ri « 55 T Hiiiilii! m M Cornell University Library HF 1755.T18 [Tariff reform pamphlets] 3 1924 013 997 568 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013997568 TariffReform— Revision of Rates not Reduction of Revenues- The Public Credit must be Maintained. SPEECH OP HOK HORATIO C. BURCHARD, OF ILLINOIS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 25, 1876. Wi^ s H I N" G 'T o >r . 1876. SPEECH HON. HORATIO C. BURCHARD. Tlie Houso buing in Committee of the Whole on the state of the TJuioii— . Mr. BUECHAED, of IlUnois said : Mr. Chairman: A measure attemptiDg to adjust more equitably the Tjurdens, and to distribute more fairly tlie benefits resulting from tariff duties, deserves the early and earnest consideration of the House. The present tariff rates were established during the war and were Hhe necessary outgrowth of its vast expenditures. Eeturning peace has but slightly modified their unnecessary and rig- orous exactions. To frame a bill which, without distiu'bance to ex- isting industries or injustice to different sections or interests of the Union and without impairment of the revenue, shall lighten tax- ation, is a most diffioiilt and delicate task. The Committee of Ways and Means have, 1 concede, earnestly labored' to accomplish this result. Their work is before the House, and I regret that it has come from the- oornmittee so defective and incomjplete that unless materially amended I cannot support or urge its passage. Whatever its purpose it must be judged by its scope and probable effect. Containing much that is commendable, it is, in my judgment, imper- fect in its details and adjustment of taritif rates, and as a revenue measure would prove disastrous to the public credit. Eeform, not reduction of revenue, should be the object of tariff re- vision. Insufficient revenues would successfully demand of another Congress the re-imposition of repealed duties. The misconception or disregard of the future needs of the Treasury was the fatal mistake in the tariff reductions of 1832, 1837, and 1872. The necessity for Tiigher duties to meet current expenditures passed the tariff' acts of 1842, 1861, and 1875. Let us not repeat the folly that produced the reaction. But, Mr. ChairmaTi, in so far as the pending bill seeks to relieve taxation, to reduce to a revenue standard excessive duties upon lead- ing manufactures, to lower prohibitory rates so as to permit fair com- petition, and to prevent extortionate prices through combination, it has my sympathy and approval. Its purpose, as avowed by the chairman, to lessen the burdens upon consumers, diminish bounties to favored producers, simplify the mode of imposing and ascertaining duties, and place upon the free list du- tiable articles returning but little revenue, deserves support. TAEUT EEVISIOK XECESSAKY. That the present tariff needs revision cannot be denied. Its high- est rates were imposed and adjusted dirring a period of heavy and aug- menting importations incident to a vast war and to meet the necessi- ties of the Treasury in carrying it on. Increased cost of production, occasioned by internal taxation, justly entitled domestic manufactures to compensation by imposing increased duties upon similar imported commodities. To re-imburse himself for tax and duty upon imported raw material, the domestic manufacturer demanded and obtained higher tariff rates on foreign products competing with his own. Upon the close of the war the manufacturers successfully appealed to Congress to remove taxation upon raw material and domestic pro- duotion. The Ugh compensatory duties on foreign manufactures, however, are still retained. War rates, no longer required by the Treasury, and which the domestic manufacturer no longer could claim, have been and are now continued. Were the resultingbene- fits and burdens equallv distributed among and upon the diflerent industries and sections of the Union, there would be less cause of corn- In the case of imported articles of general consumption, the en- hanced price which constitutes the burden upon the consumer is com- pensated by the benefit to the Treasury from the payment of the duty. But the enhanced prices which theconsumer by reason of thetariff pays upon domestic articles benefit the manufacturers and their dependent employes and industries. The consumer bears the burden, but seldom shares in the benefit. In the discussion of this question to which I am inviting attention I desire to disavow any opposition to a tariff for revenue. For tJie next thirty years at least, what Hamilton and Madison would have called a high tariff is an inexorable necessity. The public debt for interest and sinking fund will require for that period a tariff averag- ing 30 per cent, or more on dutiable imports. Such revenue tariff raising $130,000,000 annually will necessarily be protective. Manu- facturers ask for stability. A revenue tariff will stand as long as the public debt remains. The proper office of a tariff, the raising of revenue, is sought to be diverted to the exclusion of foreign competition. A reduction of duties to the former rates has been and is now opposed by those whO' regard protection as the end and revenue the incident of a tariff. They ask for rates that shall exclude the cheaper foreign article, so as to give the market to the dearer American product. American manufacturers must control American markets is the high-tariff catch-word. How do the duties enable American manu- facturers to control the market ? Surely by compelling the importer to charge the consumer a price increased by the amount of the duty,, just below which price the American manufacturer with ample profit can offer his own goods. The purpose of the protective duty is to give the manufacturer a, better price. In no other way can it aid him. Without the duty he admits the competition would lower his price and his profits. PBOTECTED INDUSTRIES. There are at present six leading protected industries : manufact- ures of cotton, woolen, and silk fabrics, iron and steel, paper and glass. They have an invested capital of over $400,000,000, and their annual production is double that value. Of the three largest of these industries affected by the proposed change of duties, cotton, woolen, and iron and steel, the census and customs statistics give us this information : Number em-ployed in and value of products of manufactures of cotton, iron and steel, and woolens in 1870. Manufactures. Nurater employed. Value oi products. Cotton sis *177, 489, 739 331, 738, 594 199, 257, 262 Iron and steel Woolen and -worsted, including carpets Total 380, 422 708, 475, 595 The precise effect that the present duty has and the proposed re- iliictious of the bill will have upon the price of these coBimoditios is not capable of exact estimation. If their price is augmented to the extent of the rate of duty imposed on similar imported articles, then the American consumers of these goods, in addition to the $43,000,000 in gold paid for revenue upon |90,000,000 of imports, pay upon 1708,000,000 of domestic manufactures 1225,000,000 for the benefit of home production. The proportionate duty and enhanced price paid upon each of the three classes would be : Duty in 1875 on imports. it 1,' Domestic product. ilanufacture. Value. Estimated eulianoed prices. $9, 043, 654 6,814,200 27, 821, 177 40 35 60 $177, 000, 000 332, 000, 000- 199, 000, 000 $66, 000, 000 86, 000, 000 74, 000, 000 Iron and steel Woolen and worsted Total 43, 679, 031 1 708,000,000 226, 000, 000 The estimated reductions of duties iu the bill from the duties re- ceived during the last fiscal year amount to $12,182,4.54.53, of which the reduction on cotton, iron, steel, and woolen manufactures is esti- mated to be $9,741,100. The principal benefits will therefore inure to the consumers of those articles if the duty inereases the price. Consumers will not only be relieved from the tariff tax on the imported article, but from the en- hanced price of the domestic article. The total reduction anticipated from the bill on the four manufactures iiamed'would be, on the basis of the census returns for 1870 and duties received for 1875, $66,000,000. Article. Value of im- ports. Value of do- mes tloman- ufactures. Reduction of duties. h Eeduction of prices on do- mestic man- ufactui'es. Cotton mannfact- ?a4, 199,703 20, 474, 2-14 45, 627, 923 J177, 000, 000 322, 000, 000 199, 000, 000 $1, 618, 417 1, 105, 809 6, 926, 874 .06f .058 .15 ?11, 000, 000 2q, 000, 000 26, 000, 000 Iron and steel man- Woolen manufact- Total 90, 301, 960 733, 000, 000 9, 741, 100 57, 000, 000 If the reduction of tariff revenues $9,000,000 will lessen the taxa- tion upon consumers even $30,000,000 or $20,000,000 without serious injury to the interests affected, the proposed revision of rates should be adopted. The computation assumes that the American consumer, by reason of the tariff, pays an increased price for the goods he pur- chases. It supposes that the importer charges the duty in the price asked of the jjurchaser, and that similar domestic goods are advanced in price to thi same extent. If true, the injustice and favoritism of liigh protective duties are apparent aud indefensible. It is important to ascertain, if possible, upou whom tariff duties fall. WHO PAYS THE TARIFF BUTIES ? Surely the consumer of the dutiable imports. " No," say the maun- faoturers, "the foreion producer seeking our market pays the dut}'. For proof, the price oiE some exceptional commodity m great demaiidat a period of high prices is selected and compared with subsequent prices^ and it is assumed that the tariff lowered the price. The manufact- urer does not believe it; for he wants no duties, or low duties, on his raw materials, because he wants them cheap. He asks high duties^ on his products, so that he may get a better price. I will not attempt to argue the proposition ; it seems too absurU. Facts, logic, and common sense deny it. ...,-,, Here is what one of the ablest, faii-est, and most distinguished ad- vocates of governmental protection for manufacturers says of the proposition. . • • j.i John Quincy Adams, speaking from years of public service m the administration of the affairs of the Government, in a most able report upon manufactures made in 1832, the portion of his successor's mess- age referred to the committee of which he was chairman, said : The dootriDe that duties of import cheapen the price of the articles upon wluch they are levied seems to conflict with the first dictates of common sense. The duty constitutes a part of the price of the -whole mass of the article in the market. It is substantially paid upon the article of domestic manufacture as well as upon that of foreign production. Upon one it is a hounty, upon the other a burden, and the repeal of the tax must operate as an equivalent reduction of the price of the article, whether foreign or domestic. "We say, so long as tho importation contin- ues, the duty must he paid by the purchaser of the article. The incidental effect of competition in the market, excited, on the part of the domestic manufacturer, by the aggravation of duty upon the corresponding article- imported from abroad to' reduce the price of the article, must be tnansient and momentary. The general and permanent effect must be to increase the price of the article to the extent of the add!itional duty, and it is then paid by the consumer. If it were not so, if the general effect of adding to a duty were to reduce the price of the article upon which it is levied, the converse of the proposition would also be true and the operation for increasing the price of the domestic article would be to repeal the duty upon the same article' imported — an experiment which th e friends of our internal industry will not be desirous of making. We cannot subscribe, therefore, to the doctrine that the duties of import protective of our own manu- factures are paid by the foreign merchant or manufacturer. There are many indications that tariff duties enhance prices, and consequently manufacturers' profits among them : First. Accumulated wealth of the manufacturing States. Second. Large deposits in banks. Third. Dividendsof manufacturing companies iuhigh-tariffperio^^s. Fourth. Effect upon imports if producer pays duty. Fifth. Comparison of prices of same article under "successive tariffs. WEALTH OF MAXUFACTUKIXG STATES. If th§ tariff secures for the manufacturer of protected article^ boun- ties exacted from consumers, localities and States where the favored industries flourish should show a rapid and greater increase in wealth. Consistently with this view the greatest manufacturing States stand among tho foremost in the census returns in the per capita amount of wealth. The average is in — New York $1, 4f'3 27 Massachusetts 1,463 03 Connecticut 1 44t 30 Rhode Island * \\\\ I'aeg gg. Pennsylvania .".!!!! I'oSl 31 New Jersey 1 038 49 In contrast, States as old, having as fertile soil, that f nrnish our great staples for export, have not one-half of the wealth. BANK DEPOSITS IN MANUFACTURING STATES. These also indicate large accumulations. The total individual de- posits in all the banks of the United States in May, 1875, amounted, to 12,017,4.53,300.87. Of this the ba,nks of the following mannfactur- 7 iiig States hekl far in excess of their proportion according to popula- tion: Ife-wTork $704,385,307 70 Maasachnsetts 308, 349, 025 21 Pennsylvajnia 194, 917, 452 50 Connecticut 92,495,122 70 Khode Island 59,238,036 63 JTe-n- Jersey 54,683,592 78 Total, six States 1,414,068,537 52 The remaining thirty-one States and eight Territories have hut $600,000,000 of deposits. This wealth may, and doubtless in part has been, largely accumu- lated from other pursuits than manufacturing. 5IAXUFACTUEEES' DIVIDENIIS. The dividends of manufacturing companies indicate the elifeot of high and low tariffs upon prices. Manufacturers' profits, i£ the cost of production is uniform, will depend upon the prices obtained for their products. Higher prices paid by consumers insure larger profits ' and dividends. If the foreign producer pays the tariff duty without charging any part of it to the consumer, the domestic manufacturer cannot be benefited by the tariff; for the higher or lower price at which his goods can be sold determines the amount of his profit. If the duty does not permit the domestic manufacturer and compels the importer to charge the consumer a higher price, the manufacturer has no inter- est in the duty. If the manufacturer's profits are greater under high tariffs than low tariffs, we may conclude it is because the tariff has secured, as it is designed, a higher price for products than the con- sumer would have paid without it. Greater dividends at such periods must be attributed to this cause, unless some other more probable reason is apparent. Many years ago a publication was issued,, and has been annually continued, showing the yearly dividends of New England manufact- uring companies. They vary with the condition of business and state of the currency. I condense from a table presented to the House in remarks I made a year ago, and group these dividends by tariff periods : Profits of New England manufacturing companies under high and loio tariffs, as shown by Martin's Tables of Manufacturing Dividends, pub- lished in 1871, and by subsequent annual appendices, on dutiable imports, and average rate of duty for different tariff periods. ' f Tear. Average per cent, duty on dutiable imports. 1 11 It Eemarki. 1832 33.8 32.8 34.3 31.6 30.2 26.6 32.5 34.1 19. 42.7 39.20 13. 11.40 11.75 7.25 .6.87 5. 12.44 6.36 6.71 12.10 8.30 1832 to 1834 Compromise tariff re- l duction one-tenth bi- ( ennially to 1841, there- after 20 per cent 1835 to 1836 1837 to 1838 1841 to 1842 1843 to 1846 High tariff. Low tariff. 1847 to 1857 1858 to 1861 Low tariff, 24 per cent 1862 to 1872 High tariff. 1873 to 1875 10 per cent, reduction. They almost iivariably show greater dividencls }'^.fl^^\^if^l tariif. For instance, they averaged 13 per cent, in 1832, and l^ecame gradually reduced with the 10 per cent, hienmal reduction of the fompromise tariff of that year, until 1841 and 1842, when ttey aw- aged only 5 per cent. The tariff of 1842 brought them up to 1^ pel ctnt. The eleven years' low-tariff period from 1846 gave ^videndB averaging 6.36 per cent., while the eleven years' high tanfi of 186^ and 1I72 gave 12.1 per cent. The profits of these companies in the present depression and suspension of business for the year ia75 were 5i per cent, notwithstanding many mills have been idle or running on half time for want of consumers for their goods. LOSS TO TIip FOEEIGN MAKUFACTUKKK. If the foreign producer lowers the prices of cotton fabrics 40 per cent., of iron and steel 35 per cent., of woolens 60 per cent., upon the imposition of tariff duties at those rates, how profitable his mdustry must be that can afford such a reduction. But in a country where capital is abundant and interest low he is content with profits much less than our manufacturers obtain. Ours range from 3 to 15 per an- num and abroad the average is from year to year less than 6. The foreign manufacturer might forego his profit and lower his prices 6 per cent., but far better to close his mill than attempt from year to year to bear a loss of 60, 40, or even 35 per cent., which in less than three years would exhaust not only his profit but entire capital. FOEEIGN PBODDCEE'S LOSS OS OTHER EXPORTS. The absurdity of the claim that the foreign producer pays the duty imposed by another country on the article he ships abroad is evident when an estimate is made of the loss he must sustain on his total ex- ports. For the market price of the commodity will necessarily be the same to purchasers from all countries. The exporter will not and cannot sell 10 per cent., much less 50 per cent., lower to one pur- chaser than to another. Take the case of exports from Great Britain and France. They have the whole world as a market for their products. LOSS ON EXPOETED SCOTCH PlG-IKON. According to the Bureau of Statistics, in 1870 there was produced of pig-iron in Scotland 1,206,000 tons. Tons. The ITnited States rooeived of this 97, 170 Germany 87,101 Netherlands 68,606 France ».T 40,000 All other foreign countries .' 133,232 England, Scotfind, and Ireland 232,891 Local consomption 506,000 If the Scotch iron-masters in order to market in the United States 8 per cent, of their entire product lower the price on pig-iron |9 per ton — the amount of the iunerican duty in 1870 — so that iron was no higher iu the United States by reason of the duty, they lost not the $874,530 duty on the 97,170 tons shipped to the United States, but $9 per ton on their entire product, amounting to a loss of |10,854,000. The canny Scotchman would save at least ^9,000,000 by wholly with- drawing from the American market and selling only to other coun- tries. BRITISH EXPOETS. In 1874 the total exports of Great Britain were valued at $1,098,- 702,180, of which the United States received $161,191,105. The duties paid the United States were above 40 per cent. If the British manu- \i faoturei's lowered their prices 40 per ceut. in order to compete witli the American manufacturers, thus saving the American consumers from paying , higher prices on account of the duty, the loss on the total exports would be over $400,000,000. The total exports of Great Britain in 1874 of iron and steel were to all countries 2,487,162 tons ; United States, 184,053 tons. The pro- duction of pig-iron alone was over 6,000,000. A reduction of but $1 per ton on account of the American duty would cause a loss of $2,400,000 on the total iron exports and take from the iron-masters over 16,000,000 on their total. There were exported in 1873 from the United Kingdom the following comparative values of iron and steel and their manufactures, and cot- tons and woolens, to all countries and to the United States : All coun- tries. TTnited States. $3B6, 318, 060 153,716,855 188, 656, 195 $26, 093, 731 48, 016, 959 47, 475, 263 Total . 728, 691, 110 121, 585, 953 The loss to the British exporters, if they lower their prices so as to place the value of |121,585,953 of goods upon the American market ■without any enhancement to the purchasers, would be over $300,000,- 000. The comparative export of pig-iron was ; To the United States, 102,624 tons; other countries, 1,039,441 tons; the duty, $718,368; loss, $9,276,087,> rKENOI-I EXPOKTS. France exported in 1873 to the United States $76,000,000 values of commodities, out of $964,560,000 exported to all countries. Her ex- ports to all countries and to the United States in 1872 and 1873 of silk, woolen, cotton, and linen goods were as follows : " TJuited States, 1872. All oonntries, 1873. Silks .