fir S7C CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A COLLECTION MADE BY BEN NO LOEWY AND BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY ^ i . 'IMti^'" Cornell University Library HF1755 .S76 Tariff reform the paramount Issue. olln 3 1924 030 185 395 i M\\ Cornell University VM Library The original of tliis 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/cu31924030185395 LETTERS FROM EMINENT DEMOCRATS REGARDING THIS BOOK. From HON. GROVER CLEVELAND. The work will be a very important addition to our tarifif literature. From HON. ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Z'^ to ^}4 cents per gallon, according to the Treasury estimates. Under the new law, assuming the imports and the home products of raw material to remain the same, the increased cost to consumers for the next fiscal year, on account of the duty on sugar and molasses, will be $4,846,714. Under the old law this increase amounted to about $6,000,000, the benefit of which was divided between the refiners and the planters, with the probability that the former obtained the lion's share. However, sugar affords a fair illustration of a tariff for revenue with incidental pro- tection. The Government gets a revenue of nearly $50,000,- 000, while the incidental taxes amounted to about $6,000,- 000 a year under the old law, and will amount to less than $5,000,000 a year under the new law. Tobacco is peculiarly affected by the tariff. The princi- pal imports are of unmanufactured leaf tobacco. Foreign manufactured tobacco is practically excluded by a duty of 50 cents a pound, which is equivalent to 225.41 per cent, ad valorem. The new act reduces this duty to 40 cents a pound, and the internal revenue tax from 16 cents to INCIDENTAL TAXATION. 55 8 cents a pound on manufactured tobacco, and from $6 to $3 per i,ooo on cigars. The internal revenue received by the Government on account of the tobacco tax amounted to $47,000,000 for the last fiscal year. It is fair to estimate the increased cost of the home product of manufactured tobacco, by reason of the tariff, at 25 per cent. I have carefully compiled from the reports of the Census Bureau and the tables of the Treasury experts the data in the accompanying statement in reference to the various commod- ities mentioned therein. It will be seen from an examina- tion of the statement that the rate of increase in the cost of the home product by reason of the tariff has been estimated in each case at much below the duty itself. This is due to the fact that many of the articles are increased in price only to a limited extent by reason of the tariff. The statement embraces nearly all the industries of the United States which are materially affected by the tariff, and gives also the number of employes in such industries, the amount of wages paid to them, and the total value of the home product. The item of sundries embraces all protected industries not otherwise enumerated, except such as are mentioned below. I am unable to obtain a reliable estimate of the amount of provisions and liquors which are increased in price by reason of the tariff. Very few provisions are increased in price. Rice is an exception. The total product of the United States for the census year was 110,131,373 pounds. The amount imported was nearly 64,000,000 pounds, and the duty was 2^4 cents per pound, or iii per centum ad valorem. The price of the home product is doubtless increased to con- sumers to the extent of at least 2 cents a pound by reason of the tax, which would amount to an incidental tax burden of $2,200,000. There are many other articles affected by the tariff which are not included in my statement, such as barley, malt, lemons, oranges, domestic wines, etc. But the amount of incidental taxes upon the chief articles of consumption is quite large enough to arrest public attention. I have based my estimates upon the rates of duty imposed by the tariff law of March 3, 1883. If I have erred in any way, it is in plac- ing the amount of incidental taxes too low. The people of the United States have been subjected to a burden of at least $556,000,000 every year for the past twenty years, making an aggregate of over $11,000,000,000, not one dollar of which went into the National Treasury. Since the war began we 56 TARIFF REFORM. have paid more by incidental taxation to protect our " infant industries " than it cost to put down the Rebellion and pay all the claims, bonded debt, interest and damages incident thereto. The number of persons employed in protected industries, even if the workingmen enjoyed the benefit of the bounty, which is disputed, hardly justifies the enormous burden -which they and all other citizens must bear. The number shown in the statement is 1,327,881. This does not include the labor- ers employed in raising sugar-cane and rice, and those in some other protected industries. But all estimates on this account would not increase the number to more than 1,500,- 000. All the persons engaged in manufacturing, mechanical and mining industries, according to the census of 1880, num- bered 3,837,112; those in agriculture, 7,670,493; those in trade and transportation, 1,810,256; and those in professional occupations, 4,074,238. Total, 17,392,099. Of the grand total of the toilers of the country, 15,900,000 manage to " live, move, and have their being " without receiving a farthing of bounty or exacting a penny of protection from the rest of the community. The other million and a half of laborers derive no benefit whatever from the vast sum of incidental taxes de- manded in their behalf. The bounty is obtained under false pretenses, and is either wasted on unprofitable industries or lavished on rich monopolists. William M. Springer. The following is the statement to which reference is made in the foregoing article: " 3 Co Q^ ^ c c E ■■ ■'" o M c 5 « OJ O aj 5 o — Hi ^ IJ (U u "S. SO f? o o "- Oj "^ to u ii 3 o j= i.— a (/I iv OS ex— ' — .§o.§ 3 ° o ■n.K rt •-!:! o i^ o <-. > l- i " c O OJ fa G o = CO t. C o, ■£ o = S^ «i 5 O k- *s ife. S ^■■<; ■fe s IS ! W 00 I M IS O CO 6^ a> ro vO CO 1:! S C" C"^ N CO en r^eoor>>Mino O^ O O O fO cno" pT CA ■^vO C7>0 t-^i-. Qitn 0O\O I-H)hOOU-)i-( m UCJ OOUUUUUO U.)-i l-l-.J-.l-l_U.l-.I_ cu cx, o- ex D- a. a, &, D. o. om oinooooo (MM 'd-wwwTfvnw. M g> r^ c> Ooo u-i in CT- OCT. "^^-lT3-c^OQ^(^ <» r^ M rf co" m" o' vn m' 3" '-' ■^ M c*^ m -+ CTioo "Oco O^O«cn>--a30O '7^ c*^ O O CO \0 O O 8^ O^ c*^ CT M -^ TtO O O w -i- U-) r> h-i CO CO C<1 c^ u^ M w >-' O ^ moo u*i rC CO r^ 'S- « « CO N O CO CO r^ CO coo (J U U U U U U oo CT> O mco w CO in N M t^ C) -^ O !>• CT- lO O in CO CT'OO \0 O t-i ■^ in CO o i~^ O rJ-CO Ol O -^ N c^ CO M PI in 00 CO r- o^ CO N O C> CO P) rC Tf o" N m -^ N -ThO N in O O CO -.^ r^ O r^ o) o^ M O O "n tJ-O "O O CO 00 CT in CO O M mD x^ r^ CO N •-. W 00 invo in O^ ■^ co" -^ to r^ oo" "rf cT I CO CO •^ CO \0 < ^ . I- flj 3 JJ : 5 ii t^ ^ ; « o : § ^ ■ bfl X - : O' -D 'bib "" »- ^3 o a c )- ^ ^ ^ goo 5 "O -a p ° « s o S, m o M u u nl P ••o a ^ uwS ^c S o 5-— 8^ tec S 3 O -^ O C0\0 •+ U-) u-^ CO vOCOU vOcOOM-TfOCT- ■^co g j^ CO COCO CT O rfO coco c ij in 0~co w' CO d^ C> m w J:^ O in M oo coo CT^ ^^O^U flj^ OiniH o CT'O ''f >-<' JJ XI oo" o" >n rC h ' O M ''^ l-H l-l O CO HO o fX o a, FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. January and February, 1883. Extracts from the proceedings of the House of Representatives in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, having under consideration the bill (H. R. 7313) to impose duties upon foreign imports and for other purposes, debate being limited to five minutes. Tuesday, January 30, 1883. SCHEDULE A CHEMICAL PRODUCTS. Glue, twenty per cent, ad valorem. ]\Ir. SPRINGER. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: In line 168 strike out " 20" and insert " 15;" so that it will read: " Glue, fifteen per cent, ad valorem." Mr. SPRINGER. When the bill was brought before this House for the appointment of the Tariff Commission, the opposition to it grew out of the belief that the commission would not throw any light upon this subject, and that Con- gress would proceed with the discussion of the question with the same information as it had before. But when the com- mission brought in its report on the first day of the session, and when that report went to the press before the contents of the schedules were known, there was a general rejoicing over the country from the fact that the Tariff Commission had recommended as the sense of that commission that there should be a genuine reduction of tariff rates. That commis- sion stated as follows in its report: Entertaining these views, the commission has sought to present a scheme of tariff duties in which substantial reduction should be the distinguishing feature. The average reduction in rates, including that from the enlarge- ment of the free list and the abolition of the duties on charges and commissions, at which the commission has aimed, is not less on the 58 FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 59 average than twenty per cent., and it is the opinion of the commis- sion that the reduction will reach twenty-five per cent. The re- duction, slight in some cases, in others not attempted, is in many cases from forty to fifty per cent. This being the recommendation of the commission, I looked in the bill to find the schedules corresponding with it. I find there is no reduction whatever proposed on glue; and therefore I desire that there shall be the reduction on that and other articles which the commission recommended. It will be seen by reference to Census Bulletin No. 304 that the whole value of the amount of the products of glue for the census year was $4,324,000. A duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, representing the increased value of this product to the consumers of the country, would be $864,000. I find also that the whole sum paid for wages to those en- gaged in the manufacture of glue was $600,000. In other words, the Government paid a subsidy to the glue manu- facturers of $264,000 more than the amount of wages paid ■ to the employes in that industry. I also find that the whole burden imposed on the people by reason of this tax amounted during that year to $947,000, of which the Government received in duties, as this table shows, only $82,000. That is a burden imposed upon the people of nearly $1,000,000, of which the Government re- ceived $82,000, and the manufacturers received by way of bounty $864,000. This item shows the great enormity of this protectrve sys- tem, and how necessary it is that the people should have the relief which was promised by the commission. [Here the hammer fell.] The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. Springer; and it was not agreed to upon a division — ayes 44, noes 88. Mr. SPRINGER. I now move to strike out the clause, so as to put the item of glue on the free list. I now desire to call the attention of the majority of this House to the recommendations submitted to Congress in the last annual message of the President of the United States. And when I take the recommendation of the President I can not be accused of hostility to any American industry, for he is professedly a protectionist and ought to represent the ma- jority on this floor. The President said: Without entering into minute detail, which under present circum- stances is quite unnecessary, 1 recommend an enlargement of the 6o TARIFF REFORM. free list so as to include within it the numerous articles which yield inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex and inconsist- ent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures, practically those of cotton, iron, and steel, and a substantial reduction of the duties upon those articles, and upon sugar, molasses, silli, wool, and woolen goods. This recommendation of the President should not be disre- garded by this House. It is exceedingly important, and I ask members of the majority here whether they propose to disregard the plainest recommendations of their own Presi- dent ? Now, by way of recapitulation I will state that the President recommends this: first, "an enlargement of the free list so as to include within it the numerous articles which yield inconsiderable revenue." Now, if gentlemen will look at this bill they will find in it, still carried for taxation, articles which last year yielded only 20 cents of revenue. This item of glue which I have moved to strike out yielded but $82,000, which is an incon- siderable revenue compared with the $400,000,000 which the Government of the United States receives annually. The President also recommends "a simplification of the complex and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures," upon all the articles contained in the sched- ules mentioned by him. Now, these recommendations have not been followed out, notwithstanding the President further said — and I desire to call particular attention to it: It is one of the tritest maxims of political economy that all taxes are burdensome, however wisely and prudently imposed. This bill seems to have gone on the supposition that all taxes are a benefit to the people, and that the more you tax the people the richer they will get. The President, on the contrary, lays down the true doctrine of taxation, that " all taxes, however wisely or prudently imposed, are burdensome to the people." Now, this bill is a burden to the people. Perhaps some of these taxes may be considered as wisely laid, but they are unnecessary because they will yield but an inconsiderable revenue. We do not need the revenue obtained from the duties on many of these articles. The President further stated that the surplus in the Treasury on June 30, 1882, amounted to more than $145,000,000. [Here the hammer fell.] FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 6l The question was then taken upon the motion of Mr. Springer to strike out the clause; and it was not agreed to. BEESWAX. MR. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to strike out the proviso of the pending paragraph. I submit this motion for tlie purpose of making a remark in favor of the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Wheeler]. This item of beeswax yields what the President of the United States calls an inconsiderable revenue ■ — $239.60 — hardly enough to pay the expenses of bookkeep- ing and the inspection required to see whether any beeswax slips through the fingers of the custom-house officers. Now, for a great Government like ours to be engaged with all its powers in searching the pockets of men and women coming into this country to see whether they have a piece of beeswax to wax the threads with which they sew their cloth- ing is, it seems to me, a small business. Beeswax is to be taxed for the benefit of somebody, I do not understand whom. This is a raw material. It enters into the manufacture of all our clothing. The sewing women of the country have to buy it for the purpose of waxing their thread. It is also used for making the candles used in the churches to light these people on the other side from the dark places in which they now sit to something more real and substantial. They not only put a tax on the sewing women; they put a tax upon the gospel light; and as a friend here remarks, a tax upon the Christmas tree, the little tapers on which cheer the hearts of our Sunday-school scholars. Everything is taxed by these gentlemen; nothing is free. [Here the hammer fell.] I withdraw my amendment. The Clerk read line 183, as follows : Phosphorus, 10 cents per pound. ^ it * * * * * Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out that line. I again call the attention of gentlemen to the recommenda- tion of the President that the free list should be enlarged by putting on it articles that yield an inconsiderable amount of revenue. This yields but $14,000, and ought to be put on the free list in accordance with the recommendation of the President. 