law and the other for the repeal of the short and long haul and anti-pooling sections. As his views are in accord with the sen ti· ment of seven-eighths of New England's merchants, we shall publish hL<1 a.rgti.· ment next week. It's worth reading.

[From the Milford Journal, Republican.1 Congressman l\foRSE is in earnest in his opposition to the interstate-commer~

law. A. few days ago he appeared before the Congressional Committee on Com~ merce and made a sharp address against the law. Reports fro ni \Vasbin~n say he found a lively interest in the coD1DUttee in his ar.;uw.eu~> and ~,.a hop~

~ .. ·..:

::

/


that even if the law can not be repealed altogether the anti-pooling clause and possibly the long and short haul clause can be stricken out. ' All who have watched the evil effect of the interstate-commerce law and the debilitating results its enforcement has thus far brought upon the country will Wish Con~ressman MORSE a. hearty Godspeed in hill efforts to wipe the monstrosity from the national statute-book.

[From the Newburyport {Mass.) News.] THE WORTHLESS Th""TERSTATE LAW.

Congressman MORSE, of this State, hn.s come out a~ainst the interstate-commerce act of Congress, saying it he.s worked great rnjnstice to railroads and manufacturers of the country and has benefited no one. It will not take much argument to impress people that Mr. MORSE is right.

[From the Haverhill (Mass.) Bulletin.] Congressman l\.IoRSE is doubtless nearer right than wrong. As near as can

be ascertained there never was a.ny particular call for an interstate law and, although it has been in force several years, to-day the vast ma.jority of people know nothing a.bout it whatever. Even railroad officials have studied ~he law and its provisions to DO purpose. They live in eternal fear that they may violate some feature of this tiseless enactment, but just when, where, a.nd how they cii.n not po in to-ut nor ('an the most astute lawyer. A law so obtuse that nobody can understand it is worse than none at all.

[From the Canaan (N. H.) Reporter.] :Mr. Moo&E presents facts and arguments which the friends of the law will

find it hard to answer. That there are instances where railroa.ds need regulating there is no doubt, but any law which prevents a. road from ta.king paving stone from Fitzwilliam at a. nominal rate to 'Vestern points rather than let the cs.rs go be.ck empty, works an injury to the people as well as the road. There are doubtless other similar cases, but Mr~ MORSE makes a. strong point of this; and it is hoped that other members from New England, which is a. sufferer by the law, will have the courage of their convictions and join Mr. l\IoRSE in showing up the injustice of the law and the injury which it works to the people.

[From the Boston Traveller, Republican.] If Senator CULLOM a.nd the majority of the Intereta.te Commerce Committee

of the Senate insist on the bill, which it is reported they have a.greed upon, to apply the provisions of the dra.stic interstate-commerce law to the Canadian railroads as a condition of their having the privilege of transporting goods in bond, New England should make a vigorous a.nd emphatic protest. The operation of the interstate-commer-0e law, especially of ite long and short haul provisions, has from the beginning been inimical to New England interests, an?. they have thus far esca~d dila.ster only because they have been able to avail themselves of the fa.cihties which the grea.t Canadian trunk lines-notably the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific-have offered. New England is a part of the United Sta.tes, though there are indications-that in some sections of the West a.nd on the pa.rt of some Western Senators and Congressmen this has been lost sight of. Congressman MoBSE followed the iruJtin-Ots ot a. New England business man when he announced himself in favor of the absolute repeal of the law. New Englandha.scertainlytherlghttodemandrepee.l,orfairplay, and that the interests of her metropolis sha.11 not be sacrificed to those of New York.

in this country is due to the protective tariff will give that careful consideration to the argnmenfis which I have here advanced at length they will find that this depression is largely and principally due to unwarranted interference in the carrying business, known as the infierstate-commerce law, and, while it is not a party measure and was enacted by both parties, I wish that both parties might join in its repeal.

I congratulate the Republiean members of this House upon the progress made by the Fifty-first Congress under the new rules. I a.m sure we shall receive the indorsement of the country. Our work will not be completed with the passage of the tariff bill. Before this Congress adjourns we should redeem our promise to the business interests of the country by the pas.sage of a bankrupt law. We should pass laws for the restriction and regulation of immigration. I wish that we might pass the Blair educational bill. We must correct the decision of the Supreme Court by legislation, and give the States the right to prevent a traffic in alcoholic liquors which their laws forbid.

We should institute, as prayed for by thousands of our people, a commission to investigate the liquor traffic, and I feel sure that we shall be recreant to the trust confided to us by the people, we shall be recreant to the oath taken in the presence of God, men, and angels to support and defend the Government and the Constitution, unless we pass some legislation at this Congress that will insure honest elections in the South, or at lea.st an honest election of the members of Congress who legislate for the entire country, who legislate and determine the policy of the Government, for the North as well as the South.

I wish we might pass a postal-telegraph bill and take the hand of that great monopoly, the Western Union Telegraph Company, from off the people. We need to pass a reasonable river and harbor bill, make reasonable addition.al appropriations tor public buildings in the great centers of trade, and then go home to our constituents with the consciousness of having done our whole duty.

Do this, and in spite of frauds in the South and the disiranchisement of the Republican voters there (which I trust some method may be devised to prevent)-do this, I say, and the next, the Fifty-second, Congress will be, like this, a Republican Congr~s, and two years later Benjamin Harrison will be re-elected President of the United States, and, I repeat, this great country of ours, with more than sixty millions of people, will enter upon an era of prosperity unknown in history and unprecedented in the history of states and nations.

[From New York World, Democratic.] [Mr. GOODNIGHT withholds his remarks for revision. See Ap-Commeree is one of the subdlvisions of tmde. It is "trade carried on in pendix.]

ships.'' It had no other mea.ning when the Constitution was dra.ughted, and it has no other proper a.nd exact meaning now in connection witll exchange of prod- Mr. ATKINSON, of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in ordinary busiucts. In 1189 at l~st 90 .per cent. of the tr&de between. the 8tates was com- ness transactions there is an apparent struggle for the survival of the merce-tra.de earned on m ships-and all trade with foreign nations was com- fitt st 'I t il f 1 la da · d d · · merce. To give Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations e · JJ: en O rom ear Y to te, Y Ill an ay out, to mamtain and withhold from it the power to regulate commerce between the States was I themselves and those dependent upon them. They use every honest absurd. There would be a conflict of jurisdiction over f.?.e ship~. oyer the endeavor to gain a point by the ups and downs incident to trade. They w:ater,overthecontrolo.fportsofentry. The whole questionofshlppmgwas try one thing and then another using tbIS' means and that al given to Congres!I, for this was a Federal ma.tter_ • ' 1 ways

But the camel's nose of commerce then inserted under the tent fia.p of trade striving to get the greatest possible amount of gain out of the smallest bas been followed by his who~e body and the- expulsion of his master into the possible investment of capital and the least possible expenditure of storm. There never was a.ny mtentionof giving Congress thealightestcontrol d fli t E · b · to h f th · l' over trade whether inside or outside of a State or between two States. If such a energy: an e or · xpenence nngs eac o em certam mes of claim had 'been set up, not a State would have joined 0. Union that required it. operation that prove the most profitable, and to them they adhere, and

[From the Boston Herald, Independent.) by doing so they prosper. Congressman ELUAH .A.. MonsE will have the sympathy of o. considerable class The old adage, which is as tme as it is old, says, "The proof of the

of business mei;i inh~view of the in!..ef'Btate-oomme~ law .. We have no doubt pudding is in the eating.'' No sane man, therefore, in his own pr~vate he finds such discussions as thiei more pleasa.nttban,hede01dlngastowhoshall business enterprises will cast aside those methods and rules that have be postmasters, as they a.re clearly more profitable to the country. • . . .

[From the Washington Post.] n:&Ie him prosperous and ~ccept m. their stead others that_ are untried AGAINST THE L~ATE-COMllERCE LAW. sun ply because some theorist urges it, when he has before him the most

EDITOR PosT: I clipped the inclosed para.graph from your issue of yesterday. convincing evidence that such proposed methoCls are barren idealities. Won't you reproduce u with my l\nswer? And yet this is precisely what our Democratic brethren would have us

"The Elmira. Gazette says: Tba.t corn seUs for 13 cents a bushel and coal do with our tariff system which we have so thoroughly tested, and uncosts 29 cents per bushel may eeem to justify the burninQ' of corn for coal in d h" h b 1 1 d Missouri a.nd Kansa.s. But it does also seem ae if there le something wrong in er W IC we ave so marve ous Y prospere · the conditions which permit empty coal-bins in Missouri and Ka.nsas and The proof of the value of this Republican doctrine of protection is to empty meal bags in Pennsylvania, while farmers in the former are burning coal be seen from one end of the Republic to the other. Under it our nation for fuel and miners in the latter are idle. What is the trouble with the theory has prospered. Under its workings the United States in but comparaof exchange?"

Yes, there is somelhing wrong in the transportation business, and the thing tively a few years bas grown to be the first manufu.cturing nation on that is wrong is that miserable abortion known as the "interstate-commerce God's footstool law," which produces just the state of things d.escribed above. Formerly the Under its fostering care our industries have become diversified, the farmer of Missouri and Kansas did not burn his corn. He exchanged it with the miner of Pennsyh-ania for coal, to the mutual adva.nta~e of the miner and mechanic arts have been developed to an unrivaled degrel;} of perfec-the farmer. The miserable interstate-commerce law steps m a.nd says this shaU tion, our people have become self-sustaiping, and onr Goverhment not be done, and that there shall be no more freight carried at nominal rates on could, in case of civil war, maintain itself against invasion of every long hauls.

I said in my speech before the Committee on Commerce the other day that kind, because we can now produce every article we need or can us~, if the law is to continue th.e na.nie should be changed, and it should be styled from a plow-point to a needle-gun. To-day we are the most~· dehnd-".A. la.w to prevent the interchange of commodities at nominal freights on long t t' · th · ·1· d ld d "t · 1 th · d th hauls, and a law to protect the trunk-line monopolies Crom the competition of en na ion Ill e Cl VI ize wor i an 1 lS ODY e nnvarnis e n the circuitous railroads." when I say that we owe it to those principles which are contained. in

ELIJAH A. MORSE. the bill now before us for consideration. · HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January Tl.

The letter below is from a large Western wholesale grocery house, Henry Dart's Sons, Rock Island, Ill. They say:

You ba.ve our best than ks for your speech advocating repeal of the .interstatecommerce law. You are right, and the sentiment of the business comm.unitv will be on your side as soon 11.S they come to their sober sens<.'s. Success to yot;.

The above is a specimen of many other letters from merchants an<l. manufacturers on the subject of the interstate-commerce law which have been sent me.

So, then, I think if the gentlemen on the other side who have la· bored so hard to show that the depression in the agricultUl'al interests

l\Ir. Chairman, the Republican party in the present tariff bill, as well as in all its past history, stands by our own institutions and our own firesides; stands by New England as against Old England; stands for the protection of American commerce; stands for American agriculture against destructive foreign competition; stands for the protection of home invention, home skill, home labor, against the free-trade heresies of the Democratic party which would pauperize and degrade them; stands for the best grade of American manhood by demanding for the workingman wages sufficient to enable him to be a freeman in fact as well as in name; stands, in short, by our own homes, our own industries, Qur own people, our own labor.

'j·

(' ·- -,,· ••• ··-i-. - , ..... ·,, ..... • :·, __ ; -~·:· \ ........ - • f ··,.-·-:: ~ J _ ..... ~ _ .. -_ ·:."- . -

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4431 This, Mr. Speaker, is "protection;" and this is why I am here as an

American citizen to mise mv voice for this great American idea and to pledge to it my best endeavors, even at the risk of being called seifi.sh, because to maintain it I declare myself absolutely against all other nations and peoples beneath the circle of the sun. I am neither for Paul, nor Appollos, nor for Cephus, but I am for my native land, my own countrymen, my own fellow-citirens-W est Virginia first, the United States next, and outsiders lastly. If this be treason, then I plead guilty.