■ ».. $33, 507, 351 8, 946, 944 1, 171, 143 1, 417, 521 $95, 712, 934 71, 042, 099 17, 051, 863 9, 271, 963 Woolens Cottons Total 45, 042, 959 193, 07?, 859 (Monthly Koports Commerce and Navigation, 1875, pages 27 and 206.) The duties collected by the United States on the portion imported into this country amounted to about |26,000,000. If the French pro- ducers paid this duty by lowering the price to that extent, as they must lower it also to purchasers from other countries, they would lose over $100,000,000 in order to find a market in the United States for goods of the value of $45,000,000. COMPABISON OF I-KICES. But the fairest and most satisfactory test of the question is to com- pare prices of the same article during high and low tariffs ; not a selected date, but average prices; not an article manufactured by some n3wly discovered patented process, therefore high-priced, like Bes- 10 semer steel until the patents expired, but a stable article liKe pig antl bar iron, steel, salt, domestic cottons, and woolen goods. Almost a half century has transpired since the tariff of 1832 was framed. A generation has been born and buried since infant manu- factories were nourished by the tariff of 1842. What lower prices have these protective duties— nevei* lower than 24 and running to nearly 50 per cent. — secured for ns than our fathers paid? In this field of inquiry we are not left to conjecture, nor dependent upon selected statistics or imperfect recollection of partial and disin- genuous writers and witnesses. In former years the facts have been gathered through our officers at home and abroad under the direction of able and impartial Secretaries, like Webster, McLane, Meredith, and Chase. I shall rely for my authority upon reports among the archives of the Government. A comparison on textile fabrics is dif- ficult, because the weight, fineness, finish, and quality of woven goods of the same name may vary, and the price is affected by the fashion and demand for the pattern and the price of the raw material. If cotton manufactures are selected and the prices of to-day compared with those of the same goods thirty years ago, it will be found that they are now much higher. In 1872 they were fully double the prices of 1842. • As textile fabrics are so variable at different times in regard to quality and cost of raw material, I ask an examination of the price of metals and particularly the PRICE OF IKOS. Fact is better than theory. The Secretaries of the Treasury have procured and preserved in executive documents the wholesale price of iron and other articles for nearly fifty years. For the purpose of comparison I have arranged in a table the annual average price of pig, bar, and railroad iron from the passage of the tariff of 1842 until 1875, reducing currency to gold prices, and only giving the latter. The tariff periods and average price and duty for eacn period aro given. The price of railroad iron is taken from the monthly com- merce and navigation reports for 1872. Grouping prices by tariff-periods, the averages are : Years. 1842 1843 to 1846 1847 to 1857. 1858 to 1861. 1863 to 1864. 1865 to 1875. 1876 Scotch pig-iron. Duty. P 56 per ton. 9 00 per ton. 30 per cent. 24 per cent. 6 00 per ton. 8 81 per ton. 7 00 per ton. Price. Per ton. $95 00 33 95 28 ,50 23 50 25 65 33 72 Bar-iron. Duty. $21 40 per ton. 25 00 per ton. 30 per cent. 24 per cent. 18 96 per ton. 21 7a per ton. Price. Per ton. $57 00 67 50 51 50 45 25 ."iS 33 70 36 ^^I^'^^' "^^^^ tl'e compromise tariff of 1833, the du-ty on pig-irou was 17.56, per ton and the New York wholesale price was |25 per ton The duty on har-iron was $21.40 per ton and the price |57 per ton. 7,^^ i^^'tocf * °l 1842 increased the duty on pig-iron to |9 ancT on bar iron to |25 per ton. The prices rose until in 1846 pie-iron sold for «38 per ton and bar for |78. The act of 1846 reduced the duty on pig-irou aud bar-iron to 30 per cent ad valorem, and the prices gradually fell to 121 for pig-iron in 1851 and to $36 for bar-iron the same year, ind the 11 average prices during tlie, eleven years that act was in force were f or- pig-iron |88.50 and for bar-iron |51.50. In 1857 the dnty was still further reduced to 24 per cent., and con- tinned at that rate for four years, during which time the average price per ton of pig-iron was $23.50 and of bar-iron If 45.25. In March, 1861, duties were increased to $6 per ton on pig-iron and to $15 per ton on bar, and the latter rate in the next and snbsec[uent years raised to l|19.50 and $22.40 per ton. During this period of higher duties the prices reduced to gold value were for pig-iron |25.65 and for bar |58.33. In 1864 duties were further advanced to $9 per ton on pig-iron, and continued at $22.40- on bar-iron, and bore that rate until 1870, during which period of six years pig-iron sold for an average price of $31.06 gold. And the aver- age gold price for bar-iron for eight years, under a duty of $32.40, was. $72.02. The latest New York wholesale-price quotations on pig and bar iron at this time of depression are not lower, but actually higher, reduced to a gold basis, than they were over twenty-five years ago, being (I quote from the Treasury Report) in 1851 of — Scotch pig-iron $21 00. American bar-iron 36 00 Indeed the average prices, reducing currency to gold, under the present rates compared with the prices under the tariffs of 1846 and 1857 have beeu under tariff of — Pig-iron. Bar-iron. 1846. 1857. ?38 50 51 50 $23 m 45 25 1864. $33 72 70 36 Twelve years of high duties give us no lower prices at any pe- riod than the price twenty-five years ago, while the average price is $20 per ton higher on bar-iron under thepresent tariff than under the- tariff of 1846 for the same number of years, and $5.22 per ton higher- on pig-iron for the corresponding periods. If it be said that the latter period embraced a period of inflated prices and large demand for iron, so did the closing years of the first period. Both show, as the prices of every year show, that the foreign- prices of iron rule the American market, and the consumer pays the larger proportion, if ifot the whole, of the duty on iron. When the mania tor railroad building on the European continent increased the demand for iron, and the Franco-German war of 1870-'71 and the im- mediate demand to repair the destruction caused by that war ad- vanced the price of iron abroad, our manufacturers on a declining; cost for coal and labor advanced their prices to the extent that the duty would permit. American pig-iron was advanced in 1872 to $45- and $50 per ton, and bar-iron to $100 per ton, being from 50 to 100 per cent, above the cost of manufactures as the prices of 1837, 1869,. and of to-day show. SALT. The relation of prices to rate of duty is unmistakably illustrated in the case of salt. The claim that the tariff had reduced the price of salt, and that the article was in 1870 lower than before the high duty then upon it was imposed, led to a: careful examination of prices for the last fifty years. These, averaged for the successive periods of differ- ing rates of duties, show that the wholesale, price in New York was. liigUest during high-duty rates upou salt and lowest under low rates. The result proves that oii salt the duty has been paid by the consumer. Average price of salt, ciirrenci/ reduced to gold. o Price. Years. Liverpool. Turk's Islaud. Cents. 20 .15 10 8 6 3 3 12 54 $2 34 1 92 1 77J 1 39i 1 24i 77 73 1 59 1 20 83J Centg. 1831 . 505 37J 1842 to 1846 32j 1846 to 1857 29i 19 1861* 20 1861 to 1872* . - 33 1872 to 1875* 27 1875 24 * Duty per one liundred pounds reduced to average rate per bushel. The salt-makers charged ip 1871 at the seaboard double the price for salt that they were compelled to accept when the duty was prac- tically but three cents per bushel. The highest export price of foreign salt at Cadiz in 1842 was five cents per bushel, and in 1843 sold as low as four cents per bushel ; at Turk's Island for eight cents per bushel, aud at Dublin for forty cents per sack, as is shown by the consular reports to the Secretary of State id 1845. (See Executive Document No. 73, 1845.) Common sense, sound logic, authority, and actual comparison of average prices of imported goods under different tariffs teach us con- clusively that the consumers of our imports pay the duty or tJie greater part. To what extent prices of protected domestic mauuf act- ures are enhanced cannot be computed with accuracy. THE AMOUNT OF TARIFF BOiraTY is difficult of ascertainment. The advantage of the tariff to the do- mestic manufacturer is in preventing foreign competition from re- ducing or preventing him from advancing his-price. Whatever en- hancement of price the tariff secures him, that is his protection. It is practically to him bounty, to the consumer a tax for his benefit. Were imports of every description of iron, steel, cotton, and woolen manufactures meeting similar domestic articles in competition in our markets, it would be safe and fail- to assume that the rate of dutv is the measure of the bounty. If the enhanced price of domestic manufactures of iron, steel cot- ton, and woolen is equal in degree to the duty imposed, the manufact- urers through the tariff on an annual production of $700,000 000 ob- tain a bounty amounting to $225,000,000. On about eight hundred millions of foreign and domestic goods consumed the tariff tax would ®?'"*1 l^H ,*;270,000 000. On the average per capita consumption of about $20 of the goods the tax would be $6, or $30 per family ; $5 of It for revenue, |25 for bounty. ^ •' ' ^ But iriany of these products receive and to be successfully manu- factured requu-e little or no protection. They can be made as cheaply as similar articles in foreign countries. Receiving no protection, theu- prices are not raised by the duty. They defy competition here and for 13 a tliirdof a century have been exported to foreign countries. Probably one-half of cotton and one-third of iron and possibly one-fourth of woolen manufactures are but slightly affected directly by the tariff duty on similar foreign goods. Aiter an elaborate examination of duties and comparative prices, Robert J. Walker, in 1847, came to the conclusion that in regard to the great mass of our imports the enhanced price is about equal to two-thirds of the duty. Applying this estimate, and the consumer can be consoled with the reflection his contribution for bounty and revenue is reduced one- third, and that his annual cotton, woolen, and iron assessment is only _ |'20, of which the revenue gets one-fourth. The annual consumption of cotton and woolen manufactures on the basis of 1870 census reports is over $11 j36r caj)ito,. or $55 per family, and a two-thirds enhanced price by reason of the duty would exact about |12 from each family in the United States if each equally consumed the goods. Allowing that only one-half of the production is similar in kind to imported articles, and that uiioii the latter the price is augmented to the extent of only two-thirds of the duty for every $43,000,000 of revenue collectid, domestic manufacturers of cotton, woolen, andiron and steel pocket $75,000,000 of bounty. In paying for revenue a yer capita tariff tax of $1 upon clothing and iron and steel consumed each consumer has contributed $1.75 to sustain these domestic indus- tries. Each family will average nearly $14 contribution— $5 of it for the Treasury, |9 for manufacturers' dividends. INJUSTICE TO OTHER ISDUSTKIES. This exhancement of price of the products of the three selected man- ufactures, amounting on the estimate of Secretary Walker to $150,- 000,000, or at the lower figures I have given to $75,000,000, inures to the benefit of manufacturers employing less than 400,000 men, women , and children, scarcely 3 per cent, of the total niimber reported in 1870 in all industrial pursuits. The non-protected shoemakers, blacksmiths, and masons outnum- ber these workmen, and the carpenters and joiners alone nearly equal them. Contrast these industries in number engaged and value of product with agricultural and other industries : Occupation. Number em- ployed. Percent- age. Value of prod- uct. 12, 505, 923 5, 932, 471 .388, 941 " 0.47 0.03 ja, 447, 538, 658 Total cotton, iron, steel, woolen, and 708, 475, 695 The inequality of the distribution of the benefits and burdens of protective.duties is apparent upon an inspection of the number en- gaged in these industries and a comparison with others : Blacksmiths 141,774 Carpenters and joiners 344, 596 Boot and shoe makers 171, 137 Railroad employfis...: 154,087 Draymen, hackmen, and teamsters 120, 756 Clerks in stores ■. 222,504 Teachers 126,822 Maaons : 89,710 Painters 85,123 Carriage aiid wagon makers ■ 42, 000* 14 If imposed to secure higher wages, high tariff clutiw arc aslced ia hehaH of 380,000 laborers at the expense oi 12,000,000 of other laboreiB such purpose is manifestly unfair. The non-protected ^laoksmith or shoemaker ought not to be assessed on his own clothing for the purpose of keepiSg up the cotton-spinners' and cloth-makers wages. The earnings of nearly 3,000,000 of farm laborers, averaging but ;»107 a year, ought not to be taken to sustain the wages of factory oper- -atives averaging three times that sum. But tariff bounties accrue to the benefit of capital rather than I have shown how dividends are swollen and wealth accumulated and hoarded in the States most largely engaged In the protected in- dustries. . The manufacturer appropriates the lion's share. He invests in en- larged mills and factories, substantial and improved residences, rail- road bonds, bank or corporate stocks, or loans on mortgage security. His accumulated wealth, often freely expended, gives m favorable times activity and prosperity to surrounding dependent industries. "The locality and its inhabitants seem to flourish as we^l as the factory and owner. DISTEILUTIOK OF BOUNTIES. Let me not be charged with sectionalisin in arrnyiug the census ■tables to show where the tariff showers its generous favors. It is not to excite envy or hate, but to appeal to equity and justice. The manufacturing States have less than one-fourth of the whole popu- lation. Seven States produce 85 per cent, of all the cotton and woolen ■manufactures. The total production of these States in 1870 was valued at $321,489,204. Were the price raised to the extent of duty ■the bounty to these manufacturers would be |I120,000,000. But sub- tracting one-half for goods able to compete with foreign goods with- •out a duty, and charging only two-thirds of the duty as enhanced price upon the remainder, the bounty rolls up to $40,000,000. It cer- tainly exceeds that sum. It gives over $3 bounty to every inhabit- ant. The proportion of Massachusetts is $14,000,000; Pennsylvania, $8,000,000 ; Connecticut, about $5,000,000 ; New York some less, and Rhode Island above the latter sum, and Maine but $3,000,000. The bounty to thirty other States, containing three times the population, reaches but $7,000,000. Let me present the figures in tabular form : Value of manufactured products of cotton and woolen (including worsteds and carpets) produced in the United States and certain States according to the census of 1870. Cottons. AVoolens, &c. Total. United States Masaa^lmsetts Pennsylvania Hhode Island , (Connecticut Ne-w York !New Hampshire , Maine , Total, seven States Total, thirty States $177, 489, 739 S199, 257, 262 $376, 747, 001 493, 153 490, 080 049, 203 026, 334 178, 211 999, 672 844, 181 52, 270, 608 , 45,221,795 15, 394, 067 19, 989, 184 19, 609, 031 9, 439, 814 6, 483, 881 763, 761 711, 875 443, 270 015, 518 787, 232 439, 48fi 327, 363 153, 080, 834 24, 398, 005 168, 408, 370 30, 848, 892 321, 489, 204 55, 247, 797 DUTY ON SILK. But besides the industries I have discussed there are others which 15 jqipropriiite equally cu the consumer to some extent by the imposition of duties. Butitmaybequestionedwhetherthiseffeotwouldnotbetemporary. * • * But whatever may tie the increase of price to the consumer, and whether it be perma- nent or temporary, it would be fairly distributed among the whole community, for nearly all are consumers. It cannot be supposed that duties to the amount or four millions, distributed among nearly eighteen millions of persons, would be seriously felt by any, even assuming that me consumers would exclusively bear the burden, and that it woidd not be divided between them and the producers. — Executive Document, Twenty-eighth Congress, first session, page 12. Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury under James K. Polk in 1847, in view of the increasing debt growing out of the Mexican war, said : This Department has not recommended any change of the tariff of 1846, except a duty of 25 per cent, on tea and coffee, as the least onerous, the most certain and available ; to be levied ouly as a war duty, anil to pay the expenses of the war, and liquidate the debt created thereby. In later times, for a similar purpose. Chase, McCulloch, and Bout- well favoTed the imposition or retention of this tax. CAN THE MAJJUFACTOBISG INDUSTBIKB FHOSPER UNDEE A KEDUCED TAKIFF ? They can. They may forbode disaster and prophesy destruction. So they reasoned in 1832 and 1846. The salt-makers foresaw ruin from the reduction of 1872 ; but the domestic production continues, with less profit perhaps to capital, but cheaper prices to consumers. But each decennial census has recorded a growing production of iron, cotton, and woolen manufactures, outrunning the increase of population as well as of agricultural production. The growth was steady, continuous, and healthy. The iron mines of the Lake Superior region were opened under the tariff of 1846. The shipment of ore commenced in 1856, and increased up to 1860 as follows : Tons of ore. Tons of pig-iron. Talue. 1856 . 7,000 21,000- 31, 035 65, 679 116,908 %W, 000 1857 60, 000 1858 1,629 7,258 5,600 249, 202 1859 575, 529 1860 736, 496 This developnient was under a tariff of 24 per cent, ad valorem. Who will say the revenue tariffs of 1846 and 1857 did not give suf- ficient encouragement to manufactures ? The increase of production was from 11,019,106,616 in 1850 to .^1,885,861,676 in 1860. Population increased but 36 per cent., manufacturers 87 per cent, in the decade. From 1850 to 1860 the increased production of iron, cotton, and woolen goods was in advance of the increase of population. That of 1860 to 187Q, reducing currency to gold and prices of 1870 to 1860, •2 B 18 does not 80 largely exceed the percentage of mcrease as at the first gtoce would be supposed. I submit a table showing the progress : Value of products of iron, cotton, and woolen goods, shown iy the censuses. 1830. 1840. 1850. 1860. 1870. Iron, pig. $4, 757, 408 7, 172, 575 12, 748, 737 20, 870, 130 69, 640, 498 Iron, rolled. $31, 888, 705 120, 311, 158 Iron, cast. Cotton goods. $25, 108, 155 36, 132, 033 99, 843, 248 "Woolen goods. 