62 TARIFF REFORM. There seems to me nothing more confusing than to have two or three thousand items of articles coming in from for- eign countries to be taxed. It causes an immense custom- house force to be employed to inspect articles coming into this country. It requires a large number of books to enter those articles coming in from day to day. Can gentlemen form any idea of the amount of bookkeeping required to keep an account of these little items — the amount of inspection and all that sort of thing ? The bookkeeping and other expenses of the Government in the collection of this amount costs more than the revenue received. This duty does not protect any industry, and I think that, as the President recommends, it should be put on the free list. I began by moving to strike off glue, because there was but an inconsiderable revenue derived from it, and the Tariff Commission has recommended a reduction of the duty. I propose to ask gentlemen to go with me and the President in cutting off the items which produce but an inconsiderable amount of revenue, and in that way to improve the bill. [Here the hammer fell.] The motion of Mr. Springer to strike out was not agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Soaps, hard and soft, all which are not otherwise specially enumer- ated or provided for in this act, and Castile soap, 2 cents per pound. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to amend by striking out " 2 cents per pound" and inserting " 20 per cent, ad valorem." I see from the census bulletin to which I have already re- ferred that the soap and candle establishments in this coun- try amount in number to 629, and that the product of these factories during the last census year was $26,552,627. The duty during that time upon this article was at the rate of 45 per cent. ad_valorem. This was the tax paid by the Amer- ican people upon the article of soap. It yielded a revenue of less than $100,000. Twenty-five per cent, ad valorem on $26,000,000 would give about $6,000,000 as the amount which the people were taxed by reason of the imposition of this duty. The people are taxed $6,000,000 a year up- on soap as a subsidy to the manufacturers, while the Gov- ernment gets as revenue the pitiful sum of $100,000. The rate of duty proposed in this bill amounts to about 31 FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 63 per cent. I move to make it 20 per cent., which is something like the rate recommended by the Tariff Commission. Gen- tlemen on the other side promised that we should have in their bill a reduction of 25 per cent, upon these articles. Now we ask that the schedule shall correspond with the " thundering in the index." We ask that we shall have some relief upon some of these items. We have struck nothing as yet in which the reduction to the people amounts to anything. There is a difference between reducing rates and reducing burdens. We desire a reduction of the burdens upon the people. This bill does not afford it in any part that we have yet reached. Here is an item which yields less than $100,000 of revenue annually, an article on account of which the people pay $6,000,000 of tribute. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. Spring- er, it was not agreed to; there being — ayes 43, noes 79. ACIDS. Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the Committee on Ways and Means for putting one line in this bill that seems to follow the recommendations of the Tariff Commission and responds to the demands of the people for a revenue tariff. They have taken an article from the prohibitory list, to-wit: acids, of which only 3,000 pounds were imported last year under one head and 2 pounds under the other, and put such rates upon it that it may yield revenue. The committee is to be commended for its wisdom here, and the only thing I regret is that the wisdom has only been apparent in two lines of the bill up to this point, while the rule has been the other way on all the other articles. I am also much obliged to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Haskell] for the statement that this estimate as to the amount of reductions under this bill is delusive and unreli- able. The Treasury stated under these items there would be with the same importations as last' year $70.40 of revenue in one case and 20 cents of revenue in the other, an inconsider- able revenue not worth the collection. But the gentleman from Kansas reminds us that when you have reduced the rate you have raised the revenue, and therefore we may expect a large sum of money under this tax in the next fiscal year af- ter this law goes into effect. That is the admission of a fact which gentlemen on this side of the House have been trying to beat into the minds of our colleagues on the other side ever since this tariff discus- 64 TARIFF REFORM. sion began; that is, that a reduction of rates which are now prohibitory and above the revenue standard will increase the revenues of the Government. If there is any reduction of rates proposed by this bill, ia- stead of reducing the revenues of the Government it will, as the gentlemen from Kansas has just stated, increase the revenues. Therefore, wherein this bill is right it will increase the revenues of the Government, and wherein it is wrong it will increase the subsidies to manufacturers. I therefore ask gentlemen to reverse their policy, the rule of this bill, and make the exception the rule, and we will then have a good revenue tariff. CASTOR-BEANS. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out the last word. I ask the chairman of the committee why on this item the com- mittee concluded to raise the rate from 20 to 50 cents a bushel ? Thirty was the rate recommended by the Tariff Commission, a body which was created for the purpose of representing all of the industries of the country, and I had supposed all of them had a representative on it, but it seems that the castor-bean was omitted from the members of that commission, and they have asked for a rate here of 30 cents a bushel as the rate of tax on the bean. Now, the gentlemen composing the Committee on Ways and Means have raised it to 50 cents a bushel, and I wish to know whether there is any reason for it. That is all. [Cries of "Vote !"] Mr. RANDALL. I think I can answer that. Mr. SPRINGER. That is right. Mr. RANDALL. This is a Western interest, and I voted in the committee at the instance, as I understood, of an Il- linois manufacturer. Mr. SPRINGER. Well I can speak for Illinois. I can tell the gentlemen that Illinois does not want any protection on beans. If it was put into the tariff on the assumed wish of the State of Illinois it had just as well be taken off. ******* Cream of tartar, 6 cents per pound. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out line 203. I offer this amendment from the fact that the President of the United States has recommended that all items yielding inconsiderable revenue should be placed upon the free list. On this article there was an importation last year of FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 6$ seventy-seven pounds, which yielded $20 of revenue to the Government. The committee's bill proposes to reduce the tariff on this article from 10 cents per pound to 6 cents per pound, the equivalent ad valorem rates being 38 per cent, and 23 per cent. If the importations are the same in the fiscal year after this goes into effect as in the last fiscal year the revenue produced will be $4.64. If it were not for the fact that this yields an inconsiderable revenue I would not have moved to put it on the free list, because the committee in this inconsiderable item have acted the part of wisdom, so far as principle is concerned, by reducing the tariff to some- thing like a revenue basis; and they are to be commended even in little things for adopting a correct principle. But what I complain of is that the application of those correct principles is to matters of no consequence whatever. Here is an article that yields only under the proposed law $4.64 a year; and I submit that is no relief to the tax-burdened peo- ple of this country. I hope the article will be put on the free list, and I have therefore moved my amendment. The question being taken on Mr. Springer's motion to strike out line 203, it was not agreed to. The Clerk read lines 204 and 205 as follows: Dextrine, burnt starch, gunn substitute, or British gum, 2j^ cents per pound. Mr. SPRINGER. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out " 2>^ cents per pound " and insert " 20 per cent ad valorem.'' Mr. SPRINGER. There may be some reason for increas- ing the duties on this particular article. The committee have not given us those reasons. Mr. KELLEY. I desire to say that the Treasury De- partment through the Secretary of the Treasury invited the attention of the Committee on Ways and Means to the fact that dextrine was being imported to such an extent as to greatly impair the legitimate revenues from starch of dif- ferent kinds and asked us to provide a remedy. With a duty of 10 per cent, on dextrine the duties imposed by law on the various grades of starch were evaded to the loss of the Treas- ury and the loss of legitimate importers as well as manufac- turers. 66 TARIFF REFORM. Mr. SPRINGER. After that digression I desire to state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury from which he quotes that there is so large an importation of this article as to interfere with the revenues of the Government is not borne out by the facts. Here is a table of the amount of this article of dex- trine imported during the last fiscal year. It seems that there was imported last year 1,763,354 pounds, a valuation of $81,115. A duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem, according to the present law, on that amount produced a revenue of $8,1 15. And it is estimated that if the duty shall be increased as here proposed, and there should be the same amount of importation of the article, the revenue will be $44,000. But the fact will be that there will be no revenue with this proposed increase, for it will be pra;ctically prohibitory, and we will lose the $8,000 of revenue which we now have. In whose interest is this proposed increase of duty ? Let the New York Times, a Republican paper, state. Mr. ERRETT. That is not a Republican paper; that is a free-trade paper. Mr. SPRINGER. In an editorial in that paper, to which I call the attention of gentlemen, is this statement: The change is dictated solely by extreme protectionist ideas, and is indefensible. That is the authority of a Republican newspaper, the New York Times, which I commend to gentlemen on the other side of the House. Therefore I have made the motion to change the proposed duty to 20 per cent, ad valorem. I do not think the duty should be increased at all from the pres- ent rate; but I made that motion more for the purpose of calling the attention of the committee to the fact that we now have a legitimate revenue on this article which we should adhere to, instead of which the committee are depart- ing from that rule so as to make this a prohibitory rate of duty. INDIGO. Mr. SPRINGER. I wish to ask whether this article is not used largely in the manufacture of woolen goods ? Mr. KASSON. It is. Mr. SPRINGER. As a coloring matter. I presented only one petition from my constituents in favor of putting FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 6y anything on the free list, and that was from a manufacturer of woolen goods to put dye-stuffs on the free list. Mr. KASSON. When we reach that part of the bill I will state the theory and then let us test the theory. Mr. SPRINGER. It is a part of the same system. I wish to begin at the beginning, so that we may have free dye-stuffs in the manufacture of woolen goods. The manu- facturers want it, the people want it, and the children cry for it. [Laughter.] Why will not the gentleman give it to them ? [Here the hammer fell.] ******* The Clerk read as follows: Iodine, resublimed, 40 cents per pound. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out the last word. Under the present law there was imported into this coun- try of iodine during the year 1882, 15 pounds, as shown by this table. And the rate of duty is 40 per cent, ad valorem under the present law. Under the new law as proposed it is 21 percent. The amount of revenue which would be re- ceived if the imports were the same under this modification of the tariff would be $6 for the fiscal year after this goes into effect. The President says upon this and other items of a similar character — and I call the attention of the gentleman and his side of the House also to the fact — that all of these items which yield inconsiderable revenues should be placed upon the free list. Now, here is one which we have before us that yields a very inconsiderable revenue, and you may put a tax upon it, high or low, and the revenue will be inconsiderable under any circumstances. It is not worth the bookkeeping necessary; it is not worth the inspection which is required; and there is, as far as I am able to observe, only one reason why the committee left it here on the dutiable list, and that is for the purpose of a general average. The Committee on Ways and Means say they have re- duced the burdens upon the country so much per cent, on all of the articles enumerated in the tariff. How do they get at that calculation ? You take all of the items of this bill of which slight reductions have been made, and you will find that they are generally upon articles of which very little is imported, and then they strike an average and tell us that so much is saved to the people of the country in that direc- tion; and this little item is put in here for the purpose of 68 TARIFF REFORM. showing a sort of general reduction. But it does not amount to anything. It affords no relief. This article should come in free, and I want gentlemen on the other side to take it off the dutiable list and place it where it ought to be, on the free list. I withdraw the pro forma amendment. ******* STRYCHNINE. Mr. SPRINGER. I support the motion to strike out, and therefore I will move a pro forma amendment, to strike out the last word. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the- Committee on Ways and Means [Mr. Kelley], asks whether the President recommends this amendment. I think he did, judging from his language, which I will now read, and which I again commend to the majority of this House: Without entering into minute detail, which under present circum- stances is quite unnecessary, I recommend an enlargement of the free list so as to include within it the numerous articles which yield inconsiderable revenue. The President of the United States was himself for a time a collector of revenue; he was the collector of the great port of New York, and has had some experience in this matter. It is true that while he was collector the man who occupied the Presidential office (and was himself the monumental fraud of the century) accused the one who is now President of being a dishonest collector. But I never believed it; I am glad to say that I did not believe the witness. The present President of the United States has had some experience in regard to this matter. He knows that it costs the Government a large amount for bookkeeping and other expenses in collecting the revenue on these articles which yield but an inconsiderable amount. As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Wheeler] remarked, on this article of cotton-seed oil we probably receive a revenue of about a dollar and a half, and it costs $500 to collect it. The object of keeping this article in the dutiable list in this bill is to enable the gentlemen on the other side, on the prin- ciple of general average, to show that the amount of duties on so many items is reduced from what it is under the exist- ing law, and therefore to claim that they have reduced the burdens of the people. But you will always observe, as I have, that where they bring in their reductions it is upon some utterly insignificant FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 69 item, which ought to be on the free list at any rate. But wherever the duty really affects the tax-burdened people of the country they have either increased it or left it' at the old rate. In this item there is a decrease from 167 per cent, to 55 per cent.; but is there any relief to the people in that de- crease? Not a particle. Yet gentlemen are claiming that they are reducing taxation to the tax-burdened people 50 or 75 per cent. The fraud of the whole thing is apparent. [Here the hammer fell.] I withdraw my pro forma amend- ment. Wednesday, January 21, 1883. Cement, Roman, Portland, and all others, ground and unground, 20 per cent, ad valorem. Mr. SPRINGER. I now offer the amendment which I suggested, to strike out " 20," in line 261, and insert " 15." The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman desire to be heard upon the amendment ? Mr. SPRINGER. Only a word. I need not refer the gentleman to what the President has said upon this subject [laughter], but I can refer him to what he said upon another subject, a sort of a general point in connection with the tariff, and which I commend to his prayerful attention. The Pres- ident said in a recent message communicated to the House: It is one of the tritest maxims of political economy that all taxes are burdensome, hovver wisely or prudently imposed. The Tariff Commission stated in its report that a general re- duction of duties would be made all along the line, averaging from 20 to 25 per cent. That was recommended by them, as I understand it. I have looked, Mr. Chairman, in vain for that general reduction. Here is an item which seems to me that the language used by the Tariff Commission very prop- erly applies to, and where we have a right to ask the Represent- atives of the people that the wise recommendation of the Tar- iff Commission shall be carried out. A reduction here to 15 per cent, ad valorem would be about a reduction equal to the 25 per cent, recommended by the Tariff Commission, and which it was conceded in that report we ought to have. Further than that, Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of this committee to the fact that while cement is a manufactured ar- ticle to some extent, yet it is practically in the nature of a raw material. It is tlie material used by mechanics and farmers in constructing their houses, wells, cisterns, &c., to a large 7° TARIFF REFORM. extent, and should be made as free as possible in order that their homes, the shelter which is required by the people of this country in the winter time, and especially the laboring people who are little able to pay for expensive houses, should be made as cheap to them as possible. It is one article that enters very, largely into general con- sumption and nearly all classes of the laboring people of this country, especially those who are engaged in building, are con- cerned with. It is therefore, I say, a matter of justice and equity that it should be made as cheap as possible to the peo- ple of the United States. [Here the hammer fell. J Thursday, February i, 1883. WHITE LEAD. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to amend the amendments of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] by striking out " 2 1-2 " and substituting " 2;" so that it will read: White lead, when dry or in pulp, 2 cents per pound. This is the rate proposed by the Tariff Commission. Mr. COX of New York. I will accept that. Mr. SPRINGER. The bill proposes the rate now provid- ed by existing law; it makes no change. The Tariff Com- mission proposed a change reducing the rate from 3 cents per pound to 2 cents per pound. I propose to stand by the rate recommended by the Tariff Commission. Now, if gentlemen will refer to a portion of the Tariff Commission's report they will see that the commission prom- ised a reduction of from 20 to 25 per cent., and on some things a reduction of as much as 45 per cent. I trust the committee will not insist on raising the rates proposed by the Tariff Commission. Gentlemen on the other side have assumed in their advo- cacy of high protective tariffs on unimportant industries that they are advocating the interests of American labor. I quite agree with the proposition submitted by the honorable gen- tleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] that it is not in the interest of national labor to make little mdustries profitable which are otherwise unprofitable. Mr. KASSON. Does not my friend go further with the gentleman from Iowa and agree that protection should be FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 7I based on the maintenance of the average of national enter- prises and interests ? Mr. SPRINGER. I will state to the gentleman from Iowa If he will bring in a bill and his friends will support a bill which will give incidental protection to American manufac- turers which will enable them to compete successfully with the manufacturers of the world, I will vote for it. Mr. REED. What does the gentleman mean by incident- al protection ? Does he mean accidental protection ? Mr. SPRINGER. I mean a protection which necessarily results from imposing a tariff for revenue. Mr. KASSON. And high enough to protect. Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman will have no controver- sy with me on that subject. This bill does not do that: it does not pretend to do it. It is for the purpose of trying to make those enterprises profitable which by nature and na- ture's laws are unprofitable. And in order to do that they are levying a tribute upon all the labor of the country. They claim that they represent in this matter the American work- ingmen. The honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKin- ley] stated the other day that he represented the working- men. I say those who advocate these high protective duties do not represent the workingmen of this country. I hold in my hand a report of the proceedings of the federa- tion of organized trades and labor unions of the United States and Canada, which assembled in Cleveland, Ohio, in November last. That congress represented all the trades assemblies in the United States. In its platform up to that time was the following proposition: That we recommend to the Congress of the United States the adoption of such laws as shall give to every American industry full protection from the cheap labor of foreign countries. Mr. Foster, one of the delegates, moved to strike that clause from the platform. He made a speech in favor of that motion and it was carried by a vote of 17 to i. PROPRIETARY MEDICINES. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out " 50 " and in lieu thereof to insert "30." The present rate of duty on the articles here mentioned is 50 per cent, ad valorem. There is no reduction proposed by the committee. I see from the last bulletin of the Census Office (and I will 72 TARIFF REFORM. give the list for fear the gentleman has not seen it) that there are in the United States of patent medicine and compounding establishments to the number of 563; that there is $20,000,- 000 of capital invested; that they employ 1,651,596 hands and create products to the value of $14,682,000. The gentleman from Iowa says this is a deleterious business to be engaged in, yet it seems we have within our limits manufacturing es- tablishments of that character to the extent of a product of $14,682,000. I do not understand the medicinal preparations of the country to be deleterious. If they are why not prohibit their coming in ? But they are made here and are sold to the people and sold at a profit of 50 per cent, ad valorem, so that for the insignificant revenue which we now derive from these items — $170,000 a year — the peopleare taxed to give this im- mense bounty amounting to millions of dollars a year to some favored manufacturers. The CHAIRMAN. Debate upon this amendment is ex- hausted; the question is on agreeing to the amendment pro- posed by the gentleman from Illinois. The amendment was not agreed to. Friday, February 2, 1883. EARTHENWARE. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out the last word. I desire to support the amendment to reduce tariff duties on these articles from 25 per cent, to 20 per cent, ad valorem. We have practically reduced the tariff by abolishing commis- sions and charges on imported articles. Let us see how much relief has been granted to the consumers of this country by that. According to the statement of imports of merchandise contained in the Treasury tables, there were' only $36,000 worth of articles imported under this heading, and the duties amounted only to $9,000. There could not, then, have been a very heavy burden taken from the people by taking off the charges and commissions in the custom-house on so insignif- icant an item. The whole amount of earthenware manufactured m this country, if gentlemen will observe the last census bulletin, was in value $7,942,729. Now, the whole amount of wages paid to laborers in this industry was $3,279,000. The num- ber of laborers employed in this industry was 9,994, mclud- in^ per cent, ad va- FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 87 lorem; whereas on low-cost bulky cotton goods the charges would amount to nearly 30 per cent, ad valorem. We will be pleased to furnish you with any more information or further explain the above. We are, sir, yours, very respectfully, Arnold, Constable & Co. Hon. William M. Springer, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The letter shows that not only is the amount of the duty added to the cost of the goods, but their price to consumers in this country is also largely increased by the charges which are added. For instance, if the duty is 35 per cent, ad val- orem, the increased cost on the shelves of the importer in New York is 57 per cent, over the foreign price of the article. What must be the increased cost to the consumer after the goods are shipped to the interior and handled by wholesale and retail dealers, all of whom must charge their commis- sions ? I also asked the well-known firm of Daniell & Son, import- ers of New York, the same question, and their response is as follows: New York, February g, 1883. My Dear Sir: In answer to your question whether the " import duty is added to the cost of the imported article " we answer that if we should sell our imported goods without adding the duty to the imported cost we should find it rather difficult to meet our obligations, to say nothing of foregoing the pleasure and the gratification we sometimes feel in entertaining our friends, among whom are some very reputable gentlemen, members of the House of Representatives. Very truly, Jno. Daniell & Son. W. M. Springer, Esq. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I addressed a letter to the firm of Cooper, Hewitt & Co., of New York. The letter of Mr. Hewitt in response is very interesting and instructive, and I call the special attention of the gentleman from Maine and of other honorable gentlemen of the House to it. It shows how the duty not only affects the imported article, but also the domestic products. The letter is as follows: New York, February g, 1883. My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 8th instant reaches me too late for a telegram to be of any use to-day; I therefore answer by letter. You ask me " whether the import duty is added to the cost of the imported article." I reply that in some cases the whole duty is added to the cost, in other cases a part of the duty is added to the cost, and in other cases no portion of the duty is added to the cost. i. Incases oo TARIFF REFORM. where the domestic product of the article on which an import duty is laid is not equal to the domestic demand, then the whole of the import duty will be added to the cost. This was the case with steel rails in 1880 and 1881. We did not then make enough rails for our home con- sumption, and were compelled to import a large quantity from other countries; the whole duty was therefore added to the cost of the con- sumer. 2. At the present time we are able to make more rails than we use. Domestic competition has therefore reduced the price, so that the duty of $28 is no longer added to the cost to the consumer. At the present price of American steel rails, about $16 per ton is added to the cost of the foreign rails. 