I am, therefore, Mr. Chairman, a protectionist from principle and shall vote for this bill, although there are some :features in it which do not by any means measure up to my expectations and desires. If I could do it to-day I would wipe out the entire tobacco and cigar tax, would restore the wool tariff of 1867, and would place a duty high enough on sugar to encourage the growth of cane and beets out of which to produce every pound of sugar that could be possibly con· sumed by the American people.

I submit a table which shows the wonderful growth in the production of beet sugar in Europe during the past thirteen years. We can in this country grow enough beets and cane to supply our own markets with sugar. All we need is to put the duty high enough to encourage their growth.

Beet sugar products of Europe.

>. I >. ~ a -g]~ c -:) d"' c:

d ·- d ·-'d c ::l ~o~ Years. a Cl .!::t:11 gi c d :Ee Total. c Ol c

a c: ::l::1 ~d~ o"::l ::I

~ <::i:: 4)

~co c i:::l d'-1

--- ------- -----

Pou11ds. Pounds. Pou:!ds. Rounds. Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. ltr17-'78 •.... 383,828 398, 132 330, 792 220,000 63, 075 25,000 1,420, 'fl!J:l 1578-'79 •.••. 420,686 432,634 405, 906 2L5,000 6!>,957 30,000 l,5H, 183 1879-'80 .• ... 4Ll,62o) Z'/7, 912 406,375 22.),000 5S,017 25,000 1,403, 929 1880-'Sl. .... 591, 223 3"J3,614 498,082 250,000 68,626 30,000 1, 774,545 1881-'82 ..•.. 644., 775 3\J3,269 4Ll,015 30:!, 799 73, 136 30,000 1,860, 974 1882-'8:3.. ... 818,124 423, 19! 473. 000 28!, 391 82, 703 35,000 2, 146,4L2 1883-'84 ••... 986,402 473, 676 445, 952 310,000 106,5 6 40,000 2,362,616 1884-'85 .•... 1,155,000 308,400 557, 500 3S6, ((){) 88,450 50,000 2,545, 750 1885-'86 .•... 825,050 299,400 377, 000 540, 600 48, 400 37,500 2.127, 950 188&-'87 .•... 950, ()()() 500, 000 525,000 475,000 80,000 50,000 2,580,000 1887-'88 ••••• 959, 156 392,824 428,616 441,342 140, 742 119,200 2,481, 940 1888-'89 ..... 990,604 466, 767 523,242 526,387 145,804 133,0!0 2, 785,841 1889-'90 ..... 1,260,000 775,000 750,000 475,000 200,000 140,000 3, 600,000

I am opposed to the reduction of the duty on sugar for the reason above stated. I am also opposed to the granting of a bounty to the sugar producers of this country. The priaciple is not American, and ~t will surely open the door to endless frauds upon the Government. ~tis only natural that men who are dishonestly inclined will buy and ship into this country shiploads of foreign sugars, claim that it is American stock, and make ''Uncle Sam" pay the 2 cents a pound of bounty upon ii;. Mark my word, Mr. Chairman, this will be done.

THE PURPOSES OF A TARIFF.

It is a well known fact, Mr. Chairman, that the object of a tariff is f(wofold: First. to raise revenue with which to pay the expenses of Government and, second, to protect our industries and our labor from foreign competition.

The Democratic doctrine is a tariff for revenue, with incidental pro~ction, while the Republicans advocate a tariff for protection, with incidental revenue. I trust I will be pardoned for consuming enough of the valuable time of the House to enable me to briefly present a half ~ozen, to my mind, substantial reasons why I espouse the Republican idea upon this great question.

NATIO::S-AL PROSPERITY.

1. My :first argument is the fact that a protective tariff, such as· is represented b.v this bill, has brought to us national prosperity. Right ~ere, Mr. Chairman, I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, . that every period of protection in the history of our country has gi veu io it prosperity and every era of tariff for revenue has brought to it disaster.

Any student of history well knows that those years when tariff duties were the lowest were years of greatest business depression. Then it was that our manufactures languished; our labor was unemployed; our national Treasury was depleted; our industries were not diversi-~j,\ed; our people were restive and discouraged. These are facts of history and can not be successfully controverted here or elsewhere.

The first tariff law was enacted in 1789. The immediate result was a stimulus in the direction of manufacturing by our people. This

llaw was strengthened by another of the same kind shortly after the ib._eginning of the century, and by still another during the war of 1812. ;Great prosperity immediately followed. From 1816 to 1824 tariff du; ties were materially lowered. Stagnation in business of all kinds at ;once set in. Then came the protective enactments of 1824 and 1828. ~usiness again rallied. After that came the compromise rernnue tariff Of 1833 to 1842. More stagnation.

Under the re-enacted tariff of 1842 came a revival of business. Prosperity again dawned upon our people. Next came tbe Walker tariff :ot 1846, followed by more ruin, more disaster, which continued up to

I t I

the time of the enactment of the Morrill tariff law of 1861, under the first Republican administration of the Government. From that time to the present we have lived under a tariff for protection, and no one can truthfully deny that under it our national growth and prosperity stand unparalleled in the history of modern civilization.

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE,

2. My second argument is that a protective tariff has made us independent as a nation. We have the climate, soil, intelligence, and enterprise, everything necessary for national greatness and national independence. If we are not already the first in all respects of all the governments of the earth, we can and will be very soon, if we do not allow ourselves to be misled into a support of the heresies of a revenue tariff that England bas been longing to foist upon us for a full quarter of a century.

If all the ports of entry on both oceans were to-day blockaded, as that no "V"essel could enter them bearing the products of other countries, and war were declared against us, we could, with our present facilities, produce every munition of warfare and every article that we might need for our sustenance as a nation for a thousand years. We are today absolutely, in every sense that the word implies, an independent nation. What did it, Ur. Chairman? Protection. And no man dare dispute the correctness of this statement.

MANUFACTURE OF RAW :MATERIAL.

3. Our protective-tariff system encourages the manufacture on our own soil, by our own people; at living wages, of all the raw materials which a beneficent Providence has placed on and under our soil It is a correct principle in political economy that a government which sells its raw materrals and allows others to manufacture them, and then pnrcbases the finished products, will always be poor. So lonJ;? as we allowed the mother country to do our manufacturing for us, instead of doing it ourselves; we were an impoverished people.

The flow of currency (silver and gold) was at that time constantly from us, and not towards us. The balance of trade was al ways necessarily against us. Under protection the tide turned. We now manufacture our own raw materials and keep our money at home, as people of common sense should at all times do. We are no longer impoverishing ourselves to enrich England. The balance of trade is now in our favor, and not against us; our national Treasury is overflowing with greenbacks, silver, and gold, and our citizens are thrifty and indep-mdent.

While the raw materials in manufacturing are a very small, and I may say insignificant, part of 'the value of the finished products, still we should nevertheless protect them for the same reasons that we protect the finished products. One oft.he late John Roach's $300, 000 ships only contains $5,000 worth of raw materials. A ton of coal is worth $7 on the dump, but in the mine it is not worth 25 cents.

A ton of iron ore in the earth is worth less than 20 cents, but when made into pig-iron it is worth $15, and if manufactured into steel-watch springs it is worth thousands of dollars. The difference, therefore, between the value of the raw materials and the finished products is labor, or rather it represents labor, which above everything else should be protected, becan.so labor produces wealth and wealth gives power.

The history of the world proves the correctness of the statement that those nations that employ their own subjects in manufacturing their own raw materials are the wealthy nations, while the converse are the poor, the helpless, nnd the ignorant.

DIVERSIFICATION OF INDCSTRIES.

4. A protective tariff diversifies a nation's industries. Under practical free trade, or what is commonly called a "revenue tarj.ff," the United States was a nation of farmers; and a nation that employed its subjects in une particular industry only, could not be other than oneidead. At that time everybody was engaged in the same business. Onr entire population, practically speaking, were running in the same groove. Under protection they arn employed in a thousand. different businesses. They therefore necessarily have different lines of thought, act in various ca pad ties, develop almost unnumbered grades of resources, and necessarily think as differently as their businesses and interests are diversified. There is now praetically no limit to American ingenuity. All the civilized world look to us for labor-saving inventions, and for the freshest thought on everything that pertains to the perfection of the mechanic arts.

PROTECTION CHEAPE.'<S PRICES TO CONSU)IERS.

5. A fifth reason why I farnr a protective tariff is because it bas cheapened to the consumer in this country every article, from a cambric needle to a road-wagon and a threshing-machine. I know our Democratic friends, parrot-like, cry out, ''The tariff is a tax." But they are mistaken. They well know this charge is not true. It reminds me of the story of the young man from the country who had married a wife and went to the city on a bridal tour.

They stopped at a large hotel. On the dinner-table were some codfish-balls which the young man mistook for doughnuts. Ile dished into one of them and soon found it to be foul in both taste and smell. He thereupon turned to bis new wife exclaiming, : 'Mary, don't touch them donghn u ts. They are not clean. There is something wrong with them.

,•

·.

.-

I •

c'

{ ". ~~~, """"'!"" ._ -


There is something dead in them, sure.'' [Laughter.] So it is with this childish argument that the tariff is a tax. There is something dead in it, sure. [Langhter.]

If I bad the time to-day, Mr. Chairman, I could pro<J,uce five hundred articles used in our homes, on our farms, and in our businesses that are cheaper under protection than they were under a revenue tariff. Home competition brought the prices down to the lowest possible amount to the consumer. Our own people competing with one another caused prices to fall to the lowest possible rates, rates lower than they had ever before reached when England did our manufacturing for us . and fixed her own prices upon everything she produced. How, then, Mr. Chairman, is the tariff a tax?

I hold in my hand a price-list taken from the ledger of Hewitt, Ruffner & Co., a mercantile firm in the Great Kanawha. Valley of my State, as far back ns 1837, a time when we were living under a revenue tariff. Prices in that old ledger were given upon forty-one different articles which were needed then as now in every home.

Listen to a few of these prices: Calico, 37~ cents per yard; bleached cotton, 25 cents; unbleached cotton, 33! cents; jeans, $1.75; coal shovels, $1.37; cast-steel, 31l cents per pound; spool cotfon, 12~ cents; white lead, $4.25 per keg; shoe-tacks, l2z cents; iron, 12! cents per pound; coffee-mills, $3; lambs'_-wool hose, $1.25per pair; yarn, $1.75 perpound; gingham, 44 centsperyard; pins, 12!cents per paper; waterbuckets, 75 cents; white flannel, $1.25 per yard; nee<}les, per paper, 12! cents, etc. All these articles to-day can be purchased under a protective tariff at much less than one-half the above prices;' still we are told the tariff is a tax.

It is a well known fact that this very hour many brands of calicoes and other cotton fabrics, bleached and unbleached, can be purchased in our own home markets at a price even lower tba.n the duty on such articles; and yet, in the face of this fact, the parrot free-trader will persist in crying that the tariff is a tax. If the tariff is a tax and we should place a duty upon pig-iron of a thousand dollars a ton, then the price of pig-iron to t.he consumer would be the price of production plus the$1,000 duty, would itnot? [Applause.]

Only a week or so ago two sc~ooners sailed into New York Harbor. They were loaded with fresh mackerel. One of these schooners was a Canadian vessel, the other an American. Before the Canadian could unload his 500 barrels of mackerel, he was required to pay a duty of $2 on eaGh barrel for the privilege of competing witll our own :fishermen in the New York markets. The American, of courf!e, was notrequired to pay any duty. Now, if the consumerpays~hetariff duty the Canadian must receive for his mackerel $2 more pet barrel than the American. Is this correct or false? [Applause.]

The fact is the Canadian received $10 a barrel for his m_ackerel, which is precisely the a.mount the American received for his, the price being fixed by the American market. Now, then, did the Canadian take away with him $10 a barrel or $8 a barrel, for his product? Every man who has as much sense as a pewee knows that h~ would take only $8 a barrel with him, becatJse he, and not the con~umer, h~d to pay the tariff duty of $2 a barrel for the privilege of the American market.