122, 534, 815 46, 350, 433 65, 501, 687 115, 681, 774 177, 489, 739 $14, 528, 166 SO, 696, 999 43, 207, 545 61,'894, 986 155, 405, 356 The total production of iron other than pig was by the census of 1830 $21,494,654; 1840, $29,909,162 ; 1850, |60,485,653 ; 1860, $94,045,454. KESULTS OP HIGH DUmE^. Under the revenue duties of 1846 and 1857 there was a steady healthy growth and development of the manufacturing industries of the country. The exorbitant rates of the last fourteen years have increased their number and capacity for production above the wants and consumption of the country. For the last two years cotton and woolen mills have been running on half time, and. many permanently suspended. Half of the furnaces of the country are out of blast. Mills and furnaces that never would have been built upder revenue duties, because their location and facilities for procuring cheap raw material, labor, and transportation to market would render them un- profitable, have been started and must now be abandoned. Trade lags and industry ceases. The expectant shop-keeper vainljr waits at the door-way for the passing customer. Closed shutters, silent fur- naces and engines, and smokeless chimneys tell the condition of man- ufacture. Deserted wharfs, closed hatchways, and idle steamers and ships show business prostrate and commerce dead, failing merchants, starving mechanics, suspended mills, and rusting machinery. The bounties have been lavished in vain. The promises of protection for high wages to labor are a cheat and delusion, as well as to the farmer and mechanic. DEPKEBSION NOT FliOM CONTKACTIOX. These moving pictures of the distressed condition of the manufact- uring regions of the co^untry, of its silent work-shops, and idle and suffering laborers have been of late repeatedly held up for our con- templation. This condition is erroneously attributed to a supposed reduotiod of the currency for the resumption of specie payments. ' Con- traction has wrought this ruin, say the advocates of paper money. Con- traction! When? How? The total paper circulation is but $7,000,000 less than it was at the close of the year 1867. The paper in circula- tion, outside of the banks and Treasury, during the last ten years was at its lowest point in 1867, being $559,000,000, which was increased to $590,000,000 on January 1, 1872, and now is $5,000,000 in excess of the lafit amount. To test this question, I requested the Treasurer 22 -was how far the General Government was hound to support those in- stitutions, (manufactories.) He was not prepared to say that th& Government was bound to adopt a permanent protection. He pro- posed a duty on cottons of 30 per cent, ad valorem for two years ; 2o per cent, for two years thereafter, and 20 per cent, after the last pe- riod. He stated the object of his motion was to impose a duty, so moderate as to insure its permanency and still be an adequate one. {Annals of Congress, Fourteenth Congress, first session, page 1271.) Manufacturers themselves only claimed temporary protection. Said one of their advocates in 1849 : Grant to our manufacturers in a permanent and specific form that protection ■which the act of 1846 delusively promised, say ?13 on har iron and }5.50 on pig, and they -will be enabled to fumisH a better and cheaper article than can be imported, and they will render the country independent of foreign aid in the supply of this important material.— ietter of J. S. Sane to the Secretary of the Treasury 1849-'50. Son. William Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury, executive domment, first session Thirty-first Congress, page 859. It was recognized as a true principle and enacted into law in the compromise tariif of 1832, which provided for a biennial reduction of tariff rates until at the end of nine years the maximum duty of 20 per cent, was reached, i For this tariff Henry Clay voted, and by his influence and efforts it was passed. The reductions of 1846 and 1856 were based upon the same doc- trine that protective duties ought not to be permanent, and that as industries are established bounty should be gradually withdrawn. EEDUCnON OF'EE"\'ESUE. The passage of the committee's bill will apparently result in a reduc- tion of customs revenue. The reduction for the next and ensuing year will be greater. The heaviest importations of dutiable articles are of iron, cottons, woolens, silks, and sugar. The domestic production is increasing, ex- cept of sugar. The manufacturing establishments of iron, cottons, and of many woolen goods are of more than sufficient capacity tp sup- ply the home demand. The depressed condition of business, with labor unemployed and poorly rewarded, the decrease of extravagance, with greater frugality and economy, must continue to lessen the con- sumption of commodities and their importation. Customs revenues will probably grow smaller for some years. They are now diminish- ing. The importations of dutiable commodities and duties received for the last three years have been — Importation of Auitdble commodities for 1873, 1874, and 1875. Years. 1873. 1874., 1875., Dutiable imports. $497, 320, 326 415, 924, 580 386, 725, 509 Duties. ai88, 089, 522 70 163, 103, 833 69 157, 167, 722 35 The falling off in duties an d imports has continued during the pres- ent fiscal year. A comparison of the" first months of 1875 and 1876 shows a certain deficit in the customs-revenue receipts : The total Treasury receipts up to May 1" show an increase for the last ten months abov,e the same period in 1875, although the customs revenue fell still more heavily in April. 23 Total Treasury receipts up to May 1. Customs. Internal reve- nue. Total revenues. Ten months, 1875 1134, 719, 010 20 125, 256, 199 79 22, 448, 712 15 $90, 911, 041 05 92, 418, 744 41 20, 096, 452 53 $241,259,677 11 244, 853, 000 11 46, 740, 373 99 Total 1875 157, 167, 722 35 147, 704, 911, 94 110, 007, 493 ."ia 112, 515, 196, 94 288, 000, 051 10 291, 593, 374 10 Estimated total, 1876 Decrease ,. 9, 462, 810 41 Increase 2, 507, 703 36 3, 593, 723 00 Thus, ■wWle there -will probahly be an increase in receipts from in- ternal revenue of |3,000,000 in 1876 above 1875 and no falling off in total receipts from all sources, the customs revenue still continues to decline. The internal revenue and miscellaneous receipts for the present year have made up for the decline in customs. But the mis- cellaneous receipts are uncertain, being made up in part from pre- miums on sale of coin, sale of public lands, &c. Under the most favorable exhibit the revenues of 1877 will not rise above those of 1875, which fell short of meeting the expenditures and requirements of the sinking fund. KEDUCTIOS WILL POSITONE RESUMPTION. This to me is a weighty reason for opposing a reduction of revenue The country desires ultimately to return to specie payment. With- out coin in the Treasury and sufficient revenues there can be neither redemption nor resumption. The Treasury cannot accumulate or re- tain coin for resumption without a surplus revenue. A reduction of $12,000,000, as proposed by the bill, and the decline of importations would reduce customs revenues next year probably |20,000,000. This, unless compensated by an increase of revenue from other sources, will be an effectual postponement of any practical plan of ultimate specie resumption. TAXiTIOJS KOT HEVENUE TO BE KEDUCED. The obligations of the Government must be sacredly met. Suffi- cient revenue for necessary economical expenditures and for the inter- est and sinking-fund account of the public debt must be raised. The Government credit is to-day higher than ever before when nego- tiating for public loans. Its5percent. bonds, having five years only to run, sold, on the 24th of last month, at a premium of 3J per cent., show- ing a ii per cent, interest bond for the same time to be worth above par. The national credit must be kept at that or made still better. There are outstanding and now payable at the option of the Gov- ernment approximately $740,000,000 of 6 per cent, bonds, while in five years more, at the option of the Government upon the remainder of the bonded debt, nearly $1,000,000,000 will Eave matured. Under the ad- ministration of General Grant |500,000,000 of 6 per cent, bonds have been refunded into 5 per cent, ten-year bonds. The public credit stands to-day nearly at 4 per cent. In the observance of the sinking- fund law, said an eminent banker, Mr. Hatch, to the Committee of Ways and Means, " was the beginning of the elevation of our Gov- ernment credit all over the world." In the next twelve years the whole amount, $1,000,000,000, of out- standing 6 per cent, bonds will have matured absolutely. The sink- ing fund at that time will be insufficient by $400,000,000 to redeem them, and at least that amount of 6 per cent, bonds must be refunded. 24 They ongM, they can in a short time he refunded at 4 per cent., and 'save $20,000,000 in annual interest, if the national credit is maintained at its present high standard. Common honesty, national honor, and the -wisest statesmanship unite in demanding sufiSeient revenues to meet the requirements of the sinking fund. One year ago as decreasing revenues resulting from diminished im- jrortations threatened to exhaust the balance that should be applied to the sinking-fund account. Congress considered it a sacred duty to provide additional revenues, and passed an act to further protect the sinking fund. It contained provisions that diminished instead of in- creased revenue on imported articles. But in other respects it ac complished what its title proposed. It provided for a threatened delicit in the sinking fund and thereby greatly improved the public credit. Before the sinking-fund account will have wiped out the debt the nation, at its present rate of growth, will have doubled in population and tripled in wealth. The annual burden for interest and principal will, in the year 1900, twenty-f our years hence, be borne by 75,000,000 of people and the per capita proportion be reduced nearly one-half. As the sinking-fund account must annually increase by the amount of interest on the annual payment, a fear has been expressed of .the in- ability of the people to meet the supposed increased annual payments required thereby for the public debt. The fact is overlooked that the interest accruing on the principal of the debt unpaid is diminished annually by just the amount added to the sinking-fund account. The total annual payment for interest and sinking-fund account remains nearly the same. If it is proposed to repudiate the sinking-fund pledge, do not let ns begin in the centennial year. If the nation while exhausted and bleeding from the terrible life-struggle of a fierce civil war could raise in 1866 from customs and internal taxation nearly $500,000,000 and in 1867$442,000,000, it can hereafter, with increased production and the waste of war repaired, without embarrassment raise $130,000,000 for interest and the sinking fund, besides the amount necessary for its ordinary expenditures. THE TARIFF ON QUININE. Remarks of D. C. ROBBINS, ON THE PetitionllVlanufacturers FOR THE Retention of the present Duty of 20 per cent., WITH A COUNTER PETITION AND ARGUMENT FOR FREE QUININE. NEW YOEK, March 25th, 1876. ifbfork: Thitchknek & Glastakter, Pbikthks, 14 & 18 Vkset Stkekt. 1876. TO DEALERS IN DEUGS AND CHEMICALS, ETC., THKOUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. Gentlemen : The Morrison bill is understood to be, at this time, before the present Committee of Ways and Means for consideration, and our manufacturers of Quinine have recently distributed, quite generally .throughout the country (more particularly throughout our Western States), a circular peti- tion, soliciting influence in favor of retaining the present duty of twenty per cent, on Quinine. It is claimed for this circu- lar that it has been endorsed by at least three-fourths of the Trade, which makes it an important petition. The circular referred to is so full of misstatements of fact, as well as un- sound conclusions, that it has been deemed proper to reply and furnish in a concise form a counter statement. Please read carefully both petitions as addressed to Congress, and the argument for Free Quinine, and forward your opinion and wishes on the subject to the representative in Congress from your district. The consumption of Quinine within our United States and Territories varies greatly, but it has been estimated at about 800,000 ounces per annum, and the question is, shall the present duty of twenty per cent, and the present monopoly, in the hands of two manufactxirers in the State of Pennsyl- vania, be retained, or shall it be placed on the free list, with other important chemicals, as proposed in the Morrison bill before Ways and Means Committee. PETITION OF THE MANUFACTUEEES OF QUININE, As AMressed to the Drug Trade. To THE Honorable Senate and House of Representatives op the U. S.: We, the undersigned, importers of and wholesale dealers in Drugs and Chemi- cals, do respectfully represent That, Sulphate of Quinia is manufactured in this country in sufficient quantity to svpply the entire home demand. That, In purity, appearance, and general excellence it is fully equal to the beat pro- ductions of England, France and Germany. That, As a remedial agent (for intermittent fevers, etc.,) it is an unfailing remedy, and absolutely indispensable at certain seasons (Summer and Autumn) in the Southern and Western sections of this country. That, A very large amount of capital is needed to successfully conduct its manufac- ture, as large supplies of crude material (Peruvian Bark) and the finished pro- duct must be constantly held, so as to provide promptly for the demand, the commencement, continuation, and termination of which are extremely uncertain. As an instance — the active demand for 1875, which was unusually heavy, commenced somewhat suddenly in July, continued for several months, and ended abruptly in October. Although the American manufacturers carried large stocks over from 1874, they continued to produce, without interruption, throughout 1875, in anticipation of a demand— more or less uncertain — and were able to fully meet all the requirements of the country. It would be impossible to provide for such emergencies if the home manufac- ture should cease, as importers would not carry the necessary stocks and foreign manufacturers could not fill orders as promptly as required — the result of which would be that a large amount of suffering would receive but indifferent relief That, The price is moderate — $2.20 currency per ounce— so low, indeed, as not to be felt as a burden to consumers, who use it — as a rule — in doses of a few grains only, at a time. Sulphate of Quinia is frequently 8 shillings to 9 shillings per ounce — equal to $2 to $2.25 gold — in England. That, The manufacture of Sulphate of Quinia involves the separation of the other and cheaper alkaloids of the Cinchona Barks. These possess, in a marked de- gree, the valuable properties of Quinia, and have been earnestly recommended by « commission appointed by the Madras Government, as a substitute for Quinia, in East India. The prices of the cheaper alkaloids are lower here than abroad, and are offered in abundance and of the very best quality. American Sulphate of CiuchoQia is selling at 25 cents currency per ounce. English " " " Is. 6d., or say 36 cents gold per ounce in England. American " Oinohonidia " 65 cents currency per ounce. .English " " " 2s. lOd., or say 68 cents gold per ounce in England. That, Large dealers are able to contract with home manufacturers, for Sulphate of QpiNiA, upon more advantageous terms, and can obtain their suppUes more readily, quickly and surely than would be possible with foreign makers. That, Prices are not only reasonable but free from speculative fluctuations, so that so long as we have the article produced here — as at present — the variations in quotations are very trifling — say only 10 cents per ounce during the whole of 1875. If we depended upon foreign manufacturers and home speculators, prices would vary perhaps to the extent of $1 or $2 per ounce in a single season, influenced as they would be by supply and demand. That, The manufacture of Sulphate of Quinia involves the use of Alcohol, which, in this country, is heavily taxed. The English and Continental manufacturers have free Alcohol. (In England they use Methylated Spirits, whicli is a mixture of Alcohol and Wood Naphtha and is untaxed.) That, The manufacture of Sulphate of Quinia involves a large carrying trade between this country and South America. (Peruvian Bark being brought from South America in large quantity, exclusively for the use of the Quinia manufac- turers of the United States.) That, The foreign article best known in this market, and formerly sold here to a considerable extent, is the French, and upon the removal of the duty, French Quinia would be imported more freely than any other. Americau Sulphate OP Quinia is prohibited in France. To admit the French article here, duty free, under such circumstances, appears to us extremely unjust. That, During the late civil war, the want of Sulphate op Quinia in the South — where it was not manufactured — was regarded as one of their severest priva- tions ; so that, in times of war, the absence of a home source of supply of this necessary article would be a national calamity. That, By admitting foreign Sulphate op Quinia free of duty, the American man- ufacturers would be without any countervailing protection to oifset the tax on distilled spirits, and the cheaper labor, fuel, interest and general expenses enjoyed by their foreign competitors. The Government would derive no revenue from foreign Sulphate of Quinia, nor from the tax on Alcohol now used in ma- king the article here. The consumer would pay fully as much, if not more than 6 at present, for, if past experience can be taken as a guide; the price of foreign Quinia would advance if the domestic manufacture should be destroyed. Hence, no one would be benefitted but the foreign manufacturers, while an important branch of domestic manufacture would probably be extinguished. That, As the American manufacturers liave a very large amount of capital engaged in this industry ; have given to the details of the manufacture, time, labor and skill to bring it to perfection, and have demonstrated their ability to fully pro- vide for the home demand— induced to do so by the guarantee, so to speak, of the Government in the shape of a duty that will offset, the disadvantages they have labored under, (to which we have referred, and which still exist)— w&iare of opinion that it would be unjust to discontinue the protection at present exist- ing until the industry no longer calls for its continuation. So long as a duty remains upon distilled spirits, and labor, fuel, interest and general expenses are so much higher here than abroad, it would seem that the 20 per cent, duty, which is below the average rate of duties imposed by our tariff \ipon foreign manufactured products, should be continued. COLTNTEE PETITION. To THE Honorable Senate, and House of Repkesenta- TivES or THE United States. The undersigned, an importer and dealer in Drugs and Chemicals in the City of New York for the past forty years, has noticed in general circulation among the Trade an appeal, from the manufacturers of Quinine to your Honorable Body, for a continuance of the present duty of twenty per cent, on Quinine ; and, being of his own knowledge and experience well acquainted with the past and present circumstances pertaining to this article, he begs leave to respectfully request your attention to a review of the claims, presented by the manufac- turers, through the Trade, for a continuance of the present excessive duty upon one of our most important remedial agents. It is no argument for a protective duty on Sulphate of Quinine that this article is manufactured in our country in sufficient quantity to supply the entire home demand, because, "The highest right pertaining to property, is the right to freely exchange it for other property." Sulphate of Quinine of superior quality can be purchased in European markets at the present time for one dollar and thiri/y-six cents, gold, per ounce, equal to $1.56 currency ; while our own manufacturers charge for it two dollars and twenty cents, currency. Further, the statement, that Sulphate of Quinine is manufactured in this country in sufficient quan- tity to supply the entire home demand, is only true in part ; during the past few years, we have been favored with less malarial disease in Epidemic form than usual, and conse- quently there has been less demand for Quinine ; hence its present exceptionally low price : but the sad experience of the past should not be forgotten, as, when a few years since, with a prohibitory duty of forty-five per cent., there being much suflEering from malaria, the respectable dealer was com- pelled to import at great risk of loss, as a consequence of this extreme duty, a supply from Europe, because the home sup- ply was exhausted, and, while the progress of disease is rapid, the process for the manufacture of Quinine from Bark is ne- cessarily slow. There can be no stronger argument, adduced for Free Trade in all medicinal remedies, than a ti'uthful presentation of the facts and contingencies pertaining to Malarial diseases in our country, in that necessity which is always likely to occur for such a supply of Quinine as cannot be furnished in a limited market. The consumption of Quinine is not at all regular ; it varies with the prevalence of malarial disorders ; there are times when in large communities a very few individuals only suffer, and