3. There is a duty on agricultural products, but as we are exporters of these products, and their price is made in foreign markets, the duty is not added to the cost to the consumer. The above specifications will, I think, enable you to give an intel- ligent answer to " foolish questions " by whomsoever asked. Sincerely yours, AeRAM S. HEViflTT. Hon. William M. Springer, House of Representatives^ Washington^ D, C I had asked Mr. Hewitt's pardon for asking such " foolish questions," but assured him that the fact was disputed by a member of the House. Mr. Hewitt's explanation of the effect of the import duty on the domestic article of like char- acter is worth remembering and will remove all doubts from the subject. The extracts from distinguished authors and the telegrams and letters of the leading merchants and importers of the country which I have produced should forever settle the question as to whether the import duty is added to the cost of the article. I showed, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, that the tax upon the people imposed by our tariff laws, as the Hon. Joseph Medill of Chicago so clearly stated, amounted to $500,000,- 000 a year in addition to the amount which goes into the Treasury of the United States, which is over two hundred millions more. The whole amount collected by the Govern- ment last year, including internal revenue, was over four hundred millions of dollars. Add to this the five hundred millions paid by the people of the United States — the con- sumers — on account of the increased cost of domestic manu- factures, as a result of the tariff, and we have a grand total of annual tax burden amounting to $900,000,000. [Here the hammer fell.] FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 89 JVednesday, February 14, 1883. SCHEDULE D — WOOD AND WOODEN WARES. Mr. SPRINGER. I move to strike out the last word. I have been much interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horr] on lumber. I realize the fact it is a vast industry. I do not know what paper he read from, but I suppose it was not from a census report. It does not agree with the CompcnJium of the Census for the last census year. That Compendium of the Census, on page 1162, shows that the total product in value of lumber for the last census year was $233,268,729; the whole amount of wages paid to persons engaged in this industry was over $31,000,000. The gentleman stated largely in excess of that. It will be seen that of the whole product $233,000,000 was the value of the sawed lumber, as shown by those tables. I assume as a fact that the value of this lumber, has been in- creased to the seller, and therefore also to the consumer, to the amount of the tax, which amounts to 20 per cent, ad val- orem, and which is claimed is the necessary protection for that particular industry. If the tariff has not increased the value of this product to the consumers of the country, what is the object of the proposed protection ? Now, if there is any protection to this interest it is measured by the rate of the tariff, which is 20 per cent, ad valorem. Therefore it follows that the consumers of lumber in this country pay $46,000,000 a year to the lumber industry, being 20 per cent, on the value of the total product. It will be seen further that we imported into this country under this schedule, as appears in the last leaf of the table furnished us by the experts of the Treasury Department, lumber to the value of $8,000,000, which paid a duty to the amount of $1,500,000. Therefore in order to get a million and a half of dollars into the Treasury the consumers of this country are taxed forty-seven and a half million of dollars per annum, only a million and a half of which goes into the Treasury of the United States. It seems to me, sir, that this is a grievous burden to be borne by the farmers of the West, who live in the prairie re- gion, and must purchase lumber for houses, fences, and all of the various wants into which lumber enters. * * X- * * * * The Clerk read as follows: go TARIFF REFORM. Timber, squared or sided, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, three-quarters of I cent per cubic foot. Mr. ANDERSON. I move to strike that out, in obedience to the sentiment of the Republican party of the United States. Mr. SPRINGER. And I rise for the purpose of favoring the amendment, and if the gentleman does not wish to hold the floor himself I would be glad if he would yield it to me. Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I was about to state a while ago the amount paid to the laborers of this industry during the census year amounted to $31,000,000; that the whole amount received by the persons engaged in this indus- try by reason of the protection of 20 per cent, ad valorem amounted to $46,000,000; that they received, therefore, $13,000,000 more than they paid for wages to their employes. But that is not all. We have heard it mentioned that the persons engaged in this industry, the laboring men, must be protected. I would like to have some gentleman propose something that would protect them, because I find by dividing the whole amount of the wages paid in this industry equally among the men employed in it that their average pay or compensation is only $225 a year. ******* I am speaking of the wages in this particular industry. I say that is all they get in this business. Some, of course, are otherwise engaged for a part of the year, but sawmills run the year round. The trouble is, however, that the Canadian laborers come across the line without being taxed. There is free trade in laborers, but protection in the product of the labor; that is the trouble. Mr. HORR. Let me ask the gentleman what he was quot- ing from ? Mr. SPRINGER. I quoted from the Compilation of the Census Bureau, a book which my friend from Michigan seems not to have discovered yet. It is just out, published at the Government Printing Office. I hope the gentleman will secure a copy. Mr. HORR. The men at work in the mills at this busi- ness average $2 a day in my State. Mr. SPRINGER. That does not appear from the census reports. Mr. HORR. I know it to be a fact. FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF. 9I Mr. SPRINGER. Another suggestion, too, Mr. Chair- man. I desire to call attention to the fact that by reason of the increased value of the timber in this country, by reason of the protection which is now afforded, its cost is increased as a large additional burden to the consumer. It is stated in the petition which the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Deuster] produced from merchants in Chicago, whose paper I hold in my hand, that the whole supply of timber in the three states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota amounts to 81,000,000,000 feet, and that this amount is equal to the demands of the country for consumption for a period not ex- ceeding eight years. Mr. KASSON. That has already been stated. Mr. SPRINGER. Well, I state it again; and I call atten- tion to this fact, that while the supply in these three great States is only equal to the demand of this country for eight years, they ask Congress to impose a bounty upon the Ameri- can people in the interest of the lumber producers of this country of $46,000,000 a year to encourage the swift destruc- tion of our forests. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin who last ad- dressed the committee had honesty enough to state that the imposition of this duty increased the price of the lumber to the consumer equal to the amount of the tax. That is just the matter with Iowa and Illinois and Kansas and with Ne- braska, whose people have to use this lumber. I have seen the people of Kansas living in holes in the ground. [Laugh- ter on the Republican side.] Yes, sir, I have seen this along the line of the Pacific Railroad, and have seen your constit- uents, sir [referring to Mr. Haskell] living in dirt-houses while their lumber is taxed 20 per cent, ad valorem for the benefit of the lumber producers; and yet you want to keep it up. I have seen them living in these holes made partly in the ground, and covered with dirt. Now let the gentleman from Kansas give his constituents an opportunity of getting out of these mud-holes, and permit them to live in houses made of lumber like other civilized people of this country. ******* The Clerk read as follows: Staves of wood of all kinds, 10 per cent, ad valorem. Mr. SPRINGER. In pursuance of the policy of my friend 92 TARIFF REFORM. from Kansas [Mr. Anderson] I move to strike out the line just read, so that this article may be put on the free list. Gentlemen upon the other side have stated that the farm- ers were interested in having a tariff on lumber. The farmers that I represent have no such interest; nor do I believe there is a farmer in the land who will be benefited one iota by the duty or tax of 20 per cent, ad valorem on the lumber he uses. I have already shown that this protection which gentlemen are claiming in the interest of the people of two or three States, or a portion of the people of two or three States of this Union, amounts to an annual subsidy, collected from all the people of all the country, of $45,000,000. That tax re- quires the people of Illinois to contribute for the benefit of these few, in order to make their industry more profitable, more than $3,000,000 a year. It requires the people of every Congressional district on an average to contribute a subsidy of $150,000 a year in order that the people of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, en- gaged in the lumber business, may profit thereby. That is the whole of it. But the burden is not equally distributed among the whole people. I venture the assertion that the greater part of the whole subsidy is contributed by the peo- ple of the States of Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and other States where there is a large area of prairie lands. It is especially a burdensome tax upon the pioneers who em- igrate into our western Territories and require lumber for houses, barns and fences, all of which must be brought from the States I have named. It is the worst form of subsidy to be found in this bill any- where. There is no element in it of a tariff for revenue, be- cause it produces no revenue in comparison with the vast amount of tax it lays on the people. But a little more than a million and a half of dollars of revenue is annually pro- ' duced by reason of the tariff on lumber. Yet the people are required to submit to a tax of almost $1 per capita of the whole population by reason of this tariff. So far from being a tariff-producing revenue, this produces nothing. It is a subsidy in the interest of a few manufac- turers in this country. The lumbermen claim it is to enable them to pay their laborers living wages, when the record shows that they pay the laborers in this industry less than $225 per annum to each man. They do nothing for the poor laboring man, but only enrich themselves. They demand a bounty of $45,000,000 a year for their own benefit, which FIVE-MINUTE TALKS ON TARIFF, 93 Congress grants, and at the same time encourages the rapid and unnatural destruction of our forests. - They claim that they have the right to use their forests as they please. I do not deny it; but they have no right to ask a subsidy in this large amount from the American peo- ple, which works the double injury of encouraging the rapid destruction of the forests and preventing us from procuring our lumber supply where we can get it cheapest. Of all the duties imposed by this bill, the tax on lumber is the most objectionable, oppressive and indefensible. It an- swers all the requirements of a " tariff for protection with incidental revenue." It produces a revenue to the Govern- ment of only $1,500,000. It gives a subidy of at least $45,- 000,000 to the lumber interests. It does not help the work- ingmen engaged in the industry, for they are ground down to starvation wages, competing as they do with the cheap labor of Canada, which readily crosses the border and enters into competition with our own citizens. It bears heavily upon all who require cheap lumber for houses, fences and barns. It protects rich lumber lords and plunders all the people. [Here the hammer fell.] I withdraw the amendment, as I know it will be voted down, as all others have which the friends of free lumber have offered. THE INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. The friends of reform will not accept it as a settlement of the Tariff question — As a measure of relief it is a failure; as a revision of the Tariff it is a sham— We must look to the next Congress for a revision in the interest of the people. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, March 3, 1883, On the report of the committee of conference upon the bill (H. R. 5538) to reduce internal revenue taxation, and for other purposes. Mr. SPRINGER said: Mr. Speaker: This House on last Tuesday took the inter- nal revenue and tariff bill from the Speaker's table in pursu- ance of the rule, the adoption of which was accomplished by methods heretofore unknown in the parliamentary history of this country. The Senate amendments were non-concurred in and the bill sent to a committee of conference. The next morning one of the House conferees declined, and on Thurs- day two of the Senate conferees reported to that body that they could not, under the instructions they had received from the Senate, serve upon the committee. On Thursday the conference committee was completed with a complement of five Representatives and five Senators. On Friday, the next day after the conference committee was appointed, they had brought into the Senate of the States a complete revision of the whole tariff schedules, and all of the statutes of the United States relating to the collection of customs and internal revenue. That bill, sir, was reported to the representatives of the people this morning at i o'clock, and to-day at 5 o'clock we shall take a vote upon it to deter- mine whether it is to be the law of the land. Four hours only of consideration will be allowed from the time the reading of the bill began until we must vote upon its passage. This bill 94 INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. 