A Canadian farmer brings his wheat across the NiMara Rive;r and sells it in the American market. .Before he was li.Uowed to dross over to the American side he was r~uired to pay a duty of 20 cents o~ every bushel of wheat; and as a matter ot course he sold his wheat' at the American price. He tOok home wit:ll him only $<> cents a bushel, while: tne American farmer put a ~olij.r a bushel in his pocket, that being the price for American wheat: In this case, as in the other, the Canadian, and not the American consu~er, paid the duty, and I defy any Democrat oli earth to deny the correctness of this statement.. [A pplanse.]

In the face of these facts free-traders still ins~t when a (oreign seller deductstheamountofdutyfromthepli<ieofwhathesellstotheAmerican buyer it is the American buyer that pays ~hed~ty. In Qrder to get into our markets foreign sellers have ~n doiilg t~is l>us!D~ ever since we have had a J?rotective tariff. T~ey could not get intO ou.+ zp.arltets with their goods if they 4i~ nQt, Oarpro~e¢ti ve tariff has fore¢ them tq, lower their prices. Remove thi.a ta~ apd foreign pri~es will go up. The foreign seller thoroughly understand.!} this, and that is why be objects to our protective tariff. He knows that with free trade it would be only a question of time when our industries would beg~ t9 weak~n. He knows this because he knows that American labor as a rule costs about twice as much as foreign labor. He knows that the e'mployers of 4merican labor can not compe~ successfully wit4 the employers of cheap foreign labor in the same kind of business. So does every man capable of performing a simple example in mental arithmetic.

We need not depend on anybody's say-so for proof of all this. The proof is found nqt only in mathemati<?l demonstra~ion, but in the history of our competition with foreign mdustries'Under our present protective system.

Under this s1stem our home in~tEtries hav~ been multiplied and prices to consumers have been forced down by the result of domestic ~ompetitiQi:! thus bl;lilt m>· Ameriean steel rails, for illstance, now cost less than op.~-to'Qrth of the highest foreign price under free trade. Foreign steel rail.S can be bought for less than one-fourth of the highest

L-

price under free trade. Why? Because protection has enabled us to build up this home industry and tear down the foreign monopoly. Then some free-trader may ask, why longer protect an industry that offers such formidable competition? The answer is that the difference in the cost of foreign and home labor still exists. If home labor is wil\ing to sell itself at the foreign price, then perhaps we can hold ou.r own with our foreign rivals without protection, and JJOt before. For one I am unwilling to make the necessary sacrifice to test the correctness of the theory.

Mr. Chairman, if time would permit, I could present a hundred more illustrations to prove that the tariff is not a tax upon any article that is produced in this country and upon which the foreign manufacturer seeks to compete with our own home producers of those particular commodities.

A TARIFF PROTECTS LABOR.

6. A protective tariff not only brings to us national prosperity, makes us independent in times of war as well as in times of peace, enables ~ to manufacture our own raw materials, diversifies our industries, and cheapens the article to the consumer, but it protects labor also; and to my mind this is the strongest of the six propositions I am attempt:. ing to advance in its favor upon thi~ floor to-day.

No nation can prosper that does not dignify and elevate its labor. I have already stated in these remarks that labor represents wealth an~ wealth is power. Why, then, should we hesitate to protect it? Th4J bill does protect it, and this is one of the principal reasons why I heartily support it and why I shall vote fo;r it upon its final passage. Above everything in this life, Mr. Chairman, man desires social standing for his wife and children, and every one knows that no person can ris~

.in the world without education and without well furnished and well supplied homes.

I shall therefore, not only in the Halls of Congress, but everywhere and upon all occasions, dedicate my energies and my best endeavors to support and vote for every measure that will place my fellow-man upon a higher plane of intelligence and usefulness in this world and thus aid in making him a blessing and an honor to his race.

THE FARMER BE?!."E.FITED.

A protective tariff, and especially this bill, protects the farmer by an increased duty upon everything he produces. Our manufacturing industries to-day employ upwards of 5,000,000 of people, to whom nearly $2,000,00(\,000 are yearly paid, and they annually produce upwards of $7,000,000,000 worth of manufactured and other commodities. These people and all those dependent upon them are fed by the farmer, and therefore constitute his home market~

Think of it, Mr. Chairman; we paid last year nearly $60,000,000 for articles of food imported into this country. Because of this fact, which necessarily depressed the agricultural interests of the Republic, the import duties on many of the different products of our farms have been largely increased and ten different articles have been transferred from the free-list and are made dutiable under the present bill.

It is, therefore, evident to all thinking men that the farmer need,s more protection, and not less, as our Democratic friends would have him believe. I am in favor of placing the import duties so high on all farm products that Mr. John Bull shall be forced to eat his own egg8, cabbage, beans, and potatoes upon his own soil, and thus allow our people to do the same thing.

I am aware of the fact that agriculture in this country is greatly depressed; but I hold, sir, that it is not due to a protective tariff. Excessive importations of farm products an4 the grip of middlemen, combinations, and high rates of transportation are the causes of this depression. A farmer is an inbecile who will presume to say that the present tariff is hurting him; and he should hail as a godsend to him the bill under discussion, because it will cut oft perhapg forty to fifty million dollars annually of foreign importations that otherwise woul4 come into our markets and necessarily fake the place 6f precisely that amount of the products of his own labor a~d tioil.

The American farmer to-day needs two or three more rails put upon the top of the tariff fence, instead of taking that number off, as the tariff reformers, so called, are begging him to do.

The farmer, Mr. Chairman, is not a fool, not an arrant fool by any means. As Mr. Lincoln used to say, '' 'J.'his reminds me of a story.'' Many years ago there was an old colored man who lived down in "Ole Virginny." He had been a h&rd case. He had about spent a. lifetime in robl;>ing hen-roosts and melon-patcpes, in getting drunk, profane swearing, and in doing all kinds of ugly things.

He had also been the butt of more jo~es, gibes, and s~lls than any other darky in that whole country. Ile could stand the reputatio~ ofb~ing a thief and a drunkard and a bummer, but to be known flS the town fooi almost killed him. In the latwr part of his }.ife the old man was converte~ an4 gave many strong evidences of a change of heart. At one of the public meetings af~er his conver~ien, old "Ephraham" was asked to lead in prayer, which he did with siµcere faith.

After praying for t_he whole world and his "ole mas&\ ' 1 besides, he petitione4 in his own behalf as follows: ''O Lord, keep me from al~ them wicked sins I used to commit; and it I ever do break over and swear a little, or drink a little, or pick up a watermelon lying in a

.-,,...]. i.... • - -~ • ' ' '

"""--· .. - . .-

1890. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 4433 patch when de sun's gone down and de stars are shinen out, or take a chicken what roosts a little low, I pray Thee that Thou wilt not, under any circumstances, ever let me make a damned fool of myself." [Laughter and applause.]

Farmers, Mr. Chairman, have as much good, common sense as any other class of people, and you will find they will be among the very last set of men who will make fools of'themselves by dropping into the freetrade fallacy ancl supporting measures that will utterly destroy their interests.

HOW IT HELPS GLASS-WORKERS.

There is now a 40 per cent. duty upon glassware. Last year over $7,000, 000 worth of glassware of different kinds were imported into this country. We have several immense glass-factories in the city in which I live, and which I have the honor to represent in this honorable body. We manufacture in one of these establishments an ordinary beer-mug. (Of course many of these Representatives before me do not know what a beer-mug is.) (Laughter. J For many years these beer-mugs were exported to Germany in large quantities, and were readily sold at $2 per dozen. ·

Recently our Ger!flan brethren learned the secret of making them, and now our trade with Germany in this particular article is COJl!pletely broken up. Why? The German Government has placed a heavy import duty upon these beer-mugs, and as her labor is much cheaper than our own we can not compete in the manufacture of them and our trade with Germany is therefore necessarily lost.

But this is not all. Because of their cheap labor, they are to-day shipping these beer-mugs t-0 the United States, paying the duty of 24 cents per dozen upon them, and selling them in American markets at much less than we pay our laborers for producing them, saying nothing of the cost of the raw material and the wear and tear of machinery that is used in their production. The bill which we are now considering increases the duty upon all glassware, and I trust it will accomplish the object of preventing the wholesale importation of these and all other articles of foreign manufacture, which necessarily take the place of the same class of articles that we ought and can produce in oar own country.

One more illustration, if you please: There is a thin-glass tumbler, ordinarily called. a ''Bohemian tumbler.'' This particular article is extensively imported. It is manufactured in Bohemia by the cheap labor of that country. The highest wages paid for blowing these punch tumblers in Bohemia is 4 marks, which is equal to 96 cents in our currency, and the mechanic there is required to toil from twelve to fourteen hours a day in order t.o eke out the humblest imaginable living.

In this country the glass-blower receives for the same kind of work $3. 50 per day and only works from eight to nine hours a day. On $10 worth of this imported glassware there is, under the present schedule, a duty of $4. The difference between a day's pay in Bohemia and this country is $2.54; hence it is evident to every discerning mind that the glass-blower receives $2.54 as his part of every $4 of tariff duty collected on this particular imported article. Still it is claimed by our Democratic friends that the tariff does not benefit labor.

There is not a skilled mechanic in the United States who does not receive from one to three times as much for his labor as is paid to-day in free-trade England for the same kind of work.

CIGAR-MAKERS PROTECTED.

Wheeling, my home city, is a noted point for the manufacture of cigars. Our manufacturers pay $9.50 per thousand for making what is called a medium cigar. In Southern Germany the rate for making the same cigar is 7 marks, or $1.68 in our currency. The duty on this cigar, under the present schedule, is $6 per thousand, and because of the wonderful· difference in the price of labor in Germany and America millions of these cigars are annually imported into the United States. This is only one of a hundred illustrations I might give, if time would permit, to prove to the most skeptical that the American la.borer is protected by our present tariff laws.

THE MARKETS OF THE WORLD.

Our friends on the other side of the Hoose persist in talking about the "markets of the world." They tell us to pot raw materials upon the free-list and reduce the duty upon everything else to the lowest possible standard, and we will then be able to enter the markets of the world ·with our productions and compete with the nations that have been in existence for a thousand years.

Already, Mr. Chairman, we bave'raw cotton and raw silk on the freelist and yet we do not sell their products in the markets of the world. Why? Because oar labor commands a higher price than the labor of the Old World; and until we are willing to reduce our wages to a par with the wages paid skilled labor in the Old World, we can never compete with other and older nations in the markets of the world. The high-sounding phrase, the "markets of the world," is a will-o'-thewisp, a mirage of the desert, that is beautiful to look upon, but can never be reached without pauperizing our own people, which I, as an American citizen, am unwilling to do.

Mr. Speaker REED, in one of his inimitable speeches upon the tariff, recited the anecdote of the dog that had in bis mouth a succulent piece of mutton and was crossing a stream of clear water which was spanned

XXI-278

by a single board. He saw in the water his own shadow, a dog with a mutton bone in his month. He dropped bis ~ucculent piece ofmutit.on and made a straight dive for the other dog; and in a moment he came out of that stream. of water the wettest, meanest, dOrriest, sickest free-trade dog that ever attempted to .find the free markets of the world. (Laughter. J

There is nothing in our protective system that will stop exportations and interfere in any respect with our foreign markets. The foreign markets are accessible to all .iealers and are as accessible to us as they could possibly be if we were living under absolute free trade. The Republican idea, which is thoroughly and completely embodied in the bill now under consideration, pla-0es no burdens or restrictions upon the products that go out from this country.

\Ye do not oppose foreign commerce, but we can not see what particular sanctity attaches to the foreign market that does not belong to our own domestic market. Is the foreign· consumer any better than the American consumer? Is it not a fact that the American consumer and the American customer are better parties for Americans to deal with than foreigners? Under a revenue tariff, which the Democrats desire to have restored, we bought more abroad than we sold and had t.o pay the balance in gold. This was bad political economy. The present bill corrects this error. Why, then, should we not stand by it?