there will occur other periods when the affliction is almost universal. The opinion of our own manufacturers, that their products, in purity, appearance and general excellence, are fully equal to the best productions of England, France and Germany, is no doubt honestly entertained, but the fact remains, that over the Continent of Europe a decided preference is given to their own manufactures ; among which, the particular preparation of Messrs. Howakd & Sons commands a high price and is largely preferred. Various brands, fully equal to any we produce, can be readily obtained at 5s. lOd., while Howaed & Sons' make commands 6s. lOd. The fact is the position, in clieiiiical science of Alkaloids, like Quinine, Strychniue, etc., among elementary bodies, is not well defined, because within a recent pefiod it has been discovered that some of these Alkaloids can be mutually transformed, as in tlie case of Brucine and Strychnine, and there prevails a well-grounded belief among eminent Chemists that we shall be able to pro- duce, at no very distant day, chemically pure Alkaloids from various material substances, as well as to transform the cheaper alkaloids, from Quinine bark, which are abundant, into pure Quinine. A few years since, it was supposed that Quinine could only be successfully manufactured from the true Yellow Bark of Peru, which grows on the Pacific slope of the Andes, but recent experience has proved that quite inferior barks from other localities can be used. American Quinine, as at present manufactured, is very largely, almost wholly, made from the inferior barks, which grow on the Atlantic slope, while in Europe the better barks of the Pacific are more largely used, because the trade of the Pacific Coast, through our present had Tariff policy, has been almost wholly diverted to Europe. The price is said to be moderate, " so low indeed as not to he felt as a hurden to consumers, who use it as a rule in doses of a few grains onhjT This reasoning over the sick bed is a forcible reminder of those legislative atrocities, which provoked the first Eevo- lution in France, previous to which it had been the custom of the Monarchy to farm out to privileged fa^■orites the right to deal in particular commodities ; common Salt was made so dear that the impoverished peasantry took bitter Sea-water to season their pottage, and then an Act was passed, by which the use of Sea-water, as a substitute for table Salt, was de- clared an offence punishable at the whipping-post. " The manufacture of Quinine,'' it is said, " involves the separation of other and cheaper Alkaloids, and these other and cheaper Alkaloids are lower here than dhroad," all which is very true, because the inferior barks, which our manufac- turers use largely, produce these Alkaloids in abundance; and hence the supply of these cheap Alkaloids in our country greatly exceeds the demand : the argument appears to be that our American people have no right to complain at the higli price of a superior and popular remedj^ while inferior ones for similar use are cheap and plenty. What response would be made if the government should tax Wheaten Bread, and remind its citizens that Indian Corn was cheap and plenty 1 " Large dealers" it is said, " are able to contract with home manufacturers for Sulphate of Quinine, upon more advan- tageous terms, and can obtain their supplies more readily, quickly and surely than would be possible with foreign ma- kers." This assertion is only true in part,' but if true, would prove nothing, very likely a good understanding may exist between manufacturers and dealers, whose interests are special and mutual, as opposed to the general public interest. " The manufacture of Sulphate of Quinine," it is said, "in- volves the use of Alcohol, which is hea/vily taxed f the reply is, the Morrison bill, before our present Committee of Ways and Means, which places Quinine on the free-list, allows the manufacturer to use Alcohol free from all excise; further, this assertion on the part of our manufacturers is a mere pre- tense, because it is well known that Alcohol is not an essential factor in the preparation or separation of Quinine. The very best European brands are prepared without the use of Alcohol or Grain Spirits of any kind. " During the late civil war," it is said, " the want of Sul- phate of Quinine in the South (where it was not manufac- tured), was regarded as one of their severest privations, so that in tim,es of war the absence of a home supply of this necessary article would be a national calamity." Query; — Are the whole American people to be taxed indefi- nitely, because of the possibility or improbability of such a war in the future as will blockade our whole sea-coast on two Oceans, as well as our vast Canadian and Mexican frontiers ? Further, there is no Cinchona Bark to be found or that can be produced within our borders, and hence the enquiry arises, will it be more difficult to introduce Quinine by the ounce, or Bark by the bale ? Lastly, the conchidvng appeal of ov/r manufacturers for continued pri/oilege on account of capital employed j the destruction of an American branch of industry, etc., does not Missing Page Missing Page 12 pronounced almost worthless, was exported and sold in the London market at Is. 6d. sterling, or 37 cents gold, and thus, through bad policy on the part of our government, and the selfish course pursued by our two great manufacturers, who act in combination, an important trade with our South American neighbors, in one of their largest products, has been almost destroyed, so much so, that our own manufacturers, who for- merly found a large supply of crude Bark at hand in port on favorable terms, are now compelled to import a large portion of their crude material at increased expense and cost from London. To undo all the evil results of a long course of bad I policy, is of course a work of time, but no half way measures wjll answer. We must begin by throwing open our market to European manufacturers, and then the control of the mar- ket by any combination will cease, because there will be no prize to contend for. Justice to our poor but enterprising population in the outlying States and Territories demands free Quinine, and our two manufacturers should be content with the enormous gains of the past ; they have held a prac- tical monopoly for years. Favorite European brands have been excluded so long that the use of Quinine, like that of Howard & Sons, London, and Zimmer, of G-ermany, is almost forgotten, Felletier's French brand, which is fully equal to any produced in the United States, and which sells readily in the London market at 5s. 9d. (while that of Howard & Sons commands about Ts.), was formerly largely usedjin our country, but at present it is almost unknown. Our manufacturers, through special legislation, have so excluded all competition that, with Quinine, free of duty, it will be a work of years to bring about a fair competition. They hold, in virtue of past favors, a special trade-mark interest in their well-known brands, which is better than a discriminating protection of 20 per cent. Quinine must be made absolutely free, or the re- storation of the commerce of the country in Quinine Barks and Quinine, as well as the development of the manufacture of Quinine in the interest of the consumer, will be impossible. Address of the New York Free. Trade Club to the Young Men of the United States. The assertion is frequently made that Congress, as a representative body, fairly reflects the average character and intelligence of the people. According to the super- ficial bat popular estimate, however, it is probable that not a single district in the whole country would consent to be judged by this standard. For it is undoubtedly true ^hat the people, as a whole, desire to be represented by men of intelligence, integrity and moral worth. They do not prefer that ignorant or selfish or dishonest men should make laws for them, and yet they are responsible for, and must be judged by, the character of the national legislature. Our form of government is different from that of any other nation, and we are apt to boast that it is superior. Its excellence, however, depends wholly upon the intelli- gence and virtue of those who, by their votes and influ- ence, control its legislation. It is superior to others only when kept rigidly within its proper limits ; otherwise it may very easily be made worse than any othef. The controlling principle in all the laws that are, passed should be the simple, broad, divine rule, " What- soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This simple law, so important in its relation to individuals, is fundamental in a government of the peo- ple ; it is one that the ordinary mind can instinctively ADDRESS TO YOUNG MEN. understand and apply. The right to vote presupposes that every one who exercises this right has the capacity to understand what it involves, and legislation should always be within the comprehension of the average votefk It does not require much education to understand that in passing laws there must be no favoritism, no partiality, no caring for or protecting any special business or inter^ est; that intelligent moral integrity is more necessary than what has come to be called statesmanship; that confining legislation within the narrowest limits is truer statesmanship than exercising doubtful powers. It is not only natural, but necessary for men to divide into parties, for in this way an interest in, and ' watchfulness over, public matters may be kept up, and the abuse of legislative power prevented. We therefore hold that it is essential to the public welfare that allmen shall be politicians in the proper sense of the word, not partizans, but intelligently qualified to exercise the right of suffrage, with sufficient self respect to resist party dic- tation, and always to vote. We hold that those who, en- titled to vote, will not take the trouble to do so intelli- gently, or will not vote at all, are not worthy of the privileges, nor justly entitled to the benefits of a free people. Bad as a man is considered who plans to " repeat " his vote, it is not hard to prove that he is a worse man who is so indifferent to his responsi- bility of citizenship that he will not take the trouble to vote. We therefore, desire to impress upon the minds of (the young men of the country the Importance and the duty of qualifying themselves to take an active and manly and intelligent interest in its political affairs. ADDRESS TO YOUNG MEN. 3 There is another subject, of almost, if not quite, equal importance, which we urge upon the thoughtful consideration of young men — a subject on which the de- velopment and prosperity of the country largely de- pends, and in which every citizen has a more or less di- rect personal interest : — namely, the business or commer- cial relations between this country and other nations of the world. From the first this has been a frequent sub- ject of Congressional action, conspicuous as one of dis- cord, and to which the repeated disturbances of the in- dustries of the country may easily be traced. Men do, for the most part, acquire by experience sufficient knqw- ledge to manage their own business, but it is important that they shall also acquaint themselves with " the laws of trade" sufficiently to discover and help prevent the passage of laws which directly violate business principles. The success of the individual, whether in farming or planting, or manufacturing or " merchandizing," depends mainly upon' his following, with self-reliant energy, such sound business methods as are the result of experience ; his success does not depend upon, and the way to it can- not be marked out by, statute laws. There can be no other rule for the country, as the prosperity of the country is only the multiplied success of individuals. The " Country " has no business ; it does not farm, nor manufacture, nor buy and sell. It is the individual citi- zens who do all these things ; each one of whom, engag- ing in his chosen vocation, would indignantly repel the idea that Congress can manage it better than he. The Question of Free Trade on one side and " Pro- tection" on the other has been one of the most promin- 4 ADDRESS TO YOUNG MEN. ent subjects of Congressional agitation for nearly one hundred years past. During a large, part of this period the policy of "protection" has prevailed,. The recognized natural law, essential to individual suc- cess, has been treated as a fallacy when applied to the million ; or its violation by " protection " laws justified under some vague notion that the wealth of the country can better be increased by restricting the freedom, and diverting^ the efforts of those on whose energy and intelligence its prosperity depends : as if the volume of our mighty rivers can be increased by clogging the springs and diverting the streams, which are their sources of supply. If this policy could ever have been of any advantage, it certainly cannot be so any longer. During the last sixteen years it has been enforced to an extreme degree, and home manufactures have been stimulated to the utmost, yet we find that at no former period in our history has business been so depressed, and such a multitude of persons unable to find employment. And those industries are suffering most . severely that have been specially fostered by " protection " laws. We are able to produce far more than enough for our own consumption, but unless we can secure such a change in our tariff laws as will permit us to find markets in other countries for our manufactures, we have not only reached a limit to an increase of wealth from this source, but many factories must be closed, and workmen must remain unemployed, to be driven perhaps, by. force of circumstances, into the ranks of communists. • We suppose it is plain enough that we cannot sell what we produce to other nations unless we buy what ADDRESS TO YOUNG MEN. 5 they produce, and we cannot buy if our own laws increase the cost SO' much that we cannot afford to buy even the raw materials which manufacturers require. It is not gold and silver that we most need — these, like iron, copper and other metals, we are producing to sell — but our markets are to be enlarged, our wealth increased, our comfort promoted, by exchanging productions with other countries, we selling to them whatever we can produce cheaper and easier than they, and taking in exchange whatever we want, of that which they can produce cheaper and easier than we. This is the' simple, common- sense way that an individual increases his property, and it is in this way that the wealth of a nation is increased when it produces more than is required for its own use. THIS' IS THE Free Trade we are in favor of, and those who oppose it do so from prejudice or ignorance or selfish inconsistency: for there is no man in his senses, who, in conducting business, is not a free trader in prac- tise, no matter how earnest a protectionist he clainrts to be. Manufacturers are protectionists only in that which they make to sell ; they want free trade in everything they use in manufacturing, including the services of those who do the work. And they who suppose that " protection " benefits the workingman, ignore the inexora- ble natural law of demand and supply when not interfered with py obnoxious legislation. They lose sight of the fact that "protection" laws serve only to shield the man- ufacturer and his goods from foreign competition ; but there being no " protection duty " on labor the wages competition with the " cheap labor of Europe " is simply 'transferred to this country by the thousands who come from foreign workshops. 6 ADDRESS TO YOUNG MEN. The future of this Country, in its policy and prosperity, depends largely upon its young men, to whom this appeal is addressed. We do not ask the adoption of Our views without careful thought, firmly as we hold to them. It is more important that men shall form the habit of thinking out and acting upon their own conclusions. In order to promote the object we are urging, we recommend, as a very simple way to begin, the formation of READING Clubs, for the pur- pose of reading aloud to each other books and papers relating to these questions. Such clubs should exist in every school district in the country, and may be made both interesting and instructive. They may be started with only two or three persons, and the read- ing may embrace a variety of other than political sub- jects. There may easily be thousands of such clubs formed in the country, and their effect upon its business and political intelligence will be immeasurable. We shall be glad to aid such efforts in every practicable way, and where there are persons willing to make the trial, we request them to write and inform us of what they hope to do. We send a list of books recommending them as suitable for a beginning. Let your organization be simple. Don't attempt too much, and don't be dis- couraged, but organize and write to Abraham L. Earle, Honorary Secretary, THE N, Y. FREE TRADE CLUB. Care G. P. Putnam's Sons, 182 Fifth Avenue, New- York. The New York Free Trade Club desires to promote the study and dis- cussion of questions in Political Economy, especially such as relate to the Laws of Trade, and to develop in young men of the United States a just sense of their political duties and responsibility. Its object is not to make money in this work. It offers to Reading Clubs, or to persons proposing to organize them, the following instructive publications, as they are grouped together, at rates much lower than ■ regular prices and barely sufficient to cover the cost of paper, press-work, and postage. ' The Club also offers its services to Reading Clubs and students in regard to suggestions for courses of reading in political economy or other instructive subjects, and also for obtaining on favorable terms the most desirable publications. G-ROTJP I. Price forii Single Copy. Lectures on the History of Protection in the United States. By Prof. W. G. Sumner, of Yale College. Octavo, paper, o 25 , An intelligent opinion regarding free trade requires some knowledge of the Mstory of ** protection." This ha^ been furnished by Prof. Sumner in a most interesting form tor popular reading, and yet with the philosophical strength of its eminent author. It is the only book of the kind, and one competent to judge has said of it : " There is nothing in the literature of free trade likely to be more effective than this little book.''^ Friendly Sermons to Protectionist Manufacturers. By J. S. Moore. 8vo, paper, o 25 Facts, figures and reasoning are here presented in a most incisive and trenchant manner, and from a thoroughly' practical standpoint. What the people want in the tariff debate is facts ; here are facts. They want brevity ; here is brevity. The straightforward character of the writer's logic, and the quality of everyday common-sense which pervades his argument, will impress any unbiassed mind. Our Revenue System and the Civil Service : Shall They be Reformed 7 By Abraham L. Earle. With Preface by Prof. Sumner 8vo, paper o 25 This is the only book advocating unrestricted commercial freedom by ibolishing the Custom House systeni with its acknowledged evils. The views presented are those of its author, not fiilly concurred in by the Club, but cordially ippi'oved by William Cullen Bryant, Charles O'Conor, and other disttnguished tnen. Protection and Revenue in 1877. By Prof. W. G. Sumner. 8vo, paper, ' . . o 25 Prof. Sumner has the courage of opinions and the ability to present them. The fundamental principle of the free-trade doctrine and the radical errors of pro- ection have never been more exactly presented. It is onb of his latest and best Efforts. This Group will be sent, prepaid, for Fifty Cents. $1 00 (OVBR.) G-ROTJP II. Robinson Crusoe's Money ; or, the Remarkable Finan- cial Fortunes and .Misfortunes of a remote Island Community. By David A. Wells. 8vo, paper. . . o 50 Illustrated by Nast. An exceedingly humorous analysis of current errors about money and finance. Why We Trade, and How We Trade ; or, An Enquiry into the Extent to which the existing Commercial and Fiscal Policy of the United States Restricts the Material Prosperity and De- velopment of the Country. By David A. Wells. 