95 is no small or inconsiderable measure. It is a bill Meeting all of the industries of 52,000,000 people. It is a bill that exacts, and will exact by the iron hand of taxation, $220,000,000 annually from the American people which the Government gets, besides at least $500,000,000 which will be exacted from them indirectly through the oper- ations of the protective system. A measure imposing upon the country a burden of six or eight hundred millions of dol- lars annually has only been before the House of Representa- tives four hours for discussion. We are required to vote upon it without proper consideration or opportunity of amend- ment. After discussing the leading provisions of the bill, and ex- posing its defects, Mr. Springer concluded his speech as follows: NOT A FINAL SETTLEMENT. Such is the bill which the confidence committee after twenty-four hours of labor has evolved and submitted to this House. It can not be regarded as a revision of the tariff in any sense of the term. The most odious and oppressive features of the present system are preserved, and especially the rates upon a vast number of articles of universal consumption which are im- posed now for protection with incidental revenue. This bill continues that system of protection which imposes immense burdens upon the people while, at the same time, it brings little or no revenue to the Government. The friends of revenue reform will not accept it as a settlement of the tariff question. As a measure of relief it is a failure; as a revision of the tariff it is a sham. We must look to the next Con- gress for a revision in the interest of the people. In previous discussions in the Committee of the Whole House upon the schedules which were considered in the committee, I pointed out some of these odious and oppressive features and need not recapitulate them here. PROTECTION DOGMAS. I have been somewhat amused at times at the arguments used by gentlemen on the other side, the advocates of the protective system, in order to sustain their theories. From these arguments I have heard enunciated as among the great principles of protection the following propositions: First. That it is the duty of the Government to protect American laborers from competition with the " pauper labor " 96 TARIFF REFORM. of Europe by the imposition of duties on articles manu- factured abroad which will compensate for the difference in the price of labor in this country and Europe. This is call- ed " filling the gap " between the wages of home and foreign labor. Second. That the amount of duty required in order " to fill the gap" must be such as will cause the price of articles manufactured at home to be increased to the amount of the duty on the imported article of like character. Third. That the imposition of impost duties does not in- crease the cost of imported articles; that the foreign manu- facturer pays the duty for the privilege of selling his goods in this country. Fourth. That the imposition of duties on imported articles will have the effect to reduce the cost of like articles manu- factured in this country. All the advocates of the protective system to this House have either asserted these doctrines or have acquiesced in the assertion of them by others. It is claimed that protection has cheapened prices of iron and steel and articles made from them; that it has cheapened the price of wool and the manu- factures of wool and cotton, and of all of the protected articles. From these fundamental " principles " the following de- ductions may be drawn: First. Protection increases prices of articles manufactured in this country. Second. Protection decreases the prices of articles manu- factured in this country. Third. Protection is absolutely necessary in order " to fill the gap " between the wages of home and foreign labor. Fourth. Protection reduces the prices of home pro- ductions, and thus widens " the gap " which it was intended to close. Fifth. Protection both closes and widens " the gap." Sixth. Protection protects our home labor against the pauper labor of Europe. Seventh. Protection reduces the prices of home labor be- low the prices paid for " pauper labor " of Europe. Mr. Speaker, these "great principles of protection " and the logical deductions therefrom prove the fallacy of the pro- tective system and confound and overwhelm its advocates. No arguments that the advocates of revenue reform can pro- duce so completely answer protection fallacies as do pro- INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. 97 tection arguments themselves. Place their arguments in juxtaposition and their fallacies at once appear. I leave the protective system where its advocates have placed it. Its fundamental " principles " are like certain chemicals; kept separate they are harmless; mixed together they explode. DOES PROTECTION PROTECT ? The advocates of protection insist that they have reduced rates by the pending bill, and that such reduction is in the in- terest of the people; at the same time they tell us that pro- tection alone can benefit the people. If protection for the sake of protection be beneficial to the people, then the more we have of it the better it will be, and the higher the rates the more will be the protection to home industry and the greater will be the prosperity of our people, even to the ex- clusion of the foreign article. Then why should they not advocate an increase of rates along the whole line for the sake of bringing relief to the people ? Again, we are told frequently that foreign products must be excluded or the country will be flooded with low-priced goods, our manufacturing establishments closed, and labor- ers deprived of employment. If this is the danger threaten- ing our laborers and manufacturers why not exclude the foreign products entirely and not pretend to relieve existing burdens by reducing existing rates and allowing articles to come in which are now excluded ? A HOME MARKET. We sometimes hear gentlemen talk about a home market and the necessity of having a home market for our surplus products, and that such home market can only be created by a protective system. Eighty per cent, of our exports are farm products, and these exports exceed in value $600,000,- 000 a year. Can our people consume any more meat and bread pro- visions than they now consume ? Our population has been increasing with remarkable rapidity, and immigration amounts to 600,000 or 700,000 a year, and still we have a surplus of farm products of every kind. Can you create a home market for this surplus ? It is impossible. There is but one country in the world that has practiced to its fullest extent the theory of exclusion and seclusion. That govern- ment is China. China furnished a home market for all her products; she prevented all importations and exportations, 98 TARIFF REFORM. and thus enjoyed the operation of the protective system for thousands of years. When the guns of Great Britain bat- tered down her walls of exclusion, and opened her ports to the commerce of the world she found and revealed to the rest of the world a system of labor the most degrading and least remunerative to the laborer, and the most impoverish- ing to the government. In that country protection had had full sway, had done its perfect work, and the result was the degradation of labor, and the reduction of wages to starva- tion prices; absence of education and universal poverty and distress. WHAT REVENUE REFORM WILL ACCOMPLISH. The advocate of revenue reform have been accused of a deliberate purpose to reduce wages and embarrass the manu- facturing interests of the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. We desire no sudden changes. We pro- pose to begin a genuine reform of the revenue by placing all articles known as raw materials upon the free list, and thus giving encouragement to manufacturers, and employment and better wages to the laborer. The leading industries of the country at this time have a plant capable of production largely in excess of the home demand. We can not export our products because the finished article is loaded down with internal taxes. Such articles can not be exported and sold in foreign markets by the side of manufactures not thus bur- dened. We must have a larger market for our manufactured prod- ucts. This must be brought about by the reduction of the cost of production. Such reduction must come about in one of two ways — either by reduction of wages or of the price of the raw materials. I prefer to let wages stand, or rather in- crease them if possible, and reduce the tax upon raw ma- terials and the price of raw materials, so that we may manu- facture all articles in competition with the rest of the world. When we do this and open to our manufacturers the high seas and the markets of the world such an impetus to busi- ness, to manufacturing especially, will be given as has been unknown heretofore in the history of this country. It will be the beginning of a new era in American enterprise and in- dustry. It will cause our manufacturing, agricultural, and mining industries to flourish as never before. It will in- crease the transportation of articles on our railroads and steamboats. It will cause our ships to reappear upon the INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. 99 seas, and send the products of our industry to every clime, and to every people. HOW TARIFFS AFFECT PRICES.* There has been much said during this debate concerning the effect on prices produced by reason of protective tariffs. The honorable gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson], in his speech, advanced the doctrine that an- " enlarged market in- evitably advances prices." In other words, that free trade,' which implies an enlarged market, will increase the prices of ' manufactured articles, and that protection will in the end re- duce prices. This doctrine has been maintained, I believe, by all the gentlemen oA the other side of the House. The honorable gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horr] showed how the price of salt has been reduced by protection. He published a table of facts and figures to prove it. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] presented the fig- ures to show how the price of Bessemer steel had been re- duced under the operation of a protective policy, and how the price of silk had also been reduced, and how the prices of blankets, woolen goods, cotton goods, nails, &c., had been reduced. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Errett] a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, in his speech on the 29th of March last, said: " High duties on steel, it will thus be seen, instead of increasing the price has reduced it." Another member of that committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] argued long and ably to prove the same proposition. It may, therefore, be taken as an accepted doctrine among protectionists that pro- tective tariffs reduce the price of the manufactured articles. Let us consider this proposition for a moment. It must be conceded that the lower the selling price of a manufactured article, the less must have been paid for the labor which produced it, and the less must be the profits of the manufacturer. Protectionists assure us that protective tariffs will reduce prices, hence they must necessarily re- duce wages and profits. It is only necessary that the manu- facturers and laborers of the country should be convinced of the truth of this doctrine, and of the truth of the further proposition that free trade increases prices, and they will at once become free-traders. I am not going to stop to deny these propositions, but am willing protectionists should have * Extracts from a speech in the House of Representatives, May 3, 1882, on the bill to create the Tariff Commission. lOO TARIFF REFORM. the full benefit of their own teachings. In fact there may be some truth in the statement. I am quite certain that the pro- tective tariff of 1867 did reduce the price of wool, as I have already shown. There is a further fact that I gather from the census of 1870 and that of 1880, in reference to the wages of labor. The wages paid in 1870 in the manufacture of iron and steel averaged $522.40 to each hand. In 1880 the average wages in the same industry was only $393.51, showing a loss of $128.89 ^ year to each laborer, or about 25 per cent. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] says: "Taking the year 1880 against 1868, the fall in price [of Bessemer steel] has been from $158.50 to $67.50 [per ton] under the operation of this protective ' robbery ' involved in your tariff." Of course, the manufacturer cannot pay as high wages in 1880, when he must sell his steel at $67.50 per ton, as he did in 1868, when he sold at $158.50 per ton. He stated also that the price in February last fell to $55. In view of these facts wages must come down still lower, or production must cease for a time, and hands must work on reduced time. Is this the boasted " protection to American labor " which the advocates of high tariff propose to secure ? After fifteen or twenty years of protective and prohibitory tariffs the ad- vocates of the system inform the country that it was intended to produce low prices, and consequently low wages and small profits. They have introduced elaborate tables of figures to prove the reduction of prices under the operation of protect- ive tariffs. It is easier to agree with your adversary than to disagree. In this instance, the protectionists make so strong a case that I would rather agree with them than to disagree and give my reasons. For the purposes of this debate, desiring to remove as many disputed points as possible, I will agree to all they claim. Something has produced reduced prices in many articles. Protectionists say: "The protective tariff did it." Then I charge the advocates of this protective tariff from their own standpoint with a conspiracy against American laborers, with advocating a policy which, in the end, will reduce the prices of home productions, the wages of labor, and will reduce our labor to the level of the pauper labor of Europe, if not below it. The greater success attends their efforts to reduce prices of manufactured articles, the greater will be the reduction of the wages of labor engaged in such manufactures. Perhaps the significant words " in the end " are about to be realized. INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. lOI I am in receipt o\ a letter from one of the largest iron and steel manufacturers of the country. He writes me as fol- lows: Just now the rail business, and in fact all our business which de- pends upon the railroad demand, is very much depressed. There is next to no demand at all. In consequence our rail mill is idle and so are our steel works, and we have not orders enough to keep our bar- mill going on half-time. Very near all our men have been laid off and the prospect is very uncertain. This is not an isolated case. The same condition of things prevails from Boston to Chicago. But the high tariff is still in force, and has been for twenty years, and it is not threat- ened with an immediate change. The passage of this bill to create a commission to investigate the question of the tariff is certainly no menace to the business interests of the coun- try. What, then, is the cause of the present depression and the many strikes which are occurring in all parts of the country .? Certainly free trade, or a tariff for revenue only, has had nothing to do in bringing about the present situa- tion. The tariffs are as high as the friends of protection de- sire to make them. And yet there are signs of distress. I would do nothing to increase the danger or depression. I would avert it if in my power. Cannot this Congress, be- fore we adjourn this session, do something to avert the threatened distress ? I have not the honor to be a member of the Committee on Ways and Means; but I have patiently waited for that committee to bring forward a measure of re- lief. But my waitin'g has been in vain. In the meantime the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] has brought forward a proposition, which, it seems to me, has much to commend it to this House and to the country. We must deal with things as we find them. His proposition, in short, is the placing of raw materials, as far as possible, on the free list, and that no higher rate of duty shall be imposed than shall be necessary to compensate for the difference in the cost of the labor at home and abroad. He is one of the largest manufacturers in the country, and we may presume that he will not advocate a measure which would injuriously affect the business interests of the country. I am willing to accept his proposition as a compromise, as a stepin the right direction. It has received the commenda- tion of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, of the inde- pendent press, of large mass-meetings, of political organiza- tions, and of thousands of business men and manufacturers I02 TARIFF REFORM. all over the country. As forcibly expressed by another, his proposition is "radical in principle, but conservative in methods," and "that radical truths conservatively applied cause all peaceful progress." Mr. HEWITT of New York. Permit me to say in this connection that I hold in my hand a petition signed by eight hundred of the leading business firms of the city of New York, praying this House to adopt the resolution which I have proposed to offer, namely: First. The repeal of the duties on raw material. Second. The proportionate reduction of the duties on arti- cles manufactured from the raw material thus placed on the free list. Third. No duties exceeding 50 per cent, except those on luxuries. The gentlemen who sign this petition are men who rarely sign their names to petitions; and I may be permitted to say that I have seldom, if ever, held in my hand a document which embodied more weight, intelligence, and influence than this which I shall propose to offer in open House at a future time. Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the gentleman for this con- firmation of my statement, that his proposition had received the indorsement of the leading business men of the country. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNTRY. Mr. Chairman, the real issue presented to the country in this debate has been greatly misunderstood or willfully mis- stated. It is not between free trade and protection. I know of no party in this country or in this House who proposes free trade as a remedy for existing tariff abuses. The issue is not one between the advocates of free trade and the advo- cates of protection. On the contrary, the issue is between those who desire an imnnediate revision of the tariff and the reduction of its excessive and prohibitory duties, and espe- cially the removal of those burdens which are causing fac- tories, mills, and workshops to be closed for the want of a market for their products, and depriving thousands of labor- ers all over the country of employment, producing strikes, lockouts, and low wages; and those who desire to postpone tariff revision indefinitely and thus preserve existing taxes, fearing a change might result in depriving a few favored interests of the advantages they now have. In short, the issue is clearly between those who desire to INTERNAL REVENUE AND TARIFF BILL. 103 bring immediate relief to tlie country through revision and reduction of duties and those who desire postponement and the present unequal and oppressive system. The opponents of this tariff commission bill are in favor of immediate re- vision and a large reduction of many of the existing duties such as I have already indicated. MUST NOT DISTURB BUSINESS INTERESTS. I concede to the fullest extent the necessity of so adjust- ing the tariff as not to disturb the business of the country or oppress or embarrass any of our great industries. Such policy does not imply a departure from correct principles. The whole business interests of the country, and the prices of nearly everything that we consume, are affected more or less by the present protective-tariff laws. To suddenly dis- turb these prices by violent change of our system might pro- duce distress, if not financial calamity, such as we have not witnessed hitherto in the history of the country. The needed changes must be brought about in the most careful and con- siderate manner. This can be done so as to produce, as each change takes effect, increased vigor in manufactures, renewed confidence to the capital of the country, and in- creased wages to labor. CONCLUSION. Mr. Chairman, it should be our highest aim as legislators to adopt such measures as will protect the people in the en- joyment of all the great blessings of freedom which our fathers secured to us by their sacrifices and their blood. Our statutes should be so framed as to guarantee to every citizen, rich or poor, native or foreign born, the greatest per- sonal liberty consistent with good order and the well-being of society. WAR TAXES AND SURPLUS REVENUE. WORKING- MEN AND THEIR WAGES. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, May 2, 1884. The House being in Committee of the Wliole House on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5893)10 reduce import duties and war-tariff taxes — Mr. SPRINGER said: Mr. Chairman: The extraordinary measures enacted dur- ing the late war for the raising of revenue to meet a great emergency, and those enacted since for the purpose of pay- ing the great public debt which was contracted, have not only met all our obligations but have produced a vast surplus. Two years ago this month I had the honor to address this House on the bill to provide for the appointment of the Tariff Commission. At that time I referred to the fact that the surplus revenue amounted to about $150,000,000 a year. Speaking of the onerous taxation borne by the people, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Folger, used the following language in his message to Congress, December, 1881: The result upon the public revenue is to embarrass this Depart- ment in disposing of the surplus in a lawful way and with regard to economy. And further: Meanwhile the daily receipts from the community by the Treasury continue, the surplus over its needs increases, and money lies idle. It seems that the plan most just for giving relief is to reduce taxa- tion, and thereby diminish receipts and surplus. (Executive Docu- ment No. 2, page 18.) How has this wise and timely recommendation of Secretary Folger been met by his party in Congress ? THE tariff commission. At the first session of the last Congress, instead of pro- ceeding at once to reduce the revenue, the Republican ma- 104 WAR TAXES AND SURPLUS REVENUE. 105 jority passed the bill creating the Tariff Commission. That commission was composed wholly of protectionists, although a minority of the commission were appointed as Democrats to represent the Democratic sentiment of the country. The commission, as stated by the honorable gentleman from Ar- kansas [Mr. Jones] in his able speech during this session, traveled over 7,000 miles, visited twenty-nine cities, and ex- amined more than 600 witnesses, taking testimony seventy- eight days, which covers 2,625 printed pages, and reported to Congress that — In the performance of the duty devolved upon them all the mem- bers of the commission have aimed, and as they believe withsuccess, to divest themselves of all political bias, sectional prejudice, or con- siderations of personal interest. It is their desire that their recom- mendations shall serve no particular party, class, section, or school of political economy. Actuated by this spirit of fairness, the commission reported in favor of a substantial reduction of tariff duties. Their conclusion on this point is thus forcibly expressed in this re- port: Early in its deliberations the commission became convinced that a substantial reduction of tariff duties is demanded, not by a mere in- discriminate popular clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the country, including that which has in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of our national industrial defenses. Such a reduction of the existing tariff the commission regards not only as a due recognition of public sentiment and a measure of justice to consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, and which, though it may be temporarily inconvenient, will be ulti- mately beneficial to the special interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive duties, except for the establishment of new in- dustries, which more than equalize the conditions of labor and capital with those of foreign competitors, can be justified. Excessive duties or those above such standard of equalization are positively injurious to the interests which they are supposed to benefit. I heard a gentleman inquire to-day, with some apparent interest, who had recommended a reduction of the tariff? I will state in reply that this very Tariff Commission, composed entirely of protectionists, and organized to investigate that subject, after taking the testimony of 600 witnesses, re- ported that it was demanded by the best conservative senti- ment of the country, and by the protected industries them- selves. They made a report as to the extent to which this reduction should go; and what was it ? One would suppose, from this language, that it had been Io6 TARIFF REFORM. uttered by some tariff reformer upon this side of the House during this debate. We were not left in the dark as to what this substantial re- duction of tariff duties thus recommended by this commission of protectionists ought to be. Their report contained the following specific language on this subject: The average reduction in rates, including that from the enlarge- ment of the free list and the abolition of the duties on charges and commissions, at which the commission has aimed, is not less on the average than 20 per cent., and it is the opinion of the commission that the reduction will reach 25 per cent. The reduction, slight in some cases, in others not attempted, is in many cases from 40 to 50 per cent. A bill was prepared by the commission which purported to carry out this recommendation. At the last session of Con- gress that bill was considered, amended, and passed. No one knew just what the reductions would amount to. The honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Converse] when the bill was on its final passage in this House said it was " a leap in the dark." And so it proved to be. The committee of conference, which gave it its finishing touches, may have known more about it than the other members of that Con- gress, but I am quite sure that committee did not fully com- prehend its provisions. Time and practical experience have served to throw light upon its dark pages. REDUCTION BY THE NEW TARIFF LAW. Mr. Joseph Nimmo, Jr., Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, has submitted a report to the Secretary of the Treasury on " the operations of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, for the six months ending December 31, 1883." This statement (page 5) shows that the actual reduction on "all dutiable merchan- dise " imported into this country for the first six months un- der the operation of the new tariff act was only 1.47 per cent., or, as Mr. Nimmo prefers to state the fact, there was " a fall of 1.47 in the ad valorem rate." This appears from the practical workings of the law. But he is of the opinion that the data upon which this result is based are subject to certain modifications, which he proceeded to explain. As I desire to give the friends of the new tariff law the benefit of the most favorable construction possible, I will give the result of Mr. Nimmo's " modifications." He claims the actual reductions to be as follows (page 10): It appears., therefore, as nearly as can now beascertained, that the WAR TAXES AND SURPLUS REVENUE. lO/ act of March 3, 1883, of itself, and aside from the influence of other conditions, caused the following changes in ad valorem rates: on all dutiable merchandise, a fall of 5.63; on sugar and melada, a fall of g.32; on iron and steel and manufactures thereof, a fall of 6.15; on clothing wool, a fall of 9.88; on combing wool, a fall of 11.27; oncar- pet wool, a fall of 6.01 ; on manufactures of wool, a fall of 4.52; on manufactures of cotton, an increase of 1.92; on manufactures of silk, a fall of 8.82; on earthen and chinaware, an increase of 13. 11; on glass and glassware, a rise of 1.09; on spirits and wines, an increase of 18.28; and on malt liquors, a fall of 0.59. Thus it will be seen that, after allowing all claims of the friends of the law, the average reduction " on all dutiable merchandise " is less than 6 per cent, or exactly 5.63. But the Tariff Commission reported that the reduction, which was demanded by the best conservative opinion of the country, which would be conducive to the general industrial prosperity, and ultimately beneficial to the protected industries themselves, would amount to not less than 20 per cent.; and in the opin- ion of the commission the bill which they recommended would effect a reduction of 25 per cent. Contrast these promises and pledges with the actual results, the practical workings of the new law. The actual reduction was less than lyi. per cent., and the highest estimates of the Bureau of Statistics, under the most favorable circumstances that could be imagined, places the reduction at less than 6 per cent. NECESSITY OF FURTHER REDUCTION. The President, in his annual message to Congress, Decem- ber, 1882, stated that the receipts from all sources for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1882, were $403,525,250; and that the surplus, after paying all ordinary expenses of the Gov- ernment, amounted to 1166,281,505. In that message he said: I heartily approve the Secretary's recommendation of immediate and extensive reductions in the annual revenues of the Government. The passage of the tariff act of 1883 was all that was done in this direction by the last Congress. In the President's last annual message, December, 1883, at the beginning of this session, he reported the surplus revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1883, to be $134,- 178,756, and the total revenue for that year $398,287,581. He estimated the amount of reduction of the revenues for the current year, under the operation of the new tariff law and the repeal of internal-revenue taxes, which that act effected, to be " at least fifty or sixty millions of dollars." I08 TARIFF REFORM. THE SURPLUS REVENUE. The surplus for the year ending June 30, 1884, was estimated upon existing laws at $85,000,000, and for the year 1885 at $60,000,000. But these estimates were made before the practical workings of the new tariff law could be demonstrated. The surplus for the current year will probably reach $100,000,000, and if this House shall adhere to the wise measures of economy which have usually charac- terized Democratic Congresses, the surplus for the next year, ending June 30, 1885, will be even greater than that amount. In view of the failure of Congress at its last session to re- duce taxation to the extent required for an economical ad- ministration of Government, it becomes the imperative duty of this Congress to make the necessary reduction. A re- duction of the annual revenues to the extent of at least $50,- 000,000 is demanded by every consideration of the public welfare. It is little less than a crime to continue to impose war taxes in time of peace to the enormous amount which existing laws provide. How shall further reductions be secured ? At the last session Congress reduced the internal- revenue tax on tobacco from 16 to 8 cents per pound, and on cigars from $6 to $3 dollars a thousand, and repealed the internal taxes on banks, matches, and all other articles except distilled spirits, beer, and tobacco, and dealers in these articles. It seems to me that Congress has gone quite far enough in the direction of repealing internal-revenue taxes. The people do not desire to be further relieved of such taxes until there has been a substantial reduction of the customs duties on the necessaries of life. WAR TAXES. The war tariffs still remain. On cotton goods the average tax is equivalent to 38 per cent., on wool and woolen goods 57, on sugar 43, on lumber and woodenware 33, on earthen- ware and glassware 53, and the average on all dutiable merchandise is, under the law, 40 per cent. These are high protective, and in many cases prohibitory, tariffs. They create and foster monopolies and, except as to sugar and a few other articles, yield a subsidy to the manufacturers of domestic products not subjected to the tax which vastly ex- ceeds the amount the Government actually receives. WAR TAXES AND SURPLUS REVENUE. 