"WHY FOREIGJ!\'ERS OPPOSE A TARIFF,

The consignees here and the consignors abroad oppose this tariff bill. This of itself is enough t.o induce every true American to support it. What the foreigners want, we should oppose. Daniel Webster once said: "After thirty years in Congress I am frank to admit that I have invariably made it a rule to find out first what England wanted and then oppose it; and I always found myself in the right." Dowe doubt Mr. Webster's ability and wisdom? Foreigners do not like this bill because it interferes with their business.

The press of other countries condemn it because it will impede their prosperity. This bill is an American bill, gotten up expressly for American interests and American industries. We are not attempting to legislate for the advancement of any other than our own people.

We are to-day exporting more of our national products than at any 0th.er time in our past history. Our exports during the past decade have increased over 35 per cent. more than the exports of free-trade England.

While England during that period lost 13 per cent. of her commerce the United States gained 22 per cent., and if the same aid were extended to on.r shipping that Great Britain extends to hers our vessels to-day would carve the waves of every ocean and our productions would be placed in successful competition with the products of every other nation on the earth.

WORD PICTURE OF PROTECTION.

Mr. Chairman, not long ago I s-t.ood upon the summit of Wheeling Hill. It was 10 o'clock at night. The scene before me was indescribably grand. To my right, across the magnificent Ohio, as she swept by in her ever-wandering way to the sea, flashed the flames from factories and forges as they kissed the skies. Down through the thriving city of Wheeling-the Nail City of the West-I could hear the rattling roll of machinery, and could see the bright flames belching from the tops of tall chimneys, which have given that city a first rank among the manufacturing cities of the continent.

Away down the river, 4 miles to Benwood and Bellaire, the very heavens were aglow with the fires in the furnaces and forges that give employment to thousands of mechanics at living wages and bring to their homes and their firesides not only the necessaries oflife, but the red ribbon and other adornments that make the children of the workingmen the peers of the millionaires in appearance, and their equal in everything that God intended them to be. What gave to those people those industries? Did they come to them under a tariff for revenue only or are they the outgrowth of protection ? Let some Democratic wiseacre answer if be will. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, we all know that they grew out of the Republican doctrine which we are now advocating in this Hall, and t.o-day they stand as &1'hining monuments of the glorious principles of protection to American industries and American labor.

Shall we allow this wonderful system that bas made us what we are to be stricken down ? Shall we allow those mills and factories and forges, that are a pi11ar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, to be snuffed out or to be shut down, to gratify ~imply the whims ofa party of free-traders who are enemies of American industries and American institutions?

Will you, then, my coµntrymen, allow this wonderful system to be stricken down? I think not. I don't believe you will do it. I shall, Mr. Chairman, work and voteforprotectionat all times and at all hazards. It has developed our mines, our forests, our farms, our intellects, our genius. I will stand by it, "sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish." [Applause.]

WHAT THE FATHEBS WOULD SAY.

If George Washington, the father of his country, could speak to-day from his silent tomb yonder on the Potomae, he would say, ·'Stand by protection, for it has made our country the leading manufacturing na-

- .......

,.

·,,

4434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE. MA_y 9,

tion on God's footst.ooL '' If Thomas Jefferson, the patron saint of the emocratic party, himself a protectionist in the early days of the Re

public, con ld speak from his resting place at Jl.Ionticello, in the old ComIDQnwealth tbat we all so dearly love, he would say, ct Do not strike down yo111" protective-tariff system." (Applause.]

Andrew Jackson, another Democratic saint, like Jefferson a protectionist, could he break the silent sleep of death at the old Hermitage in the Empire State of the South, would say: "Americans, st.and by your industries and your labor.'' If Jam es Madison, the father of the Constitution, who with his own hand penned the first tariff act passed by au American Congress, could be heard to-day, be would tell us to stand by protection. If Abrabam Lincoln, the savior of his country and the grandest character of the century, now sleeping the dreamless sleep of death on the broad plains of Illinois, could be heard to-day, be would say, '' Fel!ow-countrymen, stand by your own people and your own firesides and your own homes." If U. S. Grant, the great silent soldier of our Army and among the greatest generals of the eartb, whose ~ave is bathed with the tears of a million of his comrades every 30th of May, as they meet to strew fresh flowers upon his grave, and hang sweet garlands upon his tomb, could speak to-day from that marble mausoleum that covers his remains, he would say: "Soldiers of .America, citizens of the Republic, stand by the great system of protection that has placed yon in the front rank of the nations of the earth." [A ppla.use.]

Mr. Chairman, every true, patriotic American in this presence will ecbo the sentiment of this single stanza:

Thou, too, sail on, 0 Ship of State! Sail on, 0 Union, strong and great! * * * *

Sail on, nor fear to breast the sen., Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee-are all with thee!

Let us pledge ourselves anew to a vindication of the doctrines of oar fathers that have made us great, and the most sanguine expectations of our countrymen will yet be realized in the grandeur of the Republic. [Applause.]

Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. :Mr. Chairman, the whole intention a.nd effort of the great founders of this Government was t-0 secure to all, so far as it was possible for human constitutions to do so, equality of opportunity, equality of i·ights and of privileges, and t.o compel all to bear their just share of the responsibilities and burdens of government. Then it must be conceded by all impartial men that any system of taxation that has in it elements of favoritism or special privilege for one Qlass of our citizens and that discrimina.te.s against or injures another class of our people should never become a permanent method of raising revenue for the support of this great free Government.

All who value equality of opportunity, all who love fairness and justice, whatever may be their party affiliations, will agree to this proposition. To deny it is to deny the best and grandest principles of free ~overnment. Having an abiding faith in the ability of the American people to govern wisely, I can not believe that any scheme of taxation that does not insure and secure perfect impartiality and absolute jusf;ice t.o every one according to his ability to pay will ev6r receive the sanction or the approval of a ma:jority of them, unless, percha.nee, for the moment they be deceirnd. Mr. Lincoln said:

You may fool part of the people all the time and all of the people part of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.

The majority of the people may be deceived for a time by the plausible speeches of interested politicians and the pathetic appeals of designing demagogues; they may be defeated by the debauching influences of money; but so surely as the world moves the grandeur of American manhood will assert itself and in the end uphold the right.

Then if it can be shown either by past experience or sound logic that any of the present methods of taxation imposed upon the people carry in them special advanta~es in favor of. one cla.ss and serious injury to another or all other classes of our people, it should be our first d n ty to repeal them, and if possible devise and enact a system that did not so discriminate. Justice demands that much.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I apprehend there would be no difficnlty in reaching a just conclusion in this matter if there were no special advantages, privileges, and benefits for somebody, for some class, woven into the present and proposed system of tariff laws.

At present the Federal revenues are derived from two sources of taxation, tariff and internal. The tariff is a tax levied on any article of importation. These articles may be so selected and the duties so adjusted that it would be purely a revenue tax; that is, every dollar taken from the people under it would go into the general Treasury and it would carry no protection, not even incidental. This scheme in connection with an income tax would be perfectly fair and just. It would, however, he a radical departure from the prevailing scheme, and its adoption might and probably would entail los.s on certain industries that have been taught to rely on the Government to pre.vent competition.

Again articles may be so selected and tariff rates so arranged that they would secure both revenue and a measure of protection to the

manufacturers and producers of similar articles at home. And this, as I understand it, is the position of the Democratic party on the tariff with the right always to strictly limit the amount of revenues so collected to the necessities of the Government, coupled also with the belief that certain articles of prime necessity should be placed on the freelist to the benefit alike of consumers and manufacturers. Lastly, articles may be selected and the rates of tariff taxe~ fixed so high that they would restrict importations, or, as the Republican platform bas it, ''tend to check imports, rr that is, to prevent competition and com- · pel all consumers t-0 buy in a restricted and monopolized market.

Tariffs so adjusted would secure full protection from outside competition and also a small measure of revenue to the Government, pro· vided the rates are not so high as to be prohibitory; if they were, competition would be shut out entirely and not a dollar of revenue raised. And this I understand to be the position of the Republican party on the tariff question.

JI.Ir. Chairman, there is great necessity for a reduction of the revenues, but there is far greater necessity for a. reduction of taxation and the removal of burdens that have almost crushed to earth the farmers and laborers of America.

But to farther emphasize the difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party on the tariff, I quote from that very able document, the views of the minority of the Committee on Ways and Means:

Upon the question of collecting such revenue from duties on imported goods as may be necessary to pay the whole or a part of the cost of conducting_the Government, when economically administered, we are now at the parting of the ways. 'Vhether such taxes shall be imposed upon the people for the primary purpose of raising money for the payment of the ordinary public expense.sand the public debts or be imposed for the purpose of increasing the cost of production and the price of certam articles of domestic consumption, is a question upon which there is an irreconcilable difference between the two great political parties of the country, and this question in its plainest form is directly presented for consideration by the bill reported by the majority.

The minority, representing for the time being one of these parties, contends for the principle of just and equal taxation upon all, according to their ability to bear the burden, while the majority, representing ~he other party, has in this bill thoroughly committed itself to the policy of unjust and unequal tax>< ti on of the many for the benefit of the few. We are as anxious as the majority can possibly be to promote and encourage American industries and advance the interests of American laborers, and those who impute to us any other purpose or design either misunderst:><nd or misrepresent our '!;)osition. But we believe that both these ol:,jects can be accomplished by reducing tne burdens of taxation, and not by increasing them, and that the benefits thus secured will be tar more permanent and far more satisfactory to those directly concerned than any supposed advantage that can result from a different policy.

.:N°o amount of increase in the rates of duty can ever be permanently satisfactory to all the beneficiaries, because it will he found sooner or later that a rate which is supposed to help one actually liurts another, a.nd thus controversies are engendered which always result in new appeals to the Government for additional burdens upon the people. Any policy of taxation which, under the pretense of protection, imposes burdens npon the masses of the people and divides the representatives of different occupations into warring classes, each struggling to make use of the power of legislation to obtain an advanta.ge over the others, is obviously unjust and unwise and ought not to be continued.

It will be seen that the theory of the two parties as to the pnrpose!i of taxation are radically different. The Democrats believe and insist that the power of taxing the people was given to the Government for the purpose of raising the revenues necessary to support it, and not for the purpose of enriching individuals and corporations; not for the purpose of restricting trade and commerce.

Taking the platform·adopted by the last national convention of the Republican party in connection with the bill under consideration as a sincere expression of the policy and purposes of that party, we are bound to conclude that they believe the taxing power was given for the purpose of enriching favored classes and corporations, with an incidental right to raise revenue. It is unjust to use the taxing power to extort money from the people to be wasted in extravagant appropriations, but it is an outrageous abuse of that power when it is employed to destroy one industry for the benefit of another.

It seems to me that the taxing power of the Government has been and is used as an immense machine, and reminds me of a picture I once saw of an Altman separator. There was a perfect machine being fed with abundant sheaves by several laborers. Down where the plump, clean wheat came out was a fat, comfortable-looking fellow, away out at the end of the stacker was a large pile of chaff and straw, and on the top of this pile was a poor, half-starved chicken, with one tail-feather left, scratching away for dear life tryin~ to find an occasional grain.

The fat fellow is the manufacturer receiving the wealth of untold harvests that he does not create, the poor chicken represents the farmer scratching, scratching from daylight until dark trying to obtain au honest living, but he can not do it; the machine bas done its perfect work. Who are the laborers? Why, they are the Congressmen that run the machine. They get fair wages with an occasioqal politicnl lift to those who cause the machine to run faster and do more perfect work.

Mr, MORSE. I wish to ask the gentleman whether his figure of the chickens represents Democratic a.swell as Republican Congressmen.

Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. No; the Democratic Congressmen do not run the machine just now. If the gentleman desires to understand the position of the Democratic party on the tariff, I would say we would make it simply a taxing power to supply the Treasury with revenue, not a power to extort exactions from one industry for the benefit ot another.

. '

1890 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4435 :But, as I desire to be fair, I will state the grounds on which the pro

tectionists rely for justification. They claim that, in order to induce speedy and large investments of capital in certain industries that may not of themselves be as profitable as some other industry, although desirable to the State, the nation should by a system of tax laws known as protective tariffs, compel all other industries and occupations to. contribute to the particular industry a sufficient sum to insure its development.