8vo, paper, o 85 Mr. Wells is so well known in the field of economic and social science, that any comment here would be superfluous. It is enough to say that these books rank with his best writings, and must be convincing to candid minds. These will be sent with Group I. for One Dollar, postage prepaid. o 75 GROTTP III. The Sophisms of Protection. By Frederick Bastiat, with Introduction by Horace White. l2mo, cloth extra, 400 pages, A book that stands alone in the literature of economic science. Its abound- ing wit makes it fascinating, and its clear-cut argument renders it irresistable. Politics for Toung Americans. By Charles Nordhoff. i2mo, cloth, This was written by Mr. Nordhoff to instruct his own son in the duties of American citizenship and the working of so-called political machinery necessary in our government. It is an excellent book, and well adapted for use in schools. These will be sent with Group I. for Two Dollars. $2 00 G-BOTTP IV. The Wealth of Nations. An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of. By Adam Smith. i2mo, cloth extra, 702 pages, 2 00 The foundation-stone of the science oi political economy, and the only book in history to which has been accorded the honor of a Centennary Celebration. An Alphabet in Finance. A simple statement of permanent principles, and their application to questions of the day. By Graham McAdam, with Introduction by R. R. Bowker. i2mo, cloth, , . I 25 It covers every principle of importance involved in the current discussion of government finances with remarkable clearness. Essays on Political Economy. By Frederick Bastiat, with Introduction and Notes by David A. Wells. i2mo, cloth, . I 25 These essays, written to combat the socialist notions which shook France thirty years ago, were never more fitted for the United States than now. These will be sent with Group I. for Four Dollars. $4 50 Communications should be addressed to Mr. Abraham L. Earle, Secretarj 182 Fifth Avenue, New York. TARIFF-CHANGES MUST FOLLOW A PRINCIPLE. The humblest laborer has the right at the close of his day's work to employ his scanty wages in the purchase of a foreign product, without being com- pelled to pay a tax; upon it for the benefit of another. — Bastiat. SPEECH OF HON. SAMUEL S. COX, OF NEW YORK, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 7, 1881; ALSO A SPEECH ON OUR CONTINENTAL POLICY, DELIVERED ON February 26, 1881. SPEECH HON. SAMUEL 8. OOX On the bill (H. E. Ko. 7099) making appropriations for tb,6 Agrioaltural Depart- ment of the GoTernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes — Mr. COX said : Mr. Speaker : All discnssioDS relating to chanses in the existing tariff run ultimately to the first dogma of the polioy of protection. This must he so so long as the doctrine of protection remains as it is — a confused mass of contradictory assertions, which the believer supports with conflicting arguments, and which the dissenter de- nounces as the co-production of folly and greed. It is impossible to construct the first syllogism of protection with- out making a contradiction. It is impossible to elaborate it as a theory without denying the most patent facts of industrial growth, the plainest precepts of financial wisdom, and the most common tenets of democratic justice and republican beneficence. This beinjg 80, 1 see no hope for the cessation either of "tariff tinkering" or of repetitious discussion of the foundation of things, until the structure of the protective policy is swept away ! Waiving, therefore, as already argued threadbare, the constitu- tional question as to whether money should be raised for other than governmental purposes, and estopping the puling cry of " infancy" to our hundred-year Eepublic, let me come to the alphabet — the elements of the economic question. Thus and thus only can we reawaken, with the aid, perhaps, of disaster to crops as a cudgel to the farming brain, the lethargy of the body of our people on the vital topic of- their means of subsistence. I propose, therefore, to present once more the Elements of this great question, than which I know of none which more deeply concerns the prosperity of the whole country, the liberty of the individual, and the purity and integrity of the Government. THE FRBE-TKADE THEORZ. It is easy to formulate the free-trade theory. It is as easy as to formulate the kindred doctrines of free speech, free press, free men. Free trade is the natural condition. Every man in his practice is a free trader, however loud his professions of faith in protection. The free-trade theory is simply the acceptance of the facts of human nature and its environment. All agree that freedom is best ; all agree that trade must exist in society. Their conjunction is deprecated only by ignorance and avarice. Every man is given a certain ability for labor. He is surrounded by certain natural conditions of labor. The free-trade theory with respect to the individual is, that if he be left free to apply his best ability to the best conditions open to him he will (as a rule) achieve the greatest results. The exceptions come from individual folly or weakness. Nor do I know that the hottest protectionist ever pre- tended to rule out stupidity or laziness by tariff taxation, although he may yet tax the iron in the blood and the phosphorus of the brain. Every individual knows his own business best ; that is the free- trade theory, He is his own best judge as to what he should turn his hands and how he can make the most of his materials and his energy. The advocates of protection have never ventured to deny this fun- damental proposition in terms ; but they certainly do deny it by their acts. Their theory is that Congress is the best judge of what a man should do to win -Ms bread. Congress should decide for him whether he should till the soil, or make wheat into flour, or throw the shuttle, or drive cattle, or delve in the mines of the earth. The average American citizen, says the protectionist, has not enough com- mon sense to choose his own trade ; if left to himself he w ill degrade (this is the term the protectionist uses) himself with agriculture, or he will seek starvation in the fruitless effort to make wooden toys in competition with the paupers of Germany. Is Ihis true ? I am compelled to put the question soberly, for most soberly are these propositions of the protective theory acted upon as true. Are they not incorporated as active principles in the law of the land ? Is not our statute full and running over with instances ? This is the first step in the free-trade theory : The individual is, his own best judge of his own abilities for the making of things of value. The second step is equally simple, namely, the individual is his own best judge as to where and how he shall trade. If left alone he will sell his productions where he can get the most for them, and buy what he wants where he can buy cheapest. Does it not seem obvious, that in this way the individual will get the most there is to be had out of his industrial efforts ? But the protective theory interposes here also a denial — even a downright, specific denial. One of the commonest arguments of pro- tection is this : The American farmer, if he were left to his own un- .^uided judgment, would buy his shovels and his prints, his.cloth- ing and his crockery, from England or from France. Understand that I do not make this statement. Under a free-trade system I be- lieve that American manufactures would prosper beyond all our dreams. It is only the advocate of the hot-house system of indus- trial development who is afraid of the free rain, the free sun, »nd theJree air of the world's broad field. It is the protectionist who lays down the proposition that the unguided farmer would goto Eng- land or France or Germany for the furnishing of his farm and hia household. He would buy abroad, sa^s the Pennsylvanian philoso- pher, and the result would be ruin. Why? Because he would cre- ate an " unfavorable balance of trade," and because he would lose the "home market" for his sales which he now maintains by his pur- chases. ^ to the " unfavorable balance of trade," it is sufficient to say thait trade is trade— the giving of value for value. When a trade is cam- pleted there is no balance at all, favorable or unfavorable. The sim- ple American farmer can bankrupt himself, it is true, by trading hia wheat for things he does not want and cannot afford; and it does not matter whether these things be the demoralizing luzuries of Spain or the coatly comforts of Pennsylvauia. But his trading is trading, all the same. It does not make a particle of difference whether he barters at home or abroad. He can ruin himself just as quickly on New England rum as on French champagne. There is no question of a " balance" here; The only "unfavorable balance" I know of is an unpaid tailor's bill, or some other unliquidated debt. If an American farmer sells hi? crop at the highest market price and then with the proceeds buys farm and home supplies at the lowest figure, is there any logic ever manufactured in Philadelphia which can make him believe that he has not done well ? " Unfavorable balance," where is it ? He has been paid for his wheat ; he has paid for the goods he has bought. There is no balance. The only question is, has the trade given him much or little for his crop ? Has he netted a liberal supply of blankets, shoes, hose, cloth- ing — ^general utilities and comforts — or. is the return scanty and un- satisSctory ? HOME MARKET. And what is this argument about the "home market?" I have al- ready often refuted it in this House and in my little volume on " Free trade and Free land," published last year by the Putnams. But' there can be nothing gained for truth without iteration. The tArmet, it is said, must maintain the home market by his purchases, in order to have the' advantage of it for his sales. Mr. Speaker, how can any one be deluded by such an attenuated fallacy as this ? The home market is. to be sustained by paying for things more than they are worth. Would it not be easier to subsidize one's customers directly ? Directly, I say. Suppose the market price of wheat is|l, the protectionist plan for raising it to $1.35 is to have the farmer agree to buy goods in a protected market at 20, 30, or 40 per cent, over their true value. Why this machinery ? Why should not the farmer say to the grain buyer : "I am not satisfied with your offer of $1,000 for my crop; give me $1,800 and I will pay you a five-hundred-dollar bonus?" That would be a much simpler transaction. It would amount to just what the protection of the home market now amounts to ; and there would be this additional advantage, that the sagacious farmer would know exactly what he was doing. Now, under the tariff sys- tem he can only guess how much the luxury of a home market is costing him. I can imagine, sir, a protectionist remarking that every practical business man can give you scores of cases where a producer wUl buy in a particular market, and pay an advanced price for the privilege, in order to secure that market for the sale of his own goods. Very true, so he will ; but he does it for his own individual and peculiar reasons and on his own individual judgment. He does not do it at the direction of the Congress of the United States. LEGISLATIVE AND INDIVIDUAL SAGACITY. Here is just where the protectionist goes astray continually. He tries to put legislation in the place of individual sagacity. The American citizen, under the protection view, is a baby. He cannot be trusted to his own free motion ; he would fall into the fire or drown himself in the tub, or choke himself with the camphor-bottle. The manufacturing baby needs to be fed on tariff pap ; the agricult- ural baby must be barred out from the foreign jam-closet ; the trad- ing baby must be tied into a jumper lest he tumble over the bal- usters and break his blessed little neck. Just now, for example, the navigation laws are under consideration. 6 A protectionist paper recently started in New York defends those bar- barons restrictions on the astonishing gronnd that investments in railroads are more profitable than investmente in ships ! That is to say, Congress shall determine for the baby capitalists of America what enterprises will pay and what will not ; and shall then put np the bars against the nnfruitful fields, lest the guileless Goulds and chembio Scotts rush madly in and get a colic of crab- apple. To all this absurdity the free-trade theory opposes its simple tenet, "the individual is the best judge." He is his own best judge in the selection of avocation, his own best judge in the choosingof amarket. Expanding these propositions a little we have a complete statement of the positive side, often expressed, of the free- trade theory. That is to say, every locality, every country has its own peculiar advantages for the production of things of value : The West wheat, the South cotton, New England shoes, China tea, Brazil coffee, and so on. Now, it is true that cotton can be grown in New York, coffee raised in England, and silk cocoons produced in Maryland. But it is obvious that the easiest, cheapest, and best way for each locality to supply itself with all that it needs is to produce in abundance those things which it can produce easiest, cheapest, and best, and exchange the surplus of pro- duction for the best fruits of other localities. TPE GENTLE SAVAGE AS A PEOTECTIOSIST. This is the sum and substance of the free-trade theory. But this also is the first principle of civilization. True, indeed. Free trade is neither more nor less than civilization. And protection, however fine its guise, patriotism, nationalism — with never so large an " N " — humanitarianism, is nothing more nor less than savagery. The Indian of the western plains is to-day your highest type of the protectionist. He is self-contained, self centered, and independent. He recks not the rise and fall of British prices, he makes his own tools, he finds his own food, he builds his own shelter, he consolidates all markets in his own person— yea, in his own stomach ; he puts the balance of trade in either pocket at discretion. He believes that things are never too high, where every one of his precious tribe can be fed from the bounty of the Government. If all else fail and a crisis impend, he straightway goes to Washington for a subsidy of three-point blankets, powder, and corned beef. So much for first principles. Now let me be a little more specific. WHAT IS A PROTECTIVE TARIFF ? . A protective tariff^ is a system of duties on imports so levied as to prevent or restrict the importation of certain commodities. The pur- pose of the arrangement is to cut off foreign competition in certain lines and compel the citizen to purchase the protected class of goods from the domestic producer, paying for them a higher price than the foreign producer would demand. In the new nomenclature of France protectionists call themselves " compensators " and their system one of " compensation." If the end in view were sought directly and without disguise — if, that is to say. Congress were to pass laws prohibiting the purchase of foreign-made blankets, steel rails, and clothing — the American people would rise in revolt against the tyranny. Nothing saves the system from instant destruction at the hands of indignant freemen but its sneaking indirection and noctur- nal burglarious methods. But for the cunnmg way in which its real aims and real results are covered up under a mass of pretentious philosophizing and simulated patriotism it would rot even before it died. Let me clarify my view with, examples : Blankets and steel-rails ■will do as well as any others ; from one ol two learn all. In 1879 the duty actually collected on imported blankets averaged 86 per cent, of the value of the same. That is, the total import was in value $1,453, and the duties collected amounted to $1,333. Kow, what does this duty of 86 per cent. aA valorem signify t I want a direct answer. I shall not be satisfied with evasion. This question has been put specifically to protectionists and to others suspected of having a weakness for blankets and blanket manufacturers. But no answer is forthcoming. What does an 86 per cent, duty mean ? This annual purchase of blankets in this coantry is, in round figures, $20,000,000. On the face, therefore, this protective duty of 86 per cent, means that the American people are practically prohibited from purchasing for- eign-made blankets and forced to pay for the home goods annually something like seven million dollars more than they are worth. If this is not what this enormous protective duty means, let some pro- tectionist say why and how. Again, the ad uaZorem duties collected on steel rails in 1879 averaged 104 per cent. What does a protection of 104 per cent, signify 1 What can it signify but that the free American is denied the privi- lege of buying rails abroad, and compelled by law to purchase at home and pay a double price for the goods ? This is what it does signify. And the lesson from any number of examples would be the same. A protective tariff is simply a device to compel the people to buy of particular manufacturers and to pay those manufacturers what they think they must have. The point may be viewed otherwise by considering the plea which is put forward in defense of the system, namely : " Protection is necessary in order to enable the American manufacturer to compete." Very well. Now, it is admitted that the United States has indus- tries which do not need protection. When, therefore, we assert that this industry or that requires protection, we assert simply that such an industry is comparatively a losing enterprise. Unless the Government intervenes it cannot be conducted without loss. Hence, the proposal of protection is that the Government shall enable A, B, and C to go into certain unprofitable lines of business, and give them the privilege of making good their inevitable losses by pillaging those whose busi- ness pays a profit. Is this democratic ? Is this American ? I may ask, indeed, although this atrocious system has been practiced since the foundation of the Republic, is this constitutional f Mr. Speaker, this Government was never designed to create privi- leged classes, nor to place obstacles in the way of any man in his pursuit of the means of living. The only constitutional basis for a tariff is the basis of revenue. The Government must have a revenue ; and a system of duties on imports may be properly defended as a rev- enue-producing device. WHAT IS A TAKIFP FOK KEVENUE ! This brings us to the question. What is a tariff for revenue f Many imagine that the free-trade theory demands the abolition of tariffs ; but the abolition of tariffs is not at all a necessary part of the prac- tice of free trade. The demand is that taxes be laid for revenue only; that no taxes be levied except such as are needed for the Government expenses ; and, furthermore, to carry out the free-trade principle to the end, that where a duty is levied for revenue which may give to any manufacturer an undue advantage — which may, in other words, put into his hands the power of extorting tribute from the consumer — 8 theja such duty on importation should be offset by an exdae tax on the domestic manufacturer. No taxes except for Government purposes I Tiat is the free- trade rule ; that is the doctrine of tariff for revenue only. The distinction between a protective tariff and a revenue tariff is broad and plain. The protective tariff, in so far as it really is pro- tective, produces no revenue at all, for its protective operation is the prevei;ition of importation ; and in so far as it does actually prevent importation precisely to that extent does it prevent the payment of duties. Where the protection is complete, as is virtually the case in the instances of blankets, steel rails, spool-thread, &o., the tax, or extra price, which the consumer pays goes entirely into the pockets of the manufacturers. The public Treasury gets not a penny. A rough estimate of the taxes thus extorted from the people for the exclusive benefit of the protected classes gives a total of. over a thousand million of dollars annually. A TH0U8AHD-MILU0N BOUNTY. That is to say, the total value of our manufactures per year was, in 1870, over four thousand million dollars. Take it for 1880 at no more than five thousand million dollars. The average rate of duties now collected is over 40 per cent. Suppose, therefore, that 40 per cent, of duty means an artificial rise in the prices of protected com- modities of no more than 25 per cent., then 25 per cent, as the pro- tective element in $5,000,000j000 would be 11,000,000,000— one thou- . sand millions to the privileged classes. The Government share of the .protective taxes is about one hnndred and seventy-five millions. This is theory, says the protectionist. So it is. Are we not figuring -among unknown quantities ? The protective sys.tem prevents us from reaping the full fruits of our industry. How can we estimate as to what might have been ? My own belief is that the protective system, is costing this country many times the heaviest estimate of protective taxation that I have ever seen. A thousand millions a year ! This is only a guess at the direct cost of the protective system. We have yet to estimate the damage the system itself brings in its very operation, for I beg you to notice that we by no means complete the entry in our ledger when we charge up the losses which we make good to the conductors of naturally unprofitable labors. What of the loss from •the distortion of our industrial forces ? The protective system ob- viously achieves its results by diverting capital and labor from the natural to the unnatural channels; from the lines where there is a real profit to the lines where there is an actual loss. How much is sacrificed yearly by the failure to apply our capital and labor in the right directions ? We have no estimates of this factor, and can have none. We can only rest on a moral certainty that our loss is far greater in this direction than in the other. Not for lack of material but for the sake of terseness, I close mv exhibit of the positive side of this question with a brief summary: THK PROTECTIVE TARIFF CREED. 