109 THE TARIFF CREATES AND FOSTERS MONOPOLIES. Under the operation of our tariff laws many of the leading industries of the country have been placed in the control of monopolies. The monopolists regulate the output and fix the prices of the products. The iron and steel manufacturers, the glass, pottery, coke, and other great interests, have organized societies for pooling their business and controlling prices and profits. The nail manufacturers have their national associations, and absolutely control the business of the country. At the last session of Congress, by some mys- terious jugglery, the duty on wrought-iron nails and wrought board-nails was increased from 2j5^ cents to 4 cents per pound. The tariff on nails is practically prohibitory. The importation for 1883 was valued at only $195.65, and the duty received was only $87.60. This was about 45 per cent, ad valorem. On other kinds of nails there was a nominal reduction of duties by the act of March 3, 1883. But the rates are still prohibitory. Hence the whole business has fallen into the hands of monopolists. The business is large and important. There are sixty-two establishments in the country, of which thirty-six are in Massachusetts. The capi- tal invested is $3,877,805, and the product for 1880 was $5,629,240. The whole amount paid in wages was $1,255,- 171. The high tariff on nails enables the home manufac- tories to combine and control the market. The last Con- gress aided them in this by increasing the duties on one class of nails, and making the reductions so slight on other classes as to still keep out the foreign product. With the foreign product excluded from our country the home manu- facturers proceed to shut down their mills, limit production, and regulate the prices. Last December (1883) the news- papers contained the following information on this subject. Pittsburgh, Pa., December 19. The Western Nail Association, at a meeting here to-day, discussed the question of shutting down the mills and reducing production. The session lasted nearly all day. There was a diversity of opinion as to the necessity of suspending operations. Western members generally held that, as stocks were low and prices remunerative and firm, the mills should not be shut down. Those who held the op- posite view said the only way to secure an advance in prices next spring was to suspend operations. " We must convince dealers that manufacturers have power to regulate prices," said one. It was finally agreed to suspend work at all the nail mills from no TARIFF REFORM. December 29 to February 11. It was the largest meeting of the as- sociation ever held, all the mills being represented by delegates or letter. Then in order to raise prices by limiting production, they shut down from December 29 to February 11 of this year. During all this time the workingmen in the nail factories were thrown out of employment, and were compelled to seek wherever they could find it any employment to keep them from starvation. Having limited production and produced an artificial scarcity, the next step in the work of the monop- olists was to fix the prices at which their nails will be sold. Spring has now arrived, and the next information we receive is contained in the following dispatch: PlTTSBlTRGH, April 10. The Western Nail Association met again to-day to settle the details of the pool formed yesterday. A board of nine agents, composed of the president and two members from each of the four districts of the association, was appointed. The board will handle all nails manu- factured by the association mills, instead of each firm selling their own product, and will regulate the output and prices. An advance in prices is anticipated. The four districts will be as follows: First, Pittsburgh and vicin- ity; second. Wheeling; third, Ohio River factories; fourth, mills of Indiana, Wisconsin, and St. Louis. The agreement was signed by all the manufacturers present, and as soon as the signatures of absent ones are obtained, the pool will go into effect, and an advance in prices is likely to be ordered by the board. " An advance in prices is likely to be ordered by the board." No longer, under our tariff laws, are prices to be governed by the laws of supply and demand. The board of managers of a legalized monopoly will regulate the output and prices in the future. And as the protective tariff excludes foreign nails, this gives the manufacturers full control of prices in the home market. This is only one of the results or incidents of the protective system, which ^the present bill seeks to do away with. THE BURDEN OF TAXATION. The revenue received by the Government from all sources during the last fiscal year amounted to nearly $400,000,000. This was equal to $8 a head for every man, woman, and child in the land. As these taxes are paid by consumers in the in- creased cost of cominodities, it approximates nearly to a. per capita tax. It bears equally upon all the people, according WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. Ill to the amount of articles they buy and consume, and not ac- cording to their property or ability to pay. The poor man who works for a dollar a day, and the poor woman who works in the factories of Massachusetts and Rhode Island eleven hours a day for 75 cents, each pay the same tax per pound on the sugar and salt they consume and the clothing they wear that is paid by the millionaires of the country. The §400,000,000 received by the Government amounts to $40 for an average family of five persons. But this is not all the consumers have to pay by reason of the tariff. The duties on articles imported raises their price J to the consumer to the extent of the duty. The average duty being 40 per cent., every $100 worth of goods imported must pay a tax of $40 in order to be exposed for sale in this coun- try. The claim of protectionists that this tax does not in- crease the cost of the article to the consumer is too absurd for serious consideration. Could an importer afford to buy a cargo of goods in Europe for $100,000, and then pay $40,000 to land them in New York, and then sell them for $100,000 in this country, adding only for freight and his commission perhaps 10 per cent, on original investment ? Could he sell for $110,000 what had cost him $140,000? These questions need no answer. Yet protectionists contin- ually assert that the import tax is not added to the price of the article to the consumer. Not only is it added, but more is added. The importer advances the tax, but immediately charges a commission on the tax itself, as well as on the orig- inal cost of the goods. These commissions are repeated every time the goods change hands until they reach the con- sumer. WORKINGMEN AND THEIR WAGES. The only pretext which is urged by gentlemen on the other side for not proceeding to reduce the revenue is that a reduc- tion of the tariff will be injurious to the laboring classes. It would seem from their arguments that the more taxes labor- ing men pay the richer they will get, and that any effort to reduce taxation is an effort to destroy labor. Gentlemen have assumed in this debate that if you reduce these tariff duties you will destroy the manufacturing industries of the country, and throw the laborers out of employment. I do not believe it. If it would do so I should not favor it. I am in favor of securing to the workingmen of this country all the rights which it is possible for them to have under the law. 112 TARIFF REFORM. Their condition appeals directly to our sympathies, and demands the highest consideration of enlightened statesman- ship. The lawyer, the merchant, the professional man, and the rnanufacturer are generally so well-to-do that they do not need the aids of cooperation, of unions, of legislation in order to protect themselves from oppression and wrong. But the workingmen who depend upon their weekly wages for the support of themselves and families, and who must toil for eight or ten or more hours a day in order to supply their wants, deserve, and should receive all the aid, all the assis- tance, all the protection, if you please, that wise and just laws can furnish. The lot of the laborer is a hard one. Ten hours a day in manual labor leaves but little time for mental culture, or for those fireside pleasures with the wife and little ones which make our homes happy and life desirable. How few of those who are well-to-do in the world can appreciate the hardships, the trials, the temptations of the laborers of the land. For myself, my sympathies have always been on the side of the toiling millions. When they strike for higher wages I scarcely take time to consider whether they are right or wrong, for my heart responds in sympathy before my head can solve the problem of the relation of capital to labor. When they or- ganize for mutual aid and cooperation I feel as if I were en- rolled with them to secure their rights and the just remuner- ation for their toil. When the factories are closed against them, and an effort is made to starve them into submission to lower wages or longer hours of labor, I go out in sym- pathy with them, and raise my voice with theirs for justice and living pay. Hence, sympathizing as I do with labor in all its hardships, toils, and privations, I am disposed to con- cede to workingmen the best protection that the State or na- tion can furnish. What protection can wise and just laws afford to labor? This is a question which demands the most serious thought and careful study of our wisest statesmen. Can a just law compel one workingman to contribute a portion of his time or a portion of his wages for the benefit of another person? That would be manifestly unjust. If the law permitted one man to appropriate all the time and labor of another to his own use, that would be human slavery. If it permitted one man to appropriate one-tenth of the time and labor of another to his own use, that would be lo per cent, of slavery. To the extent that ong man may by law appropriate to himself WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. II3 the earnings of another, to that extent is the one the slave to the other. We have aboUshed human slavery in this country, and the universal sentiment of mankind condemns the system. The law therefore ought not to aid or protect one class of laborers at the expense of another. Can the law then furnish no protection to labor ? This does not follow. The law can protect all classes to the extent of guaranteeing to them equal rights, and can secure to every man the fruits of his earnings, less the amount which he ought to contribute to the support of government. It is conceded that all valuable commodities must be created by labor. To secure such commodities is the object of all our toil. We must either create them ourselves or ob- tain them from others. Are not those who create them en- titled to them, and may they not exchange such as they have and do not need for such as they need and do not have ? Will you deny this privilege to workingmen, to those who create valuable articles in excess of their own wants ? THE PURCHASING POWER OF WAGES. From these observations it will be seen that workingmen are more concerned in the purchasing power of their wages than they are in the nominal amount of their wage-fund. Money is not the real object of labor. It is merely a con- venient medium for the exchange of values. Silver and gold will not of themselves supply the demands of the stomach or protect the person from cold or heat. Greenbacks will not shelter us in a storm or supply the place of blankets, carpets, and bedding. Money is useful only as it aids in the exchange of property and products of labor. The question which ought to concern the workingman above all others is, " How many useful articles and comforts of life can I procure with the proceeds of a day's labor?" If one day's labor will pur- chase a blanket of a certain quality, what difference does it make whether the nominal amount of the wages is two dollars or three ? And so of all other articles which may be desired for the comforts of life. A friend of mine was, during the war, a prisoner at Andersonville. He exchanged some greenbacks he had for Confederate money, for the reason that the latter was current with the sutlers about the prison. But he found that it required $20 of such money to purchase a watermelon. He learned from this little experience that the purchasing power of money was its most essential quality. If a laborer 114 TARIFF REFORM. should receive a hundred dollars a day in such depreciated money he would find it impossible to supply with it his most pressing demands. THE OBJECT OF LABOR. What, then, is the object of labor so far as the working- man is concerned? It is to supply his wants, to support his family, to educate his children, to surround himself with the greatest possible amount of the comforts of life for which he can exchange the products of his toil. In what way can the Government aid him in this matter ? It can impose as light a burden as possible upon him for the support of the State and nation. It can prevent, or ought to prevent, the extor- tion of common carriers, the grinding power of monopolies, the plunder, peculation, and oppression of public officials, and the granting of special and exclusive privileges to favored classes. But can it in justice require one class of laborers to contribute a portion of their earnings to another class, ex- cept for purposes of government ? Can the laws be so framed as to enable a man to get more than he can himself earn ? The laborer is worthy of his hire. But is he worthy of any portion of the wages of another ? DOES PROTECTION PROTECT ? It is claimed that protective tariffs can and do protect the laborers of this country from the competition of the laborers of other countries. How can this be shown? It must fol- low, if this be true, that the law must exclude the product of foreign labor or impose a tax upon its importation that will increase the price of the home product of like character to the amount of the tax upon the foreign article. The home product, not being subject to the tax, may be sold for a higher price than it would otherwise bring, and the laborer who created such home product would thereby be better re- munerated for his labor. If protection be a reality, it results from this effect of protective laws. But, conceding for the sake of the argument that this be true, who pays the amount which protection secures ? Protection, if it is anything, re- sults from the increased price of domestic products which protective laws have produced. Who pays this increased price ? The consumers of the products. And who are the consumers ? The people. If blankets are increased in price by protective laws, who pays the increased price ? The con- WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. II5 sumers of blankets. If woolen goods are increased in price, who pays the increase ? The consumers of woolen g^ods. This seems to me too plain to require proof or further