They also claim that. this system insures a diversification of industries, which all concede will add to the power of a people and increase their contentment, happiness, and intelligence.

They claim further that protective tari.fu prevent foreign competition., thereby insuring to the home manufacturer or producer a monopoly of the home market, which enables him to obtain higher prices for his product and to pay his laborers better wages, and that these laborers make a home market for the products of the farm. They claim still further that by making the rates sufficiently high the extraordinary advantages offered will induce so many to engage in manufaeturing that competition between themselves will bring down :prices. And, in addition to all this~ protective tariffs keep the money at home.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have stated the principles of protection fairly. I know many ot the advocates of that system will say: ''Look at the splendid progress of this conn try; protection did it. Look at our great cities and towns, our immense system of railroads, the thousands and thousands of dollars piled up in savings banks in Massachusetts; protection did it." The only answer required to this kind of argument, if it can be called argument, is to direct the protectionist to cast his eyes westward and behold the mortgaged farms, then turn his gaze eastward and behold the abandoned farms. Once more tiell him to watch the starving coal miners of Hocking Valley and the distressed condition of the Kansas corn-burne.rs.

But, Mr. Chairman, this kind of argument can not always be relied on, because not always fair. I shall therefore make answer as best I can to the real principles of protection.

It is admitted that protection induces investment by insuring a profit to the innstor in certain industries that otherwise would be llllprofitable. But all such industries are a tax on the community. Every poor and nnfortunate man who can not earn suffi~ient to sustain himself is sent t-0 the poor-house and becomes a tax. on the community.

We submit cheerfully to this tax because humanity requires it. So every industry that can not sustain itself is a tax on the community and a pauper among the other industries, and unless supported by them will die. Every unprofitable industry in a nation decreases the wealth of that nation. They are drones in the hive and feed on the honey gathered by the profitable workers. Every law that compels these profitable workers to part with their earning$ to support the drones is unjust.

Mr. MORSE. Does not the gentleman from Missouri know that in ftee~trade England every seventh man is a pauper? If the cause of pauperism is protection, how does the gentleman explain the fact that in free-trade England paupers are more numerous than in any other country on the face of the earth?

Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. No; I do not know that to be true. My friend perhaps has been in England-

Mr. MORSE. I have. Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. I have never been. But I have read

an article from a gentleman over there whom I have learned to love and upon whose judgment and statements I rely implicitly, because I know him to be like Abou Ben Adbem, "one who loves his fellowmen." I refer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, who, in an essay on the tariff question published in one of our reviews, st.ates that wages are higher in England by 50 to 100 per cent. than they were when the English people followed the doctrin~ of protection. It strikes me this is an answer that ought to be satisfactory to the gentleman. I do not wish to go into any elaborate argument as to the difference in wages in this country and in England. There are several causes which I might assign for it, but I can not entier upon that topic just now; my time will not permit.

Mr. :BROOKSHIRE. Does not the gentleman know that in England there is only an acre and a half of land to each person, while in the United States there are 40 acres to each person; that in England and Wales there are 500 people to a square mile, while in the United States there are only 17 to a square mile?

Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. Yes, sir; I am. not unacquainted with those matters. I am sure that the public lands of America. have operated as a potent factor in keeping up the wages of American labor by lessening the supply of that labor in the manufacturing centeu If the gentleman from Massachusetts will listen to my remarks he will understand this matter.

Mr. MORSE. I am listening& Mr. WALKER, of Missouri. Protection may induce capital and

labor to enter a field that they would not otherwise ent.er, because without the enforced contributions of others that particular industry would always be unprofitable, but all such enterprises, as I have said, injure rather than advance the state by taking capital and labor from profitable employment and placing them where they cease to be re-

, ' \

munerative to the community, but become a charge upon them. For example, take a community of twenty men who earn in the aggregate $4,000 or $200 each per year.

They use coal that is shipped in from a distant state and obtain all they need t.o run them for a year delivered in their own town for $100, but there is a coal mine adjoining their town and they decide to open their own coal mine, but find on examination that it will require the labor of one of their number for a' whole year to obtain sufficient coal to do them for a like period. Nevertheless one of them, with the promise of the others to make good all his losses, quits his former occupation, for which he was receiving $200, and mines coal for a year, the community being happy in the thought that they would be independent of the distant statet besides keeping the $100 in money at home.

Now, let us see how they stood at the end of the year. Remember when they bought coal from abroad they sent away $100 to pay for it, therefore they had $3,900 left in the community, or $195 to each man and bis supply of coal; but how is it under this plan of forced development? Well, nineteen members of the community earned $3,800 in money, and the other one earned coal enough to do them all, so that they have only $3,800 left in the community, or $190 to each man and his supply of coal. Then what became of the $100 in money that was kept at home? Wasted in an unprofitable industry; wasted in an enterprise that was not self-sustaining. Can any man deny this? It is too plain to deny.

But suppose that that community had found that they could obtain the same quantity of coal that cost them $100 by one of their number working the mine for three months. Then quite a different result would have been obtained, to wit: Nineteen men earning $200 each, $3,800; one man working nine months at the same rate, $150; total, $3, 950 in money and coal enough to do them. The first is forced and unnatural devel-Opment of an unprofitable industry for which the community must sa.ffer loss; the second, the development of a natural and profitable industry by which the community gains.

I will pursue this subject a. little further, as there is still another condition. Suppose some one member of this- community had owned that mine and by specious arguments about home industry, home development, independent of the fore~n state, keep the money at home, and the home market for the home miner, induced a majority of his fellowcitizens to enact a law laying a duty of 100 per cent. on the importations of coal. He then sets to work and in six months gets out sufficient coal to supply the market for a year.

The community seek to purchase their coal supply; the mine-owner says, "I will have to charge you $200 for your supply." The purchasers protest, saying, "We can get our coal supply delivered on our borders from abroad for $100." "I know that," says the mine-owner, "but then you would have to pay 100 per cent. duty on it, making total $200, just what I ask." They ta"ke the coal from the home miner at $200. Now, what are the results? Nineteen members of that community have each $190 in money and their coal supply, while the mine owner has $190 money and his coal supply, too; but remember he o:->ly worked six months, while all of his neighbors worked twelve.

It is freely conceded, as I have said, that diversity of industries adds greatly to the power and happiness of the people, but we deny that protection increases diversity, ouly in an abnormal sense. We insist that the people of any country, if left free to act, free to follow their own choice, will in their restless search for wealth be quick to take hold of and devefop every resource that can be made to pay a profit or even to pay fairwages to him who works it. And this is especially true of an intelligent and enlightened nation.

We are sure that the natural diversity of men, their different tastes, habits of thought, their avidity and cupidity will cause them to enter every field of profitable production. And we further insist that any law which compels profitable production to part with that pro.fit to make profitable an otherwise unprofitable industry is a moral wrong and an economic folly for which the nation must pay the penalty.

Answering the claim that protection prevents competition and secures the "home market" to the home manufacturer, thereby enabling him to obtain higher prices for his product, a.nd that this highpriced product increases the wages of his labor, we heartily agree with our protection friends on all of this proposition, with the single exception of the effect on the wages of labor, and charge it as one of the principal counts in the bill of indictment against this protective theory and practice. Protection does insure higher prices for the home manufacturer in the home market. What is the home market? Home consumers. Who pay higher prices? Home consumers. Who are home consumers? The great body oftbe American people. Then when, how, or where does the foreigner pay this tax?

Now, as to the far-fetched assumption that labor's wages are increased by these higher prices for the manufactured products, does any one believe that the protected owner of a factory is more generous than other men? Will the laborers who are employed in the protected industries deceive themselves into the vain belief that because their employers are reaping immense profits they will be given better wages?

I submit that if the tari1f could or did compel the employer to pay the employed higher wages there would be no necessity for the trades

·-·

;., J .,,.

, ..

.-

·-· ·,-

,.. :::.: .... , .;~ ',, ..... ~-

:.

·- ... .......... ;_·

" .. .... ..


unions,..., Knights of Labor, etc., becanse the very inte1:1tion of these organizations is to prevent rednction or to secnre higher wages and short.er honrs. And I am sure that the rates of wages now enjoyed by laborers in the large manufacturing concerns of this country have been sustained by the power of these united organizations.

I aITTee that the protected manufactnrer can, if he only will, pay his labor"hetter wages, bnt I insist that there is nothing in the system that compels him to pay any part of his increased profits to his employes, and men do not generally surrender any portion of their wealth unless legally compelled to do so. There is, however, that in the protective system which compels the wage-workers in the factories, in common with all other consumers, to surrender pa.rt of their wages to the factoryowner. Protection does, in a limited sense, aid the laborers and dwellers generally in the cities by cheapening most of the food products of this country, but this is perhaps more than counterbalanced by making the production of those products so unprofitable as to cause many farmers' sons to seek the cities, thus swelling the supply of labor in those cities.

The price of labor in this country is as absolntely regulated by the law of supply and demand as is the price of wheat in Liverpool, modi1ied somewhat, as I have said, by the power of united organizations. England has free trade in wheat. We have free trade in labor. The tariff does not increase wages even to those who work in the protected industries, and, as to the farmer, it not only decreases the purchasing power of his eamings, bnt decreases those earnin~ by depressing the price of farm prod acts.

I have examined carefully the protectionist's theory of the home market for the farmer, and I find that the tariff does affect his home market, butalwaystohisinjnry. Take wheat, for example, something that is absolutely necessary to every family and an article that from the very nature of our soil, climate, and country must always remain a staple farm product. Can protection add anything t-0 the price of wheat in our home market?

Now all will agree that a protective tariff increases the prices just in proportion as it prevents competition. Wheat being produced largely in excess of the home demand the surplus must seek a foreign market, and in that market competes with the surplus wheat of the world. The prices obtainable in that market being regulated by supply and demand, that price, whatever it may be, :fixes the prices of all the wheat remaining in the country whence the surplus wheat came, no matter if that country places a duty of $1 per bushel on it.

The American wheat-grower has no outside competition in his home market for wheat; therefore a. protective tariff can not raise the price, becaU£e there is no outside competition to prevent. The majority of the people of any nation can not be benefited by tariffs, neither can the prices of their great surplus. products be raised by protective tariffs, whether it is a product of the :field or the factory. But those products grown or manufactured in insufficient quantities to supply the home demand can be advanced in price by tariffs, and if it happens to be an article of prime necessity the full amount of the duty can be added.

The very pith of protection is inequal_ity. It is only the minority that can be benefited by it. .

One example will be sufficient to satisfy most people. England could, and for awhile did, protect her agricultural interests because she produced agricultural products in insufficient quantities to supply her own people and the deficit was made up of agricultural products imported from abroad. Upon these imports a duty was pl.aced so as to prevent them from competing with the home product, but the great majority of her people, working in the mines, in the factories, and other sarplusproducing occupations, soon found out that this protective system was at their expense and benefited nobody but the wealthy landlords, and the corn laws were repealed.

So in this country it is possible for us to protect our manufactures and some few of our agricultural products, such as sugar, oranges, and hops, but this is done at the expense and to the inj nry of the great majority of our people working on the farms, in the forests, on the transportation lines, in professional and personal service, and for the benefit of less than a hundred thousand wealthy citizens. "Truth is mighty and will prevail." Sooner or later it will completely overwhelm these monopolies.

Bnt I said that protection not only did not help the farmer, but positively injured him. I will therefore continue this wheat illustration. The price of wheat in this country being regulated by a foreign marke~, it follows that whatever increases the cost of transportation to that market injures the American wheat-grower. The protective tariffs have increased the cost of transportation on land by increasing the cost of the steel rails of which r~ilroads are constructed and the materials of which freight-cars and engines are built. It has increased the ocean freights by preventing imports. A ship sailing from Liverpool to the United States mnst obtain !lo sufficient sum to make the round trip profitable, otherwise she could not maintain herself. If she were permitted to bring a cargo of merchandise from Liverpool, that cargo would bear its half of the round trip.