1. The protective tariff is a device to compel the people at large to pay tribute to privileged classes in order to enable these classes to conduct manufactures otherwise unprofitable. 3. In so far as such a tariff accomplishes its purpose it produces no revenue to the Government. It operates purely and simply as a tax on the .well-directed industrial efforts for the support of ill-directed industrial efforts. 3. The protective tariff diverts industry and capital from profitable to trnprofitable channels. The few who manage the protected enter- prises may grow rich, since to them is committed the division of the spoils ; but the result to the country cannot beother than a diminu- tion of wealth. 4. The protective system is a clear invasion of personal liberty. THE KEVENUE TARIFF CREED. 1. The revenue tariff is a system of duties on imports laid for the purpose of bringing income for the expenses of Government. It is so laid that the Government Treasury will receive the whole tax levied^ less the expenses of collection. All taxes are due to the Government " only." 2. The revenue-tariff system discoantenances the creation of classes to be supported by tribute from others,, and therefore demands as a supplement the adjustment of internal taxes insuoha way as to offset the effect of import duties. 3. The revenue tariff leaves the industrial forces of the country j ust as it finds them, free, to seek the be^t channels which the resources of the country afford. 4. The revenue tariff infringes on no man's liberty, except to the extent of exacting from each individual his contribution for the main- tenance of law and order. WHICH IS THE CHOICE? It would seem that between these opposing systems it would not be difficult to make a choice. How does it happen, therefore, that so enlightened a people as the citizens of these United States have chosen the system of protection ? The proper answer to this is that they never did choose it. The first tariff made was made for revenue. The protective element was forced into it by the representatives of certain manufacturing interests, (it is a remarkable coincidence that their leader hailed from Pennsylvania,) who found their opportunity in the critical need of the nation for immediate income. A foot-hold thus secured, the history of the progress of protection in the tariff is simply the old history of encroachment on the common, and thercr fore unchampioned, rights by a class organized and equipped for plunder under the forms of law. I know of no more exasperating case of misrepresentation than that of the protectionist version of this part of the history of our tariff. PERVERSIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Take for example the speech of the arch-protectionist, the late re- publican candidate for the Presidency. It passes my comprehension how a member of the Cobden Club — even if he did not know what that club was — could so distort the plain record. In the speech to which I refer, originally made in this House in 1878, but made again in. print ten thousand times and more during the late canvass, this fierce protectionist begins by planting himself on the Constitution and on the very first grant of powers to Congress : Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. How is it possible for any one to go astray in the reading of this simple and business-like clause ? What can it mean other than this : that Congress is empowered to raise a revenue by certain means, the purposes of such revenue being the payment of debts, the sustaining of the means of national defense, and such other objects as may be 10 broadly classed under the term "general welfare." In other words, the plain reading of the clause is, that since the Government must have a revenue it may raise that revenue in the several ways specified. But, lo! our protectionist champion makes these simple words read very differently. His translation is that Congress has the power to impose taxes in such a way that the general welfare will be promoted ; " general welfare," in the bright lexicon of the protectionist, mean- ing always the profits of the pig-iron men. I shall not stop to argue the point. I only ask that clear headed men scan the clause of the Constitution in question in an hon- est way, and then say frankly if they can find anything in it au- thorizing any provision for the "general welfare " excepting by the eu^enditure of the revenues previously acquired. The clause may pos- sibly be construed to authorize subsidies, and even river and harbor appropriations ; but so to twist this clear revenue-producing provision as to make it a license for Government dabbling in manufacturing experiments, even to the extent of cutting off and preventing reve- nue, distances the usual dexterity of the most supple and subtle pol- itician. THE FATHERS. On the second page of this remarkable and representative speech, referring to the founders of the Republic, " the men who created this Constitution," occurs this striking passage : Our fathers said: " Thougli we "will use the taxing power to maintain a small Army and Navy sufBcient to keep alive the knowledge of war, yet the main reliance for our defense shall be the intelligence, culture, and skill of our people ; a develop- ment of oar own intellectual and material resources, which will enable us to do everything that may be necessary to equip, clothe, and feed ourselves in time of war, and make ourselves intelligent, happy, and prosperous in peace." NoWjthe fact is, "ourfathers"saidnothingof the kind. Ourfather from Massachusetts said, " Put an impost tax on rum. We make it here, and don't want the West Indies to run into our market." "Be- sides," he added piously, "such a tax will aid the cause of temper- ance." Our father from Georgia opposed : " Give me my rum free, if you please. I buy it with my lumber in the West Indies, and, besides, good rum never hurt anybody." Our father from Pennsylvania patriotically remarked : " I must have a duty on iron, since the iron industry is the foundation of all things." Our father from South Carolina replied : " You cannot have it. I am not going to pay more for my plows and hoes than they are worth. Let iron be free. But hemp, now — hemp is a good thing to put a duty on. I raise hemp myself ; and wouldn't mind it." And then the father from Pennsylvania collided with him because hemp was the raw material of cordage. And thus the wrangling con- tinued. No, Mr. Speaker, " our fathers " used no such meUifluous lan- guage as that put into their mouths by the eloquent protectionist from whom I have quoted. Tariff legislation was in the beginning what it has ever been, a jangling strife for the biggest share in the plunder of the whole people. It always ended in some fashion by a compromise and a deal. MADISON'S VIEWS. The late candidate's address is even so bold as to declare in effect that James Madison was the leader of the protection forces in the initial tariff debate, I quote : Two days after the votes for President were counted, and long before Washing- 11 ton was Inangaiated, James Madison rose in the first House of Repiesentatives and for the first time moved to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the TTnion, for the express purpose of oarr;;iiig ont the theory of the Constitution to provide for the common defense and general welfare, both by regnlating com- merce and protecting American manufactures. James Madison, Mr. Speaker, did nothing of the kind. He rose in the first House of Eepresentatives with these words on his lips : The deficiency in our Treasury has been too notorions to make it necessary for me to animadvert upon that subject. Let us content ourselves with endeavoring to remedy the evil. That is, James Madison's first speech was for revenue, and the tariff he proposed in that speech was a revenue tariff. Fitzsimons, of Penn- sylvania, and others, who put the claims of their locality ahove the nation's need and the nation's honor, began at once a course of bully-ragging to get in their protective items. Madison protested, urged the need of instant action for revenue, and finally yielded his position because he saw that if he did not the conflict would be in- definitely prolonged, the national Treasury would remain empty, and the young Eepublic be disgraced in the eyes of the whole world, if not torn asunder by the angry contestants. I heg your patience while I quote from James Madison in this very debate. You will see for yourselves how much truth there is in the statement that he rose in the first Congress to advocate the protective system. lam myself — Said Mr. Madison — the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth that commer cial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic. It is also a truth that if industry and labor are left to take their own course they will generally be di- rected to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more'certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out. Kor do I think that the national interest is more promoted by such restric- tions than that the interest of individuals would be promoted by legislative inter- ference directing the particular application of its industry. For example, we should find no advantage in saying that every man should be obliged to furnish himself, by his own labor, with those accommodations which depend on the mechanic arts, instead of employing his neighbor, who could do it for him on better terms. It would be of no advantage to the shoemaker to make his own clothes to save the expense of procuring them from the tailor. It would be better policy to suffer each of them to employ his talent in his own way. The case is the same between the exercise of the arts and agriculture — between the city and the country, and between city and town — each capable of making particular articles in abundance to supply the other. Thus all are benefited by exchange, and the less this exchange is cramped by government the greater are the proportions of benefit to each. The same argument holds good between nation and nation, and between parts of the same nation. Was ever, Mr. Speaker, a clearer, broader, more clean-cut statement of the principle of free-trade ? I am free to say, sir, that Mr. Madi- son subsequently gave a kind of support to the doctrine of "tariff for revenue with incidental protection ; " but in this first congressional debate he planted himself distinctly, emphatically, and without pos- sibility of mistake upon the democratic platform — a tariff for revenue only; free trade the highest condition of industrial growth. I will not pursue further the devious line of assertion and of soph- istry on which the speech under consideration draws its slow length along. Enough is before us to illustrate the misr^resentation of which protectionists are guilty when they try to make it appear that their system of class taxation and local monopoly was created by the statesmen of the early and patriotic days, and was accepted delib- erately by the people as the clear means to industrial growth and commercial greatness. The fact is, as I have stated, and as any man 12 can see by reviewing the record, protection was fdrced into th« first tariff by sectional greed; it was suffered to enter only as an incident, the main objactof the tariff beingagreed on all bands to be revenue ; but once in, it grew and became masterful. It used those evil means which are a necessary part of any such system of class privilege and favoritism. INCIDENTAL ROBBEBY. In the beginning, on the most favorable constr notion for the pro- tectionist view, we had a tariff for revenue with incidental protec- tion. To-day we have a tariff for protection, with incidental rev- enue. The protectionists have had the advantages of ^personal and pocket interest for the pressing of their schemes ; the revenue tariff' men have had no center of organization on any business basis ; they have had as their working force only the spirit of equity and patri- otism. And patriotism, Mr. Speaker, while it is a consuming fire when focused under th& lens of imminent national danger, commonly ac- quires a rather milk-and-watery temperature when the purpose of action is only the conservation of general business interests. The people have never in any true sense declared in favor of a pro- tective tairiff. They have simply grown used to it. They will tteow it off with indignation as soon as their eyes are reallj' opened to its true character. HOW MANY INTERESTED IN THE PLUNDER. , For I ask you to consider how many of the people of these United States have any share whatever in the benefits or spoils of the pro- tective tariff. In 1870 the census returns figured the number of the country's working force at 12j500i00p. If theratio of increase is the same as for the general papulation, our working force now numbers about fifteen millions, Now suppose, these working and business peo- plei to be distributed as they were ten years ago. We obtain this ex- hibit : Table sliowing number of persona engaged, in the va/rious classes of voca- tion. Vocation. Percent. Number en- Agricnltnre 47 7,050,000 Profession and personal services 22 3,300,000 Trade and transportation 9 1, 350^000 Manufacturing, mechanical, and mining 23 3^3001 000 This reduced to terms of tariff means that the protected workers are 3,300,000; unprotected workers, 11,700,000. For every working man or woman in the protected industries there are four (nearly) in the industries that are not protected. A tariff for revenue only would therefore bring benefit directly to four out of five of our working and business men; and since to them, to those who depehd upon them for support : that is, (roughly,) to forty mill- ions of the people of the United States. But this is not.all, The class "manufacturing, mechanic, and min- ing" yields interesting results on analysis. The army of mechanics contains but a small minority who can in any way be regarded as benefited by protection. What protection does a carpenter getf His saws and hammers are taxed, his screws pay an exorbitant trib- ute to monopolies, the very lumber he uses is made more costly by 13 tariff reBtrictions. How is the plumber protected ? His wrenches and his pots all pay tax, the iron for his sinks, the copper and brass for his tubes, are levied upon by the private tax-gatherer of the com- binations. Neither is protection extended (except in the way of im- posing burdens and exacting tribute) to the masons, the tailors, the shoemakers, the bakers, and the great host of the country's skilled and unskilled working people. Of course it is pretended that the workmen engaged in the indus- tries which do actually receive shares of the tariff spoils are directly and greatly benefited. The protectionist reasoning on this subject will not hold water ; but suppose we allow it. Taking away from the fourth class in the table the working people engaged in mechanic arts like plumbing and masonry, the proportion of those who are benefited by the protective tariff to those who are injured will be about one to twenty. That is to say, about two and one- half millions are benefited, while forty -seven and one-half millions of our people are injured. I cannot believe, and I do not think that anybody believes, that forty- seven and one-half millions of our people are willing to be taxed in order to sustain a body of two and one-half millions engaged in fancy occupations. When the great majority awake to the truth, then ex- pect a revolution more sudden and startling than the corn-law repeal. We can go further yet. It is pretended, as I have said, that the "workingman" in the protected industries is obviously benefited. How is he benefited ? WAOES. Here is an industry, say, which must have protection. Why must it have protection ? In order, says the protectionist, to make it possible to pay the workmen fair wages. How does any one imagine that the protected manufacturer pays any more than the market rate ? He does not. He pays wages, not on the phil£(nthropic plan which is commonly paraded before the public, but on strictly business principles. And what fixes the mar- ket rate of wages ? Not the small demand of the subsidized indus- tries; not the 5 per cent, demand great unprotected employments. PAUPER LABOR. The very arguments which the protectionist uses give the refuta- tion of his position. We cannot compete, he says, with the "pauper labor" of Europe. Why? Because there is no pauper labor here; wages in this country are high. Wages are high. Wages are not to be made high ; they are high. And every employer must meet this situation, protection or no protection. The protection, that is to Say, does not touch wages ;- good wages are already secured by the condi- tions of the general labor market. The tariff tax goes to the manu- facturer either to make good his natural losses, or, as in copper and sundry other cases,, to give him exorbitant profits. The hands in the mills and forges and mines of the country have no share at all in the fund contributed by the forty-seven &;nd a half millions for the support of the two and a half millipns. It is not a wage fund at all ; it is at best only a bankruptcy fund. They are not benefited ; but on the contrary they are subject' to tribute with the mass of consumers. Thejr must pay more tha.n they otherwise would ior all that they eat or drink or wear. ABE THE MANUFACTUEEKS BENEFITED ? Whom have we left ? The manufacturers themselves. And even 14 here what do we find ? Their machinery and appliances cost, the most of them, anywhere from 20 to 50 per cent, more than they should ; the majority of them are loaded down with taxes on their raw materials and their transportation expenses are magnified enormously. Last, but not least, they are all of them, practically, out off from the foreign market ; penned up to the home demand with facilities and capital to fill that demand five times oveir. This is the meaning of the recur- ring gluts, the slaughtering of price-lists, the running on half time, the selling of plants for one-tenth of their value. It is amazing to remark the prevailing blindness in this regard. " 1 cannot live without protection," says the manufacturer of hats. Of course you cannot, so long as you pay a duty on your cloth, on your thread, on your silk, on your paper, on everything that goes into your hat. But suppose your materials were free and your machinery bought at its proper cost ; what then ? I will tell you what then. FOREIGN MAEKET. The manufactures of this country would advance with such strides as we have never seen. Our statistics of exports would not be the disgrace they are now ; they would not show that we are selling our birthright, throwing away the crude