illus- tration. The great mass of the products of our people is consumed at home. If the price of these products is increased to the consum- ers by reason of protective laws, our own people, our work- ing people, must pay the amount of that increase as well as the price which the product would bring if unaffected by such laws. If this increased price is for the benefit of the workingmen, for those who created the products, who is to reimburse the other workingmen who must in purchasing those commodities for their own use pay this increased price ? Is not by this process a portion of their wages taken from them in order to better remunerate other workingmen for their labor ? Is not this practically the taking of a portion of one man's earnings and bestowing them upon another without consideration ? It is a species of slavery. It is wrong in principle, oppressive in practice, and a fraud upon work- ingmen themselves. But I must do the advocates of the protective system the justice to state that they insist that protective laws have the effect to decrease the prices of commodities. In Congress we hear this argument advanced whenever the subject is be- ing considered. Protectionists point to the fact that many of the leading products have greatly decreased in price in this country since our protective laws were passed, and argue from this that protection has caused it. But they fail to point to the further fact that in England, where protective laws do not exist, there has been even a greater decrease in the prices of the same products during the same time. Now, I was taught when in college that "like causes pro- duce like effects." If protection has decreased prices in this country, how is it that free trade has decreased them to a greater extent in England ? I have never heard this ex- plained fully yet. The fact is this: The improvements in the processes of production, which are the result of new m- ventions, the increased facilities of transportation, the gen- eral diffusion of knowledge, and many other natural causes, have made production cheaper and decreased prices accord- ingly. But these very causes should have greatly improved the condition of workingmen. They should have been en- abled to secure more of the comforts of life with less effort, to have been able to decrease the hours of labor, and to have Il6 TARIFF REFORM. increased the sum of their happiness. Strikes should have grown less frequent, lock-outs should have ceased, and labor should enjoy its perfect remuneration. IMPROVED PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION. I may be pardoned for referring for one moment to some facts and figures in connection with this subject. I have the authority of the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt], an experienced iron manufacturer, for the state- ment that in i860 the cost of producing steel was in no case less than 10 cents per pound. A better quality of steel can now be produced for 2 cents a pound. This result has been arrived at by improved processes whereby the pro- ductive power of labor has been correspondingly increased in this class of production. Steel is one of the most essential agents of industry, and the increased facilities for its production demonstrate how great have been the increased facilities for production in every other branch of manual labor. A striking illustration of the increased productive power of human effort is found in the manufacture of boots and shoes. By comparing the census report of 1870 with that of 1880 it will be seen in reference to this important industry that in the year 1870, 91,702 hands were employed in fac- tories in the manufacture of boots and shoes. They pro- duced in this year 80,627,244 pairs. This amounted to a product of 879 pairs to each hand employed. In 1880 there were 111,052 hands engaged in this industry, and the num- ber of pairs of boots and shoes made aggregated for the census year 125,478,511. This shows an annual product for each hand of 1,129 P^'i's. The increased productive power of those engaged in the manufacture of boots and shoes in factories was 250 pairs to each hand, or over 28 per cent. But let us follow these facts further. The total amount of wages paid in 1870 for the manufacture of the 80,000,000 pairs of boots and shoes that year amounted to $42,504,444. This shows that each hand received 52 cents per pair for making boots and shoes in factories during that year. In 1880 the 111,052 hands employed received altogether in wages for their labor but $43,001,438, or only 35 cents per pair. By comparing these figures with 1870 we will per- ceive that the loss to the operative on each pair produced amounts to 17 cents, or a decrease of nearly 33 per Cent. In other words, one hand in 1870 for making two pairs re- WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. II7 ceived about the same pay he received in 1880 for making three pairs. A further fact is worthy of note in this connection. The average annual pay of each hand engaged in this branch of industi)- in 1870 was $463.50, and for 1880 the average pay was only $387.21. Thus we see that the average compensation of each opera- tive employed in our boot and shoes factories for the year 1876 was $76 per annum more than that paid in 1880, and the number of pairs made by each was 250 in number less in the former year than in the latter. In other words, opera- tives were paid in the year 1870 $463.50 for the manufacture of 879 pairs of boots and shoes, while m 1880 they were paid at the rate of only $387.21 for the manufacture of 1,129 pairs; so that while the productive power of labor increased 33 per cent, in ten years, the compensation of the working- man in this branch of industry decreased 16 per cent. During the past twenty years the protection on boots and shoes has been 35 per cent, ad valorem. Whatever advan- tages this protection may have been to the manufacturer, it is q.iite certain that the workingmen in that industry received no benefit. Protection failed in this case to protect or bene- fit laborers in boot and shoe factories. Take another illustration. In 1870 the production of cot- ton goods or cotton fabrics amounted to 349,314,592 pounds, and the hands employed were 135,369. The product per hand was 2,580 pounds. In 1880 the production was 607,- 264,241 pounds. The hands employed were 172,544. The product per hand was 3,519 pounds. The increase per hand was 939 pounds, or 36 per cent. The wages paid in 1870 amounted to $39,044,132. This was an average for each hand of $288. In 1880 the wages paid amounted to $42,- 040,510, or an average of only $242 to each hand. The wages of each hand decreased $45, or 18 per cent., in ten years, while the productive power of each increased 36 per cent. During this period the protection on the principal articles of production and consumption of cotton fabrics was over 50 per cent. In this industry the manufacturers may have been benefited, but certainly the laborers received no benefit. Protective tariffs do not protect the operatives in cotton fabrics. I might go through with the whole list of highly protected industries and the result would prove the same — an increase of productive power and a decrease of wages. Protection does not protect labor. Il8 TARIFF REFORM. I regret that the census statistics are so compiled as to make it impossible to make a similar comparison as to the productions of agriculture at different periods. Some agri- cultural products are estimated by weight, some by measure, and others only in values, and it is impossible to determine how many persons are engaged in the respective productions. But I have aggregated the number of bushels of Indian corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, and buckwheat produced in 1870 and 1880, and find the increased production between these periods to be nearly 100 per cent. I find the increased pro- duction per hand to be 68 per cent, in the products named. The improved machinery used, the knowledge acquired in the use of fertilizers, and the increased facilities of transportation have greatly increased the productive power of labor in agri- culture, as well as in manufacture. Our tariff laws make it impossible to any great extent to export our surplus manu- factured products, and they fall upon our home market and depress it by overproduction. Labor first feels this depression in the stoppage of mills or running them on reduced time or in the reduction of wages. These results are now being felt by nearly every branch of manufacturing industry. But there can be no overproduction of agricultural products. They are not fostered by protect- ive tariffs. It is true that there is a nominal duty on the im- portation of the cereals I have named, but except in the case of barley the duty does not protect, and the result would not be changed perceptibly if the duty were abolished. Those cereals and all products of the soil readily find a market abroad. Who ever heard of overproduction of corn, wheat, cotton, or of any agricultural product ? All rejoice in the prospect of bountiful crops from the fact that any surplus we may have can be shipped abroad with profit. It would be precisely so in manufactures if our surplus could be exported with profit. The facts which I have cited prove conclusively that the wages of labor have not increased in proportion to the in- crease of the productive power of human effort. A laborer can accomplish much more of result to-day than he could ten or twenty years ago. Hence the remuneration or purchasing power of labor should be greater now than then, but it is not. On the contrary it appears that the wages of work- ingmen in i860 and 1870 were greater in many industries than they were in 1880, according to the census of those years. WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. II9 LABOR STATISTICS. The condition of workingmen has not improved in propor- tion to the improvement in the processes of production. The purchasing power of their wages has not increased in proper proportion to the creative power of their brain and muscle. With all the advantages of modern invention and improve- ment in their favor, the workingmen of the country have not increased the purchasing power of their efforts. In the State of Illinois we have organized a bureau of labor statistics for the purpose of collecting all useful information and facts affecting the laboring classes. The board is composed of practical workers, and was established at the earnest solicita- tion of workingmen's organizations. It has made careful ex- amination into the condition of labor in Illinois. The last report of the bureau (1882), on page 288, sums up the result of the investigation and presents the facts which are proven. The report says: The class who constitute the contributors to these tables are the more intelligent and prosperous of the great mass of workers. They are chiefly identified with labor organizations, and possess the indi- vidual thoughtfulness and thrift necessary alike to self-help and to organized effort. These statistics are accordingly fairly representa- tive of intelligent workingmen, who make the most of their advan- tages, and do not cover the case of vast numbers of workingmen whose condition is below the averages here given, and do not reach the lower stratum of the metropolitan life at all. They merely ap- proach the confines of that world of helpless ignorance and destitution in which multitudes in all large cities continually live, and whose only statistics are those of epidemics, pauperism, and crime. It is to escape this last, worst condition, that the honest workingman makes his daily and life-long struggle. He shrinks from no hardship; he spares no time or toil; through fair weather and foul he contributes daily and willingly to the wealth of others and of the world; he ac- cepts his humble and helpless career, but for this he asks at least to escape mendicancy, and to be able to secure food for his children and a fair expectation of shelter and repose for his declining years. An examination of these tables will demonstrate what ground for that expectation the average workingman has. It will be observed that one-half of them are not even able to earn enough for their daily bread, and have to depend upon the labor of women and children to eke out their miserable existence. Yet these averages are high as compared with the thousands of workingmen from whom no reports are received. In fact, the average earnings of the heads of families, for the entire list of occupations, are less than the general average for the cost of living; and that this is reduced to the minimum is painfully apparent from the tenements they occupy, the clothes they wear, and the food and fuel they consume. I20 TARIFF REFORM. Other deductions of a character not less startling will be developed upon examination of these statistics, which, although not representa- tive of the more destitute classes, are still fruitful of suggestions as to the average condition of multitudes of people, who, living in this land, in this age of prosperity and invention, are still oppressed with continuous and relentless poverty. Such glimpses of social conditions as are afforded by these tables reveal the disabilities which encumber honest industry, and illus- trate how labor is filling the world with wealth and living itself in want; how labor-saving machinery is neither saving the labor of men and women nor reducing the hours of that labor, and how the mate- rial progress of which we boast and the prosperity of the few may operate to intensify the poverty and distress of the many. Mr. DUNHAM. Who says that ? Mr. SPRINGER. The bureau of labor statistics of the State of Illinois, created by an act of our Legislature and ap- pointed by the governor of our State. That bureau has made an official report, from which the extract I have read is fallen, and to it I call the attention of my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Dunham] and every gentleman of this committee. It must be observed that the condition of the laboring classes in Illinois, as shown by the report of the Illinois bureau of labor statistics, is doubtless better than is the con- dition of those classes in many other States in the Union. Illinois is rich in agricultural resources, and all breadstuffs and provisions are much cheaper there than in the large cities and in the Eastern States; also the wages of labor are higher in Illinois than in States farther East. But their con- dition in Illinois, as this report shows, is bad enough. "The average earnings of heads of families for the entire list of occupations is less than the general average for the cost of living." But, Mr. Chairman, this does not show the entire picture of distress in the labor of the country. I hold in my hand the report of a committee of this House on labor. It is re- port No. 444, and will be found in the document-room. This committee proceeded to take the evidence of laborers and workingmen in the country as to their true condition at this time. That evidence is given, beginning on page 8 and continuing to the conclusion of the document, from which I will quote largely if the committee will pardon me. I