At the risk of being tedious, I will endeavor to make this perfectly plain. Suppose at a given date wheat is worth $1 per b~shel in Liver· pool. The wheat shipper calls on the ship-owner and is informed that a vessel with a carrying capacity of 50,000 bushels can make the round

..

trip for $7, 500, or 15 cents per bushel freight, from New York to Liverpool, leaving a net price of 85 cents per bushel in New York, which is the net price not only of the wheat that was shipped to Liverpool, but the price of every bushel left on this side when delivered in New York, or the price of wheat all over the United States, less the expense of delivery in New York, provided via New York was the cheapest route to Liverpool

But suppose the wheat-grower was permitted to bring back a retnm cargo of merchandise without having to pay an enormous penalty for doing so, then, the return cargo paying its half of the expense of the round trip of the ship, the charge against the wheat cargo would only be $3,750, or 7! cents per bushel, leaving a net . price of 92! cents pet bnshel in New York, thus increasing the price not only of that cargo! but all of the wheat in the United States 7!cents per bushel, and woula amount to $35,000,000 to the farmers on one annual average wheat crop.

What I have said of wheat applies to all other or nearly all other farm products. I can not therefore escape the conclusion that the present and proposed system of tariffs not only adds greatly to the price of all those things that the 'farmer has to buy that are produced in insufficient quantities to supply the home demand, but also greatly decreases the prices of all those great agricultural products that he must partly send abroad to :find a market. ·

The tariff also injures the farmer by preventing exchange of ~he surplus products of two or Jl!.Ore countries; but this was so thoroughly dis· cussed by the able and distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS] at the opening of this debate that nothing can be added to it. In this connection I quote from an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, the Republican organ of the great Northwest:

Where, then, is the remedy from the heavy burdens of a 50 per cent. ta.x on the necessities of life, both imported and domestic? There is only one element or class able to remove it, and that Samson is sleeping in the lap of Delilah and will not awaken. I, of course, mean the farmers. The plundered, unprotected twenty-five million of goose-like farmers who permit themselves to be plucked of almost every feather by a. hundred thousand "r,rotected" monopolists. Sq long as the simple-minded bucolic class do not ' kick" off the burdens laid upon them, Congress will not disturb the war taxes and the manufacturers' cor· responding bounties.

'Vhile the plowmen act like ls3a.cha.r's a.ss, and crouch between two burdena both will be kept on their backs. The fabricants live focalized in the cities, and plot and scheme for the promotion of their selfish interests a.nd bring their united lobby influences to bear on members of Congress, whereas the farmers live isolated and scattered, and ca.n not or do not combine in defense of their interests. Hence they are unprotected, unrepresented, a.nd unconscious of what keeps them poor. They are captivated by the specious cry of "protection to American industry," though they get none of it, and of the value of the "protected" home markets to them, as if protected monopolists ea.t any more than other men.

Not until the verdant, imposed-upon agriculturists wake up to a realization of the confidence game being played upon them will the war taritrbe reduced or reformed. But when will they get their eyes open and act? In your lif~ time? Samson (the farmer) is under the spell of Delilah (the manufa.cturera}J and his locks are shorn and he feels no strength to resist. Until the protectea manufacturers themselves ask Congress to reduce their protection bounties iJ1 order to enable them to cheapen the process of fabrication with a view of find.:. ing foreign markets for their surplus wares, there will be no reduction of th~ high tariff and no relief from the heavy burden it imposes on the fool farmers and oppressed consumers. But when will that be?

" Possess your soul with patience," Mr. Medill; the farmers in many States have organized and in others they are organizing, and one of the planks in their platform is a resolution demanding a redaction of taxation, of tariff taxation, and the party that opposes this righteous demand will be buried beneath the ballots of outraged farmers.

If you will remember, Mr. Chairman, one of the claims set up fo~ protection was that the advantages offered induced so many capitalist.a to invest money in those lines that the competition between themselve8 would bring down prices.

Now, it is conceded that that would be the effec~ in many lines of manufacture to-day in the United States, but just at this point is wher~ the ''association '' ''combination '' or ''trust' 1 comes to the rescue of the manut"actur~r and holds the' prices of his wares up to the·poinf where the protective tariff permits outside competition. Higher thaii this they can not go, for if they did the people would buy abroad.

Now thete may be, in fact are, trusts in certain commodities that are not affected by the tariff, but I apPCnd a list of combinations a,n~ trusts, every one of which is roofed m and shielded by the protective' tariff:

THE TARIFFS AND THE TRUSTS. [From Justice, Philadelphia..)

1. The steel-rail trust, buttressed by a. ta.riff tax of i11 per ton. 2. The nail trust, by a ta.riff tax of 8L25 per 100 pounds. 3. The iron-nut and washer trust, by a. tax of 12pei'100 pol,ln~f!, 4. The barbed-fence-wire trust. by a tax of 60 cents per 100 po'Uflds. 5. The copper trust, by a \ax: of $2.50 per 100 pounds. 6. The lead trust, by a tax of 81.50 per 100 pounds. 7. The slate pencil trust, by a tax of 30 per cent. 8. The nickel trust, by a. tax of Sl5 per 100 pounds. 9. The zinc trust, by a. tax of 32.50 per 100 poun48.

10. The sugar trust, by a tax of $2 per 100 poundS. ll. The oilcloth trust, by a tax of 40 per cent. 12. The jute-bag trust, by a tax of 40 per cent: 13. The cordage trust, by a tax of 30 per cent. 14. The paper-envelope trust, by a tax of 25 per ~nt. 15. The gutta-percha. trust, by a tax of 35 per cent. 16. The castor-oil trust, by a tax of 80 cents per gallon. 17. The linseed-oil trust, by a tax of 25 cents per ~allon. 18. The cottonseed-oil trust, by a tax of 23 cents per gallon. 19. The borax trust, by a tax o! SIS per 100 po9nds. 20. Tho ultra.marine trust, by a tax of 85 per 100 pounds .

.....

..:. _..,. _4, :. ft.l!':-s:s ... •.Ct.•·.•·,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4437 The last claim : Protection keep.-; the money at home. Mr. Chairman,

in answer to this I refer protectionists to the community of twenty men and their experience with a coal mine, that I spoke of awhile ago. The money was wasted · in unprofitable labor; in other words, labored for, but not obtained.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the best evidence of farm prosperity is the value of the farms themselves. Now, it so happens that this country has tried tariff for revenue and tariff for protection; and while the tariff for revenue was given but about fourteen years' trial, it proved to be by far the most prosperous period in our history. To prove this I copy from the Tenth Census statistics concerning agriculture.

TWO BALANCE-SHEETS .COM:PARED-1860 TO 1880. 1. Between 1850 and 1860 was the so-called ''era of free trade.'' In

1862 began the protection, which has been such a good thing-for somepody-that it has been increased in amount every few years. The Tenth Census statistics concerning agriculture will show exactly how great it is. Turn to page 650 of the Compendium and read on:

Value of farm. lands. 1850 ................................................ •·•••·•••·•·•···•· ................................ $3, 271, 575, 421 1860 .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . ... ... .. .. ..... . .. .. . .. .. .. ............. ....... ..... ... .. ... . .. ........... ...... 6, 645, 045, 007 1880 ....•..............•........ : ............................... ······ ............ •··········· ........ 10, 197, 096, 776 Increase for ten years, 1850 to 1860..... ....... .••.....• .................. ........... 3, 373, 469, 586 Increase for twenty years, 1860 to 1880. ........... .. .... ...... .. . ...... ... ........ 3, 552, 051, 769 Yearly rate of increase, 1850 to 1860.................. .............................. 337, 346, 958 Yearly rate of increase, 1860 to 1880................................................ 177, 602, 588 *Per cent. of year)y increase, 1850 to 1860.................. ......... ...... .. .... 10,t *Per cent. of yearly increase, 1860 to 1880......... ....... ......... ............ 2t

*The total increase in value under twenty yea.rs of Protection is only equal to the increase under ten years of frte trade. The yearly increase since 1860 is only one-half what is was before 1860. There has been a drop from lOi per cent. increase in 1860 t-0 2i per cent. increase in 1880.

In these twenty years the population more than doubled. 2. The average value of our improved land was $11 per acre in 1850

and $16 in 1860, an increase in the ten years of $5, or 45 per cent. in the decade. Its value wa.s $19 per acre in 1880, an increase of $3 in twenty high-tariff years, or 9 per cent. each decade. Before 1860 the annual increase in value per acre was 50 cents. Since 1860 it has been only 15 cents yearly.

3. The total acreage in farms at the three different periods was as follows:

Acres. 1850 ...................................................................................................... 293, 560, 614 t860 ...................................................................................................... 4!J7, 212, 538 l~~~;··· .. ··· ......................................................... ~ ......................... 536, 081, 835

~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m: ~~ ~~ Yearly incre11.se:

1860 .. . . .• . . ... . . . . . . .. .... . ... . . . .. .... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ............. .... ... ... . .. . . . .......... ..... 11, 365, 192 1880. ..... ... ... ... ...... ....... ........ ......... ... ..... ........ .... ... ...... .. .... ... ... .. . ...... 6, 443, 468

With. all the enormous railroad expansion and opening up of new territory between.1860 and 1880 farming has ceased to pay end fewer people went into it.

In 1850 the acreage was 12. 7 per inhabitant; in 1860 it increased to 12.9; in 1880 it decreased to 10.7.

4. The average value of each farm in 1850 was $2,258; in 1860 it was $3,251; in 1880 it was $2,569.

The increase between 1850 and 1860 was $993. The decrease between 1860 and 1880 was $682. 5. The average value of farm land per inhabitant in 1850 was $142.

It increased to $211 in 1860 and declined to $203 in 1880. 6. In New Jersey, which since 1860 has become merely the kitcben

~arde0: for her own cities, New York, Brooklyn, and Philadelphia-her ~,096,297 acres having a polulation of 4,000,000 to feed-the value of her improved farm land has declined since 1860. In the ten years before 1860 it increased in value $25, or from $08 t.o $93 per acre. In 1880 it was worth only $91 per acre.

The yearly increase in the value of New England's farms before 1860 was $10,395,529. Since 1860 it has been $5,218,579.

7. For clearness, let these facts be arranged in tabular form. For the whole United States we have this result:

1850. 1860. 1880.

Average value of farms .......................................... $2, 258. 00 $3, 251. 00 82, 569. 00 Per inhabitant............................... .......................... 142. 00 211. 00 203. 00 Improved land per acre.......................................... 11. 00 16. ()() 19. 00 Acreage per inhabitant.......................................... 12. 70 12. 90 10. 70

Taking the six New England States, which have had nothing but remarkable prosperity, with an en(1l'mous increase in their ''home market," we get the following results:

18.50. 1860. 1880.

Va.I ue of farms ............................ $372, 348, 543. 00 $476, 303, 837. 00 $.580, 681, 418. 00 Average value of farms ............... 2, 220. 00 2, 589. 00 ·2, 802. 00 Averagevalue,acre (improved}.. 33.00 ~9.00 46.00 Average value per capita............ 136.00 152.00 145.00 Acreage per capita .. . ........... .. ... ... 4.10 3. 80 3. 20

Twenty years of protection brought no greater increase in the value of farms than ten years of free trade to the New England States. This average was that ot the whole Union. How was it with New Jersey, specially favored with home markets since 1860?

Total land in farms .................. acres .. . Improved land ........................... do ..... .

~:~~! ~ffa~i!~ ·:::::::::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::: Value of each ..................................... .. Value Qfproduct ............................... .. Product of each farm .......................... . Product of each farmer ....................... .

1850.

2, 752, 946 1, 767, 991

sos 1.20, 237, 511

5,~ 26, 702, 700

1,117 828

1860.

2, 983,525 I, 944, 441

S93 180, 250, 338

6,IH9 30,970, 700

1,124 635

1880.