richness of our soil. We would export manufactured goods, and make our profit not on gross sales of our inheritance, but by the genius of our minds, the cunning of our hands, and the industry of our muscles, as impressed on the finished goods. Protective tariff — revenue tariff. An illusion on the one hand, a business-like system on the other. Let the American people decide between them, and that speedily, before darker days come. CONCLUSION. Political parties have played the coward on these vital issues. Each party seems fearful of a struggle with the bounty-fed monopo- lies of the land. But, Mr. Speaker, future platforms will be built on the principles of freedom in trade, since they closely affect our business relations, which are stifled when freedom is lacking. We are no longer de- pendent upon others for raw materials or manufactured articles. We need, we must have, a market beyond our borders for our surplus productions. For all the forms of matter produced for utility and comfort there must be an outlet. New markets must be found. We cannot be forever mutual with ourselves. It is a solecism. Without foreign markets our limited foreign commerce will fade away and our home commerce be paralyzed. We are at the mercy of the first disaster to our harvests or at the caprice of the first abundant har- vest abroad. Will not our farmers take note of the peril ? Their prosperity might and should have been better, notwithstanding the bad harvests abroad and good harvests here. They have hugged the delusion that their prosperity is to continue. Cannot they see that retaliation is as old as human selfishness ? Do they desire a pro- hibitory tax in France and England against our wheat and cattle ? Will not other'countries, shut off from us by our protective and pro- hibitive polictes, strike back ? M. Maurice Eouvier spoke eloquently for commercial liberty in the French Chamber on the 17th of February, 1880 ; but he spoke most significantly alsa if our farmers will heed even the translation. I append it in the form of extracts to guide us toward living fountains of true economy, to show what is preparing against our abundance 15 and surplus and what will evidently come unless we liberalize our own custom policies under tlie light of science. Let us not be deluded. We may now float on a Pactolus of European gold as if on a summer stream, reflecting all the blessings from above; but let the adverse elements appear and the clouds lower, and the protective illusions will dissolve. The need of natural laws which govern production, distribution, and consumption will he so surely felt (though it may he too late to avert the worst catastrophe) that a revolution will be hailed as the only hope and harbinger of this new hemisphere, now so alluring to the labor of mankind and so at- tractive as the only true protecting genius of popular activity and advancing, civilization. Appendix A. Hxtracti from the speech of M. Maurice Rouvier, on the general customs tariff hill, m the French Chamber, February 17, 1880. INVASION OF FRANCE BY AMEBICAN PRODUCTS— DUTY DEMANDED AGAINST AMERI- CAN WHEAT AND CATTLE— FRANCE IN A BAD WAY — CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS AN ENEMY TO OUR RACE. The crops had been bad in France for two years. This fact indicated the line of conduct for oar opponents to pursue. They excited agitation throughout the land. They went among the agrlculturiata to exhibit the phantom of an invasion of American products. An able orator traveled through the provinces everywhere, and visited the prin- cipal agricultural towns. Before the political trip of which I speak, they had flooded the rural districts and even the smallest villages of France with a little blue paper, in which the president of the republic and the Chambers were petitioned to protect agriculture, and to impose a duty of three francs upon wheat. We have in the archives of the committee eighty-seven volumes, almost a cubic meter, of docu- ments of all kinds, containing thousands of signatures, all demanding invariably this duty of three francs. It is easy to conceive what response would be elicited by this agricultural circu- . lar. The peasants were asked : " Do you wish to obtain three francs more for your wheat ? " As in all circulars, one side only of the question was presented. They were not told : " In selling your wheat for three francs more you will have to pay six francs more for all other necessaries." No ; this simple question was asked : Do you wish to obtain three francs more for your wheat ? They replied : *' Tes : . of course we do ; " and affixed their signatures. And from tbas has resulted all that mass of documents to which I refer. I am indeed astonished that np to the present hour no one in the Chamber has brought to the desk this demand for a duty of three francs upon wheat. After this campaign, undertaken for the duty upon wheat, we have the tour of M. Ponyer Quertier. He is not here, but as he has a platform from which he can speak, and as he has agitated this question, I do not hesitate to mention his name. M. Ponyer Quertier traveled over France and excited the rural population about the danger to which It is exposed on account of America. He represented our country as inundated by immense quantities of wheat and by large numbers of cattle. It is one of the most curious incidents of these discussions that it can be proved that, at the very time when this politician traveled over France creating a sort of economical panic, in another direction he was making appeals for the capi- tal of his fellow-citizens, in order to unite France and America by a telegraphic cable. This has struck me so forcibly, as I have listened during the past few days to all the orators who have successively denounced from this platform the danger- ous invasion of American products, that I have asked mjself if we are not subject to a sort of delusion in considering the illustrious navigator who discovered the Kew World as a benefactor of humanity. Ought he not to be considered as an evil genius, who prepared the invasion of all those products which have flooded our markets? If Christopher Columbus should be held up for public execration because he discovered America, and thus opened the way for the evils with which we are threatened, we ought then to stigmatize M. Ponyer Quertier, who desired to con- nect America with France by a telegraphic cable, because the least fluctuations in our markets will be known instantly in America, and the speculators of the Kew World will be advised of all that occurs in France. At the time when the country was subjected to this agitation the committee which 16 you appointed made an investigation, and summoned before it successively, as com- mittees always do, the representatives of every industry. Almost all .alas ! gavea deplorable picture of their business. To believe them, this land of France, which ■we love, perhaps too fondly, is a very ungrateful soil, and quite unfavored by nat- ure. In nothing is it equal to other nations. Coal does not burn here so well, and operatives are less skillful. The sun even does not warm it like other lands. Open the report of the investigation, and yoa will see that what I have just told you is not exaggerated. Open it, and you will find in every page this long lameh- tation upon French industry. I even ask myself how was it that those imprudent men who gave their testimony were ignorant of the fact that the most terrible blow that could he inflicted by our foreign competitors would be the printing in every language of those three volumes of the investigation. The manufacturers pointed out diflerent causes of inferiority. I will take lor example coal, which is said to be dearer in France than in England. There is some truth in their assertion. I know that it is easy for them to exaggerate the importance of statements of this 6ort. They gave the cost of coal at the mine in England and in Belgium, and then the price at Paris. I beg the manufacturers to settle their diflferences with M. AUain Targ6, the deputy of the department of the Seine, who finds that the freight on coal is too low, and who regards as a new evil the deepening of the river, so that the barges of Belgium may transport their coal more cheaply. That IS the doctrine of the school which regards as an evil the importation of foreign productions. This cannot be denied. As for myself, I belong to the oppo- site school, which profess.es that when we buy foreign productions we benefit our- selves by obtaining at a lower cost products which are dear in our own land. Appendix B. moke dangers fkom american manufactuke3. Butwearetold : " There are other considerations; new contingencies have arisen owing to America and G-ermany." "Ameiica," it is asserted, "overwhelms us with its importations of grain." Now, has there ever existed in the world a country, I will not say civilized, but even a barbarous one, where one hectoliter of grain has been imported that was not necessary for the consumption of its inhabitants 1 "Wearetold: "America sends us grain; floods us with it." Tes, thank Heaven ! She -has sent us a great deal — I do not know if the plains of Hussia after the wars of the past few years could have supplied our wants — well, America has sent usa great deal, and we rejoice at it. We were told that she also sent us cattle and sheep. The minister of commerce made known from this platform, with the authority which attaches to his statements, how unimportant this mvaaion actually waa. It is true that some reply, that these steers and these sheep Imported from America come by the way of Antwerp, through Belgium, and enter by our Belgian frontier. Truly those are steers and sheep which have a strange fancy for travel- ing about! Moreover, before exhibiting to us this specter of an invasion of American prod- ucts, they made another campaign. At the commencement of the investigation 'to which Ijust now aJluded, we heard manufacturers say : " Take care, America is going to flood our markets with its manufactured goods, and as we have pro- hibitive 'tariffs instead of treaties of commerce in force as to the United States, these manufactured goods, not yet being able to enter France, already pour into England." Appendix C. qlffistion of failubes akd wages dj france and united states, as affected by FHOTECTION. [David A. Wells, quoted by the French Economist.] We are again told : " But the United States are in an excellent condition intern- ally ; wages are greater; in England failures are taking place one after another; in the United States prosperity is increasing." Eelative to this point it is proper for me to submit a few reliable figures : In 1872, the number of failures amounted to 4,069, representing liabilities of 605,000,00,) of francs ;* in 1878 the failures amounted to 11,479, with liabilities of 1,172,000,000 of francs. t That is the way that excessive protection in the United States develops domestic prosperity. * Abont one hundred and twenty-one million dollars. t About two hundred and thirty-four million four hundred thousand dollars. 17 But let us not discuss the subject of failures, because I am aware that in Anglo- Saxon countries a failure la of leas importance than it is in France. In Prance it is an injury to the property of others ; in the country referred to a kind of liquidation, and a failure there does not entail the opprobrium whicli attaches to it in France. Let us then eliminate these subjects from our debate. But there is another consideration : "Wages. What has been the effect of the in- crease of duties upon wages ? Our opponents have said: " We are the protectors of nationallabor. We do notwiah ftie wages of our operatives to be lowered." Let us see now what takes place in regard to wa^ea in a country where your prin- ciples are applied. America has applied your principles, let us look at the results : Here are the figures taken from the Board of Trade G-azette : "Wages have diminished one-half or two-thirds. In 1873 carpentera in N"ew York received 12.50 francs* a day aa wagea. In 1878 this fell to 8,75 francs ; t op- eratives in all trades $2 or 10 francs a day ; in 1878 their wages were 5.50 francs. } Cigar-makers were paid in 1873 15 francs. § They now receive 6.25 francs || a day. People smoke lesa." When people reduce their expenses, when they deijrive themselves of luxuries, it is a proof that they are scarcely able to supply their neceaaary wants. " Tinsmiths who earned 15 francs do not now obtain more than 10 franca." In order to appreciate the true value of these figures you must keep in sight the fact that the cost of living in the United States is three times as much as it is in our own country. Moreover, here is the opinion of Mr. David Wells, formerly Commissioner of In- ternal Revenue ; and he is not the only one who entertains these views. He wrote as follows in the INorth American Review in 1872 : " It is certain th^t the people of this country to-day consume less sugar and less coffee, they buy a smaller quantity of boots, shoes, and hats, and of every other article of general consumption than they did in 1859." That is an estimate, but here are the figures : " The consumption of cotton goods calculated in weight," Mr. Wells adds, " was less in 1870 for a population of 39,000,000 than it was in 1860 for one of 30,000,000." These are the efTects of protection upon wages and upon consumption. When we examine presently the nature of custom duties, we shall see that this is the inevitable efiect of such duties. When you create in addition to the tax levied for the support of the Government a tax imposed for special classes,— for you cannot apply this system to one industry only, you must make it of general application and apply it to all, — you thereby create an unnatural enhancement of price, which resulte in causing a* decrease in consumption. Appendix D. all tariffs are taxes. what goes to, the treasury and what outside. the ECONOMIC FORMULA OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. THE CUSTOM DUTY IS A TAX. This has not been stated too often. It has been described as a sort of moral bar- rier ; but the truth is it is a tax which differs from others in this, that a part only of the proceeds of this tax goes into the public Treasury, while the balance — and. it is the largest part — goes into the pockets of manufacturers and producers. Can there be in a republic those who would think of establishing such a condi- tion of affaira? Can there be in a republic those who would pretend to have the right to impose such a tax upon their fellow- citizens ! Can such a policy find snp- jwrt 1 When you impose a custom duty upon a necessary article of consumption which is produced in the interior of the country, and which comes also by im- portation from abroad, can you deny that you cause the following results : On one hand the duty levied upon the gooaa goes into the vaults of the Treasury, and on the other hand the domestic productions are increased in cost by an amount equal to the entire custom duty. Our opponents deny that domestic productions are enhanced incest by an amount equal to the entire custom duty, but indeed they admit, I think, that their coat is increased in a certain proportion. Now, I will tell them that if I desired to oppose their arguments by others of their own making I would remind them that Hon. M. M61ine confessed that warehouse duties, which are in reality custom duties, re* suited in increasing the cost of cotton by the whole amount of the tax. * About two dollars and fifty cents. t About one dollar and seventy-five centa. t About one dollar and ten centa. § About three dollars. (I About one dollar and twenty-five centa. 2 CO 18 However, I wiU concede tUs aOso, the custom duty does not affect prices to its fuU extent! tu* Pleaae acknowledge at least that it does t» a certain extent. •Well, I have given the figures of the production of gram : 77,000,000 of hectoliters are domestic grain: 42,000,000 are imported. Impose a duty of two francs upon this erain and what will the grain brought fiom foreign countries pay into the treas- ury! Eighty-four millions ! But the home producers, owing to the protection re- Bulting from the duty, wiU obtain 154,000,000 ! ^ , ^ ^^ • i* t Yon know this so weU that not one of you, however devoted to the agricultural interest and imbued with this doctrine, not one of you has risen to demand a duty upon grain. *> , , . . ^ . .. What you dare not do in regard to grain and other provisions of prime necessity, » how can you do it in regard to other articles, the necessity for which is as great, if not as apparent! Btow can you do it without inflicting an uyury upon con- sumers ? „ , . .. .„ -J. . i i-t, 4. Gentlemen, if it is true that custom duties are of this nature ; if it is true that they do not benefit the State alone which imposes them, but also certain classes of citizens, is it not evident that the question now debated is essentially a political one, whatever may be asserted to the contrary ! We must decide whether, under the republic, under a democratic government, one part of the population shall impose duties upon the other. , , .. j., ^ . i. j Do you not feel, gentlemen, that this is impossible, and that the unrestncted right to consume whatever we need is, in a certain measure, the economic formula ofuniversal sufijcage ? Appendix E. THE ARISTOCRACY OF MANUFACTURES. PROTECTION AN ANACHRONISM ; 'aN INSULT TO SCIENCE AND PROGRESS. TALLOW CHANDLERS VS. THE SUN. PROTECT EVERT ONE OR NO ONE. WORDS OF WISDOM FROM AN ELOQUENT FRENCHMAN. In this regard I recall to mind a passage from a speech of the minister of com- merce, in which he spoke of the demand for a reductton of tariff duties, which was made under the monarchy of 1830, and of the reply returned by Count Jaubert. Ah I there was no deception in Count Jaubert. He did not say, "We wish to protect the wages of the working classes ! " He came to the platform and declared with a frankness characteristic of the time, "In every monarchy there must be an aristocracy, and the aristocracy upon which the government of 1830 ought to rely for support, is the aristocracy of manufacturers!