2,929,773 2,096,297

S9t l 90, 895, 833

5, 5Gi 29,650,~

500

These figures ought to satisfy any one on earth that the farmer at least, has lost and lost heavily by thirty years of protective tariffs. The merciless tax, known as the protective tariff, lays iU!greedy fingers on the earnings of all those engaged in trade and transportation; all those engaged in professional and personal service; all those engaged in building, tailoring, dressmaking, butchering, blacksmithing, and that vast army of laborers engaged in tilling the soil and stock-raising, and renders to none a single benefit.

It h urm every body and helps nobody except a few protected monopolists that own the protected industries. Then what has protection done that so endears it to some people? It has created a moneyed aristocracy and built castles in our land and castles int.he air for prospective Presidential candidates. It concentrates the wealth of the country into a few hands, who never disgorge until an election rolls around, when to save "our (their) protective system" they seek to debauch the American people and deprive them of their birthright for a mess of pottage. [Applause.]

[Here the hammer foll.] [Mr. FORMAN withholds bis remarks for revision. See .Appendix.]

Mr. McKENNA. I move that the committee now rise. The motion was agreed to; and Mr. PERKINS having taken the chair

as Speaker pro tempore, Mr. MORROW reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, having had under consideration the bill {H. R. 9416) to reduce the revenue and equalize the duty on imports, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

l\Ir. MORSE. I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed tp; and accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 25 min

utes p. m.) the Honse adjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock a. m.

EXECUTIVE .AND. OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, the following communications were

taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: APPROPRIATIONS FOR PAY OF CLERKS IN POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

Letter from tlie Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a commµ.nication from the Postmaster-General, requesting an appropriation for the pay of twenty clerks-to the Committee on Appropriations.

AFFID.A VIT IN CASE OF CL.AIM OF A. T. DICKERMAN. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a copy of a

communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, inclosing certain affidavits relating to a depredation claim of A. T. Dickerman, which was transmitted to Congress January 5, 1887-to the Select Com mittee on Indian Depredation Claims.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, reporliS of committees were delivered to the Cler!>; and disposed of as follows:

Mr. MARTIN, of Indiana, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported favorably the bill of the Senate (S. 2144) granting a pension to Edmund T. Spotswood-to the Committee of the Whole House.

He also, from the same committee, repor~ed with amendment the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Com mittee of the Whole House:

A bill (H. R. 3601) to increase the pension of Andrew Langton, late of Company E, Twenty-seventh Indiana Volunteers;

A bill (H. R. 8300} granting a pension to John H. Anderson; and A bill (H. E. 8302) granting a pension to Mary E. Graham. Mr. DOLLIVER, from the Committee on War Claims, reported fa!

orably the bill of the House (H. R. 4153) for the relief of William Thompson-to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. NUTE, from the Committee on- InvaliQ. Pensions, reported .favorably the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole House:

A b1ll (H. R. 3766) granting a pension to Joseph Dascomb; A bill (H. R. 4707) granting a pension to Aphia M. Brown; and A bill (H. R. 6800) granting a pension to Anne Mattocks. :Mr. NUTE also, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported

·~ ,

~ •. -

... -.

•I

........ ---

.· ..• · , I


with amendment the bill of the House (H. R. 6217) granting a pension to Abbie A. Colson-to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

Mr. TA.YLOR, of Tennessee, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, report<1d favorably the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 6519) granting a pension to William M. Nourse, of Knoxville, Tenn.; and

A bill (H. R. 6001) granting an increase of pension to Elnathan Meade, late of Company C, Forty-fourth New York Volunteers.

Mr. MORRILL, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported favorably the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

A bill (H. R. 2512) granting an increase of pension to Hugh Uc-Hugb;

A bill (IJ. R. 2518) granting a pension to Ozro Harrington; A bill (H. R. 6032) granting a pension tol\fary Welsh; A bill (H. R. 7875) granting a pension to E. Patton, of Benedict,

Kans.; A bill (H. R. 8.560) granting a pension to .M:rs. SallieH. Wilson; and A bill (H. R 9244) granting a pension to Lewis W. Bloom, of Etna,

Kans. Mr. MORRILL also, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, re

ported with amendment the bill of the House tH. R. 2550) granting a pension to William C. Ebert-to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

Mr. CRAIG, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported favorably the followin~ bills; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 5736) granting a pension to John L. Lindel; and A bill (S. 992) granting a pension to Phillipe Ray. Mr. CRAIG, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported with

amendment the following bills of the Honse; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 9565) granting an increase of pension to Joseph N. Wilson· and

A bill (H. R. 7879) granting a pension to Emily P. Collins. Mr. TURNER, of New York, from the Committee on Invalid Pen

sions, reported favorably the following bills; ·which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 9316) granting an increase of pension to Thomas G. Boss·

A bill (H. R. 9317)granting a pension toMargaretM. Clements; and A bill (S. 1294) to increase the pension of James Coey. Mr. TURNER, of New York, also, from the Committee on Invalid

Pensions, rei1orted with amendment the bill of the Honse (H. R. 9311) granting an increase of pen.sil)n to Morgan Dimond-to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

Mr. GOODNIGHT, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported with amendment the bill of the Honse (H. R. 1765) granting a pension to James Butler-to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

He also, from the same committee, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 6055) to grant relief to Eliza.beth Phillips and child, as widow of Reuben Phillips, reported, as a substitute therefor, a bill (H. R. 10101) granting a pension to Elizabeth M. Phillips, widow of Reuben Phillips; which was read twice and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. SA WYER, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported favora.bly the following bills of the Honse; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 10075) granting a pension to Montraville A. Harring-ton;

A bill (H. R. 9463) granting a pension to Quincy J. Drake; and A bill (H. R. 10074) granting a. pension to Wilhelm Griese. Mr. SA WYER also, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, re

ported with amendment the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole House:

A bill (H. R. 9783) granting a pension to Mary Ferguson; and A bill (H. R. 19) to increase the pension of Ed ward P. Quinn. Mr. BELKNA.P, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, reported

favorably the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole House: •

A bill (H. R. 3376) granting a pension to Catherine McManus; A bill (H. R. 9313) granting a pension to Mary D. McChesney; and A bill (H. R. 942.'l) for the relief of Charles Ewing. l\fr. BELKNAP also, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, re

ported with amendment the following bills of the House; which were severally referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse:

A bill (H. R. 8730) granting a pension to T. G. Metcalf; A bill (H. U. 2414) increasing the pension of Nelson Rich; A bill \H. R. 8910) granting an increase of pension to Clinton Spencer;

and A bill (H. R. 9232) to grant a pension to George E. Taylor. Mr. MORROW, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which

was referred the joint resolution of the Honse (H. Res. 4) requesting the Prerident to open negotiations with Mexico for the promotion of commercial and friendly relations and for the adjustment of boundaries, reported asasubstitnte therefor, a joint resolution (H. Res. 160) request-

ing the President of the United States to negotiate with the Govern• ment of Mexico for the creation of an international commission to ad· j nst all questions affecting the interesra of both conn.tries requiring settlement; which was read twice and referred to the House Calendar.

ADVERSE REPORTS.

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, adverse reports were delivered to the Clerk and laid on the table, as follows:

By Mr. RANDALL: On the bill (H. R. 3529) to grant a pension to C. J. Johnson.

By Mr. MORRILL: On the bill (H. R. 5264) granting a pension to Daniel Bells.

Also, on the bill (H. R. 9218) for the relief of J. F. G. Cleborne, late private Company F, Second Arkansas Cavalry.

Also, on the bill (H. R. 5325) granting a pension to Joseph D . .Ash. Also, on the bill (H. R. 3737) for the relief of Peter R. Crum.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills of the following titles were intro

duced, severally read twice, and referred_ as follows: By Mr. MOORE, of Texas: A bill (H. R. 10099) directing the Secre

tary of War to make survey of the Colorado River in Texas, and for other purposes-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. TURNER, of New York: A bill (H. R.10100) to amend the charter of the Georgetown and Tennallytown Railway Company of the District of Columbia-to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By :l'tfr. CALDWELL: A bill (H. R. 10103) to prevent the desecration of the United States flag-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DINGLEY: A bill (H. R.10104) to amend the laws relating to shipping commissions-to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. ATKINSON, of Pennsylvania (by request): A bill (H. R. 10105) for the protection of the rights of owners of lots in Columbian Harmony Cemetery, in the District of Columbia-to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

CHA.NOE OF REFERENCE.

Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, the following changes of reference were made:

A bill (H. R. 9212) to relieve John J. Murphy from the charge of desertion-Committee on Military Affairs discharged, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

A bill (H. R. 4720) for the relief of Josephine Thomas-Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills of the following titles were presented and referred as indicated below:

By Mr. BAKER: A bill (H. R.10106) granting an increase of pension to Christian Schaub-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. BINGHAM: A bill (H. R.10107) for the relief of John K. Betson-to the Committee on 1nvalid Pensions.

By Mr. BOUTELLE: A bill (H. R. 10108) granting a pension to Iva J. Gee-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CAREY: A bill (H. R.10109) granting a pension to Norman Davis-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CASWELL: A bill (H. R. 10110) for the relief of David Hunter-to the Committ.ee on War Claims.

By Mr. DUNPHY: A bill (H. R. 10111) for the relief of Peter Mttrphy-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. SHIVELY: A bill (H. R.10112) for the relief of Charles E. Bentley-to the Committee on :Military Affairs.

By Mr. TURPIN: A bill (H. R. 10113) to pension Mrs. Classa Mixon, of Wilcox County, Alabama-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. WADE: A bill (H. R. 10114) for the relief of William P. Buckmaster-to the Committee on War Claims.

PETITIONS. ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

By Mr. BELDEN: Petition of 123 citizens of Homer, N. Y., asking for legislation to perpetuate the national-banking system-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Also, petition of 35 citizens of Lysander, N. Y., asking for the immediate passage of the McKinley tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By J\fr. BROWER: Petition of R. C. Dick and 27 others, citizens of Gibsonville, G""nilford County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of Honse bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Robert A. Gill and 87 others, citizens of Granville County, North Carolina, asking for the pas.sage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the C'.ommittee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Y. S. Lawrence and 14 others, citizens of Forsyth

\.

- , (.: -·

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 4439 County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. L. B»0oks and 37 othel'S, citizens of Person County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of C. J. Yarbrough and 23 othel'S, citizens of Caswell County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Cc>mmittee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. A. Winstead and 30 others, citizens of Durham Cou.nty, North Carolina, Mking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of P. T. Evans and 10 others, members of Williamsborough Alliance, No. 225, of Vance County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-t-0 the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. W. Conraad and 52 others, members of Spanish Grove Alliance, No. 574, of Forsyth County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of P. A. Cox and 24 others, members of Oak Summit Alliance, No. 37, of Forsyth County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of 0. P. Cox and 23 others, citizens of Rockingham County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. C. Frazier and 18 others, citizens of North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Ellis W. Hauser and 18 others, members of Oak Grove Alliance, No. 1450, of Forsyth County, North Carolina, asking for the passage House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

.Also, petition of T. I. Gourly and 9 others, members of Middle Fork Alliance, No. 1508, of Forsyth County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J a.mes W. Meisner and 15 others, citizens of Rockingham County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7102 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Thomas S. Lea. and 52 others, members of County Line Alliance, No. 759, of Caswell County, North Carolina., asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of P. C. Burk and 12 others, citizens of Forsythe County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of R. S. Mitchell and 45 others, citizens of Locust Hill Township, Caswell County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. R. Schoolfield and 19 others, citizens of Guilford County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of L. L. Lowe and 49 others, members of Bason Alliance, No. 1343, of Rockingham County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-t-0 the Committee on Ways and Means:

Also, petition of J. A. Walker and 28 others, citizens of Rockingham County, North Carolina, asking for the pass~e of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of John D. Meador and 16 others, citizens of Rockingham Conn ty, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Ferrel Fulton and 19 others, mem hers of Rock Hill Alliance, No. 1525, of Forsyth County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of House bill 7162 or Senate hill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. THO~!AS M. BROWNE: Petition of W. C. Price and 12 others, dealers in cutlery, of Richmond, Ind., against an increase of duty on cutlery-to the Committee on Waye and Means.