^' Well, in a democratic republic there is no _place for any other aristocracy than that of merit, of talent, and of virtue ; there is none for that which comes from a name or from 'wealth. The custom tariff duties whose political character I have just now endeavored to demonstrate, have still another aisadvantage. I confess that I have hesitated to discuss this point because I have feared that I would be charged with exaggera- tion. But after all I have heard here, I can safely assert that the fact has already been acknowledged upon this platform. Custom-tariff duties are not only a tax contrary to democratic principles, but they are also an actual anachronism. They are a tax upon the discoveries of science, and upon what has been regarded as too great facility of commercial transportation. Ton demand an increase of duties— it was stated explicitly— because transpor- tation has become cheaper. And we would exhibit the spectacle of a people who are now making sacrifices in order to develop their means of transportation, who are seeking to encourage discoveries in human science, who are constructing new canals and new railroads, who have already pierced the Isthmus of Suez, who to* morrow, perhaps, will accomplish as great a work in another hemisphere ; we would exhibit the spectacle of a people who would station at the end of thetr rail- loads and canals, a custom-house ofScer armed with tariffs, who will say to science : "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther !" We would present this spectacle of a people whose brightest intellects are seeking to invent improvements in mauufaot- nres ; and when a man of genius shall succeed in shortening distances and in lighten- ing labor, behold, a protectionist appears and cries outt " No admittance." This is not a paradox ; it is occuriing every day. These doctrines have been presented from this platform without disguise. Xou all remember that pamphlet of Bastiat in which he speaks of the tallow-chandlers who present a petition against the sun, calling him a competitor who does not buy any raw material or pay for labor, and who, in the inteiest of accursed England, floods us with his light, BO that as soon as he appears there is no longer a chance to sell the products of their labor. That apparently is f acetiousness in the celebrated economist, but in reality it is nothing of the kind. There was presented here one day a petition from tallow- chandlers in another form. In 1821 the oil merchants of Lille importuned the pub- lic authorities with a petition against gas. They demanded that measures should 19 be taken against this new article of oompetition, because, as they asserted, it wonld rain tbeir business. And frankly, gentlemen, do you not find to-day even evidences in our tariffs of the same interested motives ? T)o we not perceive that a cmsade has been organ- ized for the purpose of imposing duties upon colors derived from coal ? upon auza- rine and upon aniline, which come in competition with madder, a nataral product ? Custom-tariff duties, I repeat, are a positive anachronism, and if we had not suf- fered the calamity of the war of 1570, which so frightfully increased our debt, and which compelled us to impose new taxes ; if we were in a normal condition, we would demand their abolition, ^nd the adoption in this country, as the greatest and surest stimulant, of the English tariff with its eight or ten clauses imposing duties upon articles which are not produced in that country, and so preserving au exclu- sively fiscal character. "We would say to you: Break down the barriers! !Fear nothing, for the French are a people sufficiently energetic to compete with foreigners. But we are compelled to accept the situation in which we are placed. We are not infiuenced by a blind party spirit. We donot ask you to go forward. We bear in mind, no matter what assertions are made, that since 1870 seven hundred mill- ions of additional taxes have been imposed unon the country. It is because we bear this in mind that we support the tariff bill submitted by the government and refrain from asking you to proceed further. But we implore you to take no step backward, and to give no encouragement to an economic reaction. When a step in that direction is taken, there is no tilling where we will stop. To-day you are asked to protect a single industry ; to-mor- row there will be another, because it is impossible to create two classes of citizens in this country, one which is protected and another which is not. If we do not wish to divide the country we must protect all alike. Now, to protect every one or to protect no one amounts to exactly the same thing. Abrogation of Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Lo ! on wbat a Darrow neck of land 'Twixt two nnbonnded seas I stand, Alone, insensible '. SPEECH HON. SAMUEL S. OOX On tlie bill ( H. E. No. 7203) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes. Mr. COX said : Mr. Chairman : I desire to present my views on the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, proposed in the joint resolution which I reported from the Foreign Affairs Committee. There will be no other germane proposition or opportunity for this purpose except on this bUl. That report made last session by that committee comprehends every reason pertinent to its adoption. It has been commended by patriotic men of all parties. It would open the way anew for our best aspirations as a people. It recognizes our continental relations, which include commercial relations. Whether we should vote money for coaling stations on the Isthmus, as a collateral proposition to this continental policy, I do not propose now to consider. The House was confiding, beyond the ordinary trusts which com- mittees receive from it, in referring resolutions to the Foreign Affairs Committee pertaining to this question, in view of the fact of the ex- istence of a special committee on a kindred subject. The Committee on Foreign Affairs took no material or narrow view of the matter in- trusted to their judgment. It did not consider appropriations for maritime stations. It dealt only with the higher questions of the lex gentium. These include not only the treaties, the best virtues and conscientious convictions of right and duty, but the natural justice recognized among nations. It regarded them as a bar to the general retrogression of our race by the abrogation of our duties upon this continent as the chief government and the best helper to its civiliza- tion and advancement. This Congress, in its daily routine, and especially in this hurried snort session, hardly has the leisure to mark time, much less to move forward to generous policies, which have their best champion in these federated States of North Amercia. Still we do sometimes pause, even on appropriations for coal, to lift above the dull and mercenary round of our legislation an ensign, whose sacred cross in the south- ern skies is brighter and loftier than that which Constantino saw in the heavens, and in whose sign he conquered ? The President of the United States recognized the sign, and his 21 message of Maroli 8, 1880, illustrates how the American idea rises above the ordinary schemes of men and parties. No microscopic horo- scope of our relation to this hemisphere is now possible or honorable. The report recognizes the adhesion of the executive department to the doctrine of our supremacy as a leading power on this hemisphere. It recognizes our "rightful control" over isthmian enterprises, in which we have the paramount interest. It recognizes the necessity of clearing away the debris created by improvident diplomacy, such as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to the end that we may securely found a policy indispensable to our safety, security, commerce, production, and advancement. The obstacles the Executive hints at, the report of our committee would remove by a bold and unmistakable revoca- tion of the obnoxious treaty. The report rehearses the story of the Isthmus and the wiles of diplo- macy to counteract, impede, and destroy our "rightful control " in that remarkable neck of land. The alarm felt in 1849-'50, and which led to the " ill-omened treaty," as if it were portentous of a conflict with Great Britain, has been dissipated. Crops — surplus crops here and failure of crops abroad — commercial changes, and the advance of pop- ular principles and liberal trade' — these and other elements of our country, not excluding our material strength, developed against our- selves since 1849, make the fears of those early days as to war and its consequences as unsubstantial now as the mist that evaporates before the sun. Nearly all that could be said as to the diplomatic blunders of Mr. Clayton, our former Secretary of State, has been well said by our leading statesmen, such as Cass and Douglas. But the inside history, the wiles and devices of the English diplomats who captured Mr. Clay- ton, and whose record has transpired lately, as well as the violations of the treaty by England, are stated in the report with sufficient f ult ness. They need no repetition from me here and now. It might be permitted me, not because of any vanity of consistency but out of the logic of events, to recur to some early discussions, so as to show what is of moment and pith in the present emergency. We abandoned "through pusillanimity great and splendid advan- tages fairly secured to us by treaty." It is our duty, now that the apprehensions growing out of the balance of power between free and slave States is ended, to recognize ourselves as sole arbiters of our in- terests upon this continent. On the 18th of January, 1859, 1 had the honor to address the House in words and with meaning very similar to the language and tenor of this report. At that time there was a disquieting aspect in our affairs growing out of English pretenses. It looked to changes in ter- ritory and power. The law governing such changes was expressed with more latitude than would now perhaps be compatible with my relation to foreign affairs ; for I said, speaking almost abstractly, that nationalities of inferior grade must surrender to those of superior civilization and polity. The expression was this : Tlie largest expreasion of this law of annexation is that no nation has the right to hold soil, virgin and rich yet unproducing — no nation has a right to hold great isthmian highways or strong defenses on this continent withoat the desire, will, or power to use them. They ought and must inure to the advancement of our com- merce. They most become confiscate to the decrees of Providence. After showing our relations to Cuba and the hostility of Spain by tariff discriminations and otherwise, these remarks of mine appear in the Globe of that time : A.S to Central America, we know well the Impediment existing in the way of 22 onr aconisitioii there. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the diplomatic blunder of the centnilretands as a huge gorgon in our path The policy of ita »^r»gata™ Jf,"""" oeded : but " how not to do it ^ seems ffl have been t£e, practice. The present Ex- ntive in his message of December 8, 1857, Jjewailed this condition of things. Jle inherited, as did President Pierce, this treaty of peace, whicli has proved a treaty of offense. England and the United States have been quarreling over its construc- tion when its destruction was the most paciflc course that could have been adopted. Collateral treaties may be made which will prevent the consequence of an abrupt abrogation of this treaty. Diplomacy is now, we are told, working to this end. But as we now know all such collateral endeavors utterly failed. The civil war came ; and the utter oblivion of isthmus routes fol- lowed under the pressure of our great necessities. In pursuing this theme at that day, I said further : 'But there is in the American mind a chronic distrust of England. It is well grounded in her laxity of faith. 'When her interests can be subserved, she breaks any compact; and only adheres to it when demanded by her interests. Whether the treaties to be made with Honduras, Costa Eica, and Nicaragua throttle this bantling of Bulwer, whether we are to lose stiU more by British dilatory diplo- macy, remains to be seen. One thing is remarkable, that we have not advanced since 1849, wben Nicaragua, in the BUess-Selva treaty, proposed to " confer on us the exclusive right "of an interoceanic canal or highway. Had that treaty been confirmed, we might have had to-day forts and free cities along its route and at its termini, with full right to protect Nicaragua by all the strength of our Navy and Army. A year later, and that wily diplomatist, BulWer— who, for his tact, is sent to the Bosp'horus to teach Eussia her rdle in the East^comes forward with his pro- jit. Our Government nibbles coyly at his bait ; but, like a foolish fish, at last leaps for the fly, is barbed, and hauled in to flounder for the amusement of the world. Would ttat Mr. Clayton had weighed the meaning of Smelf ungus's philosophy : *'It is always time to cut your throat; but if your throat is once cut, there are cer- tain difliculties in the way of reconsidering your determination." Crampton and Webster tried in 1852 to unravel the web. Then Webster and Molina tried It with the aid of Costa Rica. Then Wheeler and Escobar, acting for Nicaragua, made an eflbrt, which our G-overnment failed to accept. Then Claren- don and Herran. for Honduras, sought to untie the knot, and this led the way to the Cass-Xrissari treaty in the fall of 1857,which began de novo. Then a fair treaty was made, allowing us the protectorate of the transit, but through foreign influ- ence, it was so modifled by Nicaragua as to be unacceptable to our Government. Now, Sir Gore Ouseley, having ceased to be a diplomatic myth here, has gone t» the South where, we trust, something may be done to cancel that part of the Clay- ton-Bulwer treaty by which we agreed with England to out our throats by never "occupying, fortifying, or colonizing, or assuming or exercising any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Eica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America." We- f trust that such an agreement may be made to this end ; but nly reading of history is vain if we do not find thrown about this abrogation some clog which the Ameri- can people will not bear. Then, as a public man, jealous of foreign domination over the in- terests of our continent, I foresaw the relations and designs of Fraaoe and England. They had designs upon our continent which appeared afterward, but did not appear so clearly when I remarked t Their entente cordiale, as Clarendon said it would be, is extended to this hemi- sphere ; and here we have them ! They are, by their presence, if not by their diplo- macy, ignoring the far-famed doctrine of Mr. Monroe, which had, when first given, as general a meaning and as practical a use as it ought now to have a specific appli- cation. His doctrine was that the countries of the American contment, by the free and independent condition which they assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization or infiuence by any European power. Let controversy contend as to the meaning of this doctrine. I know that when Yucatan was about to be taken by England, and when English arms were fur- nished her for an independency of Mexico, which would have been a dependency of England, Mr. Calhoun then tried, in an able speech, to limit the application of that doctrine to the surroundings out of which it grew, namely, to the intervention of the Holy Alliance to recover the revolted American States for Spain, and the Eussian occupation on our northwest. But the declaration has a larger meaning; it has become settled policy. In 1823 Mr. Jefferson laid it down thus : " Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe ; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cisat- lantic affairs." 23 Yet this doctrine is sneered at, as if Monroe's ghost were invoked to do a kind of constable's duty, to warn all foreign intruders from this continent. So far as emigration is concerned, this continent is open as day ; but no flag, no policy, no institution, no colonies, no protectorates of Europe, can exist here, without endangering the peace, infringing the rights, or disturbing the order and prospective interests of this continent. Whatever may have been the occasion of the Monroe declaration, which has been so truthfully and cogently set forth in the admirable report of my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, [Mr. Hill, of Ohio,] its cause is as eternal as liberty, and its consequences will be as progressive as our nation. I oare not for its traditionary emphasis. Democrats, at least, can afford to let that go. Is it sound doctrine for the present ? If so, it ought to be the enthusiastic sentiment and genius of this Government. U so, let it be no more the jeer of Europe, the swagger of America, but a fact as much a part of our historic life as the Declaration of Independence, which was its procreant source. It is the law of self-preservation. General Cass gave it proper direction. It was intended to guard this continent against the incursion of any alliances, "holy" or unholy. It looked to that law which I have laid down, by which the interests and honor of this hemisphere were to be guarded by none but ourselves. We do not want to be foreclosed against its occupation, fortification, and annexation. In the present feeling of this country, no treaty can be made, and made to stand, if it does not break down all protectorates of England and all interfer- ence of Europe. England pretended to settle all in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty; yet that treaty was a delusion and a snare. While that treaty was yet warm, England drove the Nioaraguan forces out of San Juan del Norte; then she pirates that entrepdt from an independent state; anoints a hybrid savage as a king ; gives to a few Jamaica negroes, dressed like the Georgia major without his spurs, the constabulary baton ; and builds a congeries of negro huts, which she nicknames after the Earl Grey. She performs the same office for Honduras by what Clarendon called the " spontaneous settlement " of the Bay Isl- ands, and then claims from us good faith in keeping the compact which she breaks.' Then comes Sir Gore Ouseley to maintain the delusion, in spite of Lord Napier, who goes home. What more ? She approves of the Cass-Yrissari treaty by fomenting difficulties in the way of its ratification. She pretends to Mr. Dallas, through Malmes- bury, that Belly is a French adventurer for whom she has no sympa- thy, yet in acts gives to him French and English protection through the alliance. These facts now almost forgotten show that it is not safe to trust her. Her treaties are ropes of sand. Her international law is too elastic for use by any but herself. All complications with her are dangerous and entangling. Thank God, we have had a Secretary of State like General Cass, whose life was marked with signal ability In anticipating, demonstrating, and frustrating her designs. This nation will sustain him in his declaration that — The establiahment of a political protectorate by any one of the powers of Borope over any of the independent states of this continent, or, in any other words, the in- trodaction of a scheme of policy which would carry with it a right to Interfere in their concerns, is a measure to which the TTnited States have long since avowed their opposition, and which, should the attempt be made, they will resist by all the means in their power. It will do more. Irrespective of party, it will sustain the present Administration on the principles of the recent message, in which the doctrine of our democratic statesmen like General Cass is reiterated. 24 I am ready either to give' the moral force of a resolution such as that- now referred to the Committee of the Whole, to abrogate the Clayton- Bulwer treaty, or I am ready to go further and to clothe the President ■with extraordinary powers, and to give him means, or the authority to procure means, by which his recommendations may be acted on. But it may be said, why so much risk of war with the combined powers of Europe ? Why so much anxiety for the Isthmus or Central American route ? Not because we are in danger of being cut oflf from its dominion. That will come if these Central American states re- main'independent of European constraint. Not because it is the only feasible mode of transit for the great oriental trade between the oceans, for in time there will be rapid and safe transits on our own soil; not so much because we ought to have and hold the hundred and fifty millions of trade with these Spanish American tropical lands, instead of but ten millions which we now have; but nature never made so narrow an obstacle, one so easily severed, and on which such great commercial and economical results depended, as that at Darien or Nicaragua. She buried mountains and valleys beneath the wave to narrow that neck and thus expand the bounds of interchange and encircle the earth with a white zone of argosies. If this Congress has optic nerve enough to look a few years ahead, it will at least start a policy that will secure all the Isthmus high- ways, which are so indispensable to our development and power. Its first duty is to repel every attempt of the remotest infinence, come from what quarter it may, which may impede this procession of events or arrest our inevitable and legitimate aggrandizement. No nation with one harbor, much less a nation with a coast bestrewn with har- bors like ours, can be long prosperous within that does not prosper and grow without. When a State which is commercial by situation forgets the work of outbuilding its empire it loses its inner vitality. The day that marks its failure to meet every rising opportunity of advancement abroad, marks its sure decline at home. As with the individual, so with the State ; if its ambition be dead and its hopes of expansion smoulder, its dissolution is speedy and sure. While its intellectual and physical energies are tense and grasp a large range, its internal and foreign empire will become consummate, because it has the everlasting law of growth. Believing that the baleful shadow over the Isthmus, which came through bad diplomacy, against the general sentiment of our coun- try, should be removed, and that the way should be cleared for our proper relation to the interoceanic transit and " its rightful control," I hope that the resolution from the Foreign Affairs Committee may be adopted as a part of the advanced policies looking to our suprem- acy on this hemisphere.