Also, petition of 35 citizens of Richmond, Ind., for a tariff on imported cigars-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of 40 citizens of Spiceland, Ind., for- the retention of the duty on sugar-to the Committee on 'Vays and l\Ieans.

By Mr. CANDLER, of Georgia: Petition of L. I. Conrad and 32 others, from Forsyth County, Georgia, asking for the passage of House bill No. 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of G. S. Gunter and 20 others, from Lumpkin County, Georgia, for the p,ame measures-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of M. S. Paden and others, citizens of Cherokee County, Georgia, for the pass.'lge of House bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. COMSTOCK: Petition from Minnesota, favoring Grand Army of the Republic pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CONGER: Petition of D. B. Morrow and 27 others, citizens

of Des Moines, Iowa, for the passage of laws for the perpetuation of the national-banking system-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Also, petition of 75 citizens of Douglas County, Migsouri, for remonetization of silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By Mr. DALZELL: Petition of sundry citizens of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for the perpetuation of the national-banking system, under which the interests of the depositors are protected by Government supervision-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. DE LA.NO: Memorial signed by citizens of Binghamton, N. Y., respectfully protesting against placing a duty of $2 per pound upon Sumatra tobacco, and respectfully petitioning that a uniform duty of 50 cents be passed and be placed thereon-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. DOLLIVER: Protest of Dodge, Baker & Webber, of Iowa, against duty on granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, various petitions from Iowa, against the gun and cutlery schedules of the McKinley tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ENLOE: Petition of colored citizens of Hardeman County, Tennessee, against the Conger lard bill-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. FARQUHAR: Petition of 32 members of the Buffalo Merchants' Exchange, asking for the passage of the Torrey bankruptcy bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. GIFFORD: Petition of John A. Rawlins Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of Plankinton, S. Dak., in favor of a servfoe-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, petition by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, of Black Hills, S. Dak., against any appropriation for the increase of the Navyto the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, petitions of Woman's Christian Temperance Union and other associations from South Dakota, for a national Sunday-rest law-to the Committee on Labor. .

By Mr. HARMER: Memorial of the Philadelphia Board of Trade, in favor of the passage of a bill granting a pension to the widow of the late Commodore George B. White, of the United States Navy-to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, memorial of the select and common councils of the city of Philadelphia, in favor of the passage of Senate bill 2971, granting a pension to the widow of the late Commodore George B. White, United States Navy-to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. HEARD: Petition of citizens of Saline County, Missouri, in favor of Government aid to the establishment of a deep-water harbor at Galveston, Tex.-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa: Paper signed by 76 citizens of Quasqueton, Buchanan County, Iowa, favoringtheservice-pension billto the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, resolution of District Assembly No. 4, Knights of Labor, St. Louis, Mo., in opposition to adulterated food-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, paper from Farmers' Alliance No. 1229, Greene, Butler County, Iowa, favoring the Butterworth bill against gambling in farm produceto the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, resolutions of Chicago Post-Office Clerks' Association, asking for increase of pay and fifteen days' leave annually-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. HITT: Petition of J. Leavitt Moore and 63 others, citizens of Polo, Ogle County, Illinois, for the passa~e of laws for the perpetuation of the national-banking system, under which the interest of depositors is protected by Government supervision-to the Committee on Banking and Currency. .

By Mr. KERR, of Pennsylvania: Petition of farmel'S and representatives of Grange No. 828, Clarion County, Pennsylvania, W.W. Wyman, master, asking for legislation, etc.-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, memorial of farmers and grangel'S, representatives of Lodge No. 654, James Elgin, master, Clarion County, Pennsylvania, asking legislation in their interests and a.gains the demonetization of silver-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. LANHAM: Petition of J. F. Amos and 53 others, of Jack County, Texas, asking passage of House bill 838, for free coinage of silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

By l\Ir. LESTER, of Georgia: Petition of W. P. Donaldson and others, citizens of Bullock County, Georgia, in favor of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Jasper Bragg and 18 others, citizens of Screven County, Georgia, asking for the pa.ssage of House bill 7162-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. McCLELLAN: Protest of Bernar & Pullman, of KendaUville, Ind., against any increase of the duty upon foreign granite, and declaring that their business would be seriously impaired if any increase of duty is brought about; that it would exclude the use of red granites and thereby create a sameness in the appearance of our cemeteries by the exclusive use of the gray, which are only beautified by a variety of colors, of which our domestic quarries do not yield the supply-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

•I

\_ .. ~.

_,

(···:>

'

.I

.. [ '. '

·• .•.. I

'· .I

4440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. MAY 10,

By Mr. McKINLEY: Petition favoring passage of McKinley tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means .

.Also, copy of resolutions passed by Toledo Associati9n of Ex-Prisoners of War, asking passage of House bill 319-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MORRILL: Protestof R. D. Moore, ofSeµeca, Kans., against any increase of duty on foreign granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. O'DONNELL: Petitionof photographers of Marshall, Mich., against the proposed increase of duty on photographic albumen paperto the Coi;nmittee on Ways and Means.

Also, remonstrances of Standard Gig-Saddle Company, Jackson, Mich., against the proposed increase of duty on hides-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, remonstrance of Ewing & Portner, of Cold water, Mich., against the increase of duty on foreign granite-t-0 the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, remonstrance of .Asa P. Green, of Battle Creek, Mich., against increase of duty on foreign granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means .

.Also, remonstrance of J . .Anderson, Coldwater, Mich., against increase of duty on foreign granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means .

.Also, remonstrance of Ira W. Reed, Albion, Mich., against increase of duty on foreign granite-t-0 the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, remonstrance of H.J. Pearsall, Grand Ledge, Mich., against increase of duty on foreign granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, remonstrance of J. H. & M. C. Shafer, Battle Crec:.k, Mich., against increase of duty on foreign granite-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania: Resolution of the Philadelphia Commandery of the Loyal Legion of the United Sliates, in favor of the speedy publication of the official records of the rebellion-to the Com-mittee on Military .Affairs. .

By Mr. ROWLA.ND: Petition of citizens of Mecklenburgh County, North Carolina, asking for the passage of Honse bill 7162 or Senate bill 2806-to the Committee on Ways and ~1eans.

By Mr. RUSSELL: Petition of 15 tobacconists of Norwich, Conn., against the passage of Schedule Fin thetariff bill, favoring the abolishment of the import stamp, etc.-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

.Also, petition of Norwich (Conn.) Post-Office Clerks' Association, for the pas.sage of House bills 6448 and 7349-to the Committee on the Post-0.ffice and Post-Roads.

Also, petition of Carpenter & Jordan, of Willimantic, Conn., against increase of duty on cutlery-to the Committee on Ways and ~ieans.

By Mr. SAYERS: Petition of citizens of Texas, in reference to the duties on cigars and tobacco-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr ... SMITH, of .Arizona: Remonstrance of citizens of .Arizona, against passage of. sections 24 and 25of House bill 8278, prohibiting sale of railroad tickets by any person except regularly authorized agents of company-to the Committee on Commerce.

By l\Ir. SNIDER: Petition of teachers and citizens of St. Paul, Minn., favoring the Lawler resolution for improved methods in spelling-to the Committee on Printing.

Also, petition of cigar-makers and citizens of St. Paul, Minn., favoring a duty of 50 to 65 per cent. on foreign tobacco, and repeal of law requiring the affixing of special stttmp on boxes containing imported cigars-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. STIVERS: Petition of George E. Bennett and 60 others, citizens and business men of Sullivan County, New York, for the passage of laws for the perpetuation of the national-banking system, under which the interest of depositors is protected by Government supervision-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. STOCKBRIDGE: Protest of 23 Baltimore firms, against section 32 of the tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, protest of 144 citizens of Baltimore, against tobacco schedule of tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Ur. 8TRUBLE: Petition of Keith & Brother, photographers, of Alta, Iowa, against increase of duty on photographic albumen paperto the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Townsend Bros., of Granville, Iowa, against increase of duty on breech·loadingguns and cutlery-to the Committeeon Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Hilliard Still worthy, Sioux City, Iowa, against the increase of duty on breech·loading guns-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of J. H. Hamilton and 50 others, photographers, of Sioux City, Iowa, against the increase of duty on photographic albumen paper-to the Committee on ·ways and Means.

.Also, petition of R. I. Dabb and R. H. Carratt, photographers, Le Mars, Iowa, again.st facrease of duty on photographic albumen paperto the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. VE~ABLE: Petition of Isaac Rainers and 30 others, citizens of Greensville County, Virginia, praying for an appropriation for Galveston Harbor-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. WAL KER, of Missouri: Petition ofT. J. Geitber and 10 others,

citizens of Bollinger County, Missouri, asking for the passage of House bill 8984-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of P. D. Whitener and 21 others, citizens of Bollinger County, Missouri, asking for the passage of House bill 8984-to tM Committee on Ways and Means. .

Also, petition of S. M. Butterton and 20 others, citizens of Butle~ County, Missouri, asking for the pa.ssage of a bill for the improvement of Galveston Harbor-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of P. T. Ray and 14 others, of Bollinger County, Missouri, asking for the passage of House bill 8984-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. WRIGHT: Memorial of Grange No. 884, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in favor of free coinage of silver-to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures.

SEN.A.TE.

SA.TURD.A. Y, May 10, 1890. Prayer by Rev. CHARLES B. RAMSDELL, of Washington City. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to a resolution of the 7th instant, a statement showing all action taken by Congress at different times on the subject of the transfer of the revenue marine from the Treasury Department to the Navy Department; which, with the accompanying papers, was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to a resolution of December 19, 1889, a further report by the Third Auditor of the Treasury in relation to Indian war claims of the State of California; which was read.

Mr. STANFORD. I move that that communication, with the accompanying papers, be referred to the Committee on Military .Affairs, and printed.

Mr. MANDERSON. I ask what this communication is. It seems to be very voluminous .

Mr. CULLOM. What is the general subject? The VICE-PRESIDENT. The communication will be read. The Chief Clerk read the communication. Mr. MANDERSON. I suggest to the Senator .from California that

perhaps the communication bad better be referred t-0 the Committee on Printing that it may be examined; otherwise we may duplicate printing already done.

l\Ir. STANFORD. I want the Committee on Military Affafrs, who have the subject under consideration~ to'have this communication.

Mr. MANDERSON. I mean merely the question of printing should be referred to the Committee on Printing.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The firs~ part of the report has already been printed.

Mr. STANFORD. Then I have no objection to the reference to the Committee on Printing.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The communication, with the accompanying papers, will be referred to the Committee on Printing.

EULOGIES ON THE LATE REPRESENTATIVE KELLEY.

Mr. CAMERON. I wish to give notice that on Friday next, the 16th inst.ant, at 4 o'clock, I shall call up the resolutions on the death of Judge William D. Kelley, late a member of the Hquse of Representatives from the State of Pennsyl.vania, for the purpose of submitting remarks thereon.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 1\Ir. SHERMAN presented a petition of 64 citizens of Findlay, Ohio,

praying for the passage of laws for the perpetuation of the nationalbanking system; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. QUAY presented petitions of granges of Patrons of Husbandry, of Forest, Warren, Columbia, Bradford, Lawrence, Crawford, Union, Susquehanna, and Tioga Counties, in tbe State of Pennsylvania, praying for the free coinage of silver; which were ordered to lie on the table.

He also presented the petition of Grange No. 817, Patrons of Husbandry, of Tioga County, Pennsylvania, praying for an increased ta.riff on agricultural products; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented additional papers to accompany Senate bill 3532, granting a pension to Georgiana W. Vogdes; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. PADDOCK presented a petition of the Nebraska ·woman Sut: frage Association, praying for the passage of Senate bill 999, to recompense Miss Anna Ella Carroll for services to the War Department; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. HARRIS presented a petition of the Board of Trade of Knoxville, Tenn., praying for the pas.sage of a uniform bankrupt law; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - US Government ...

Documents

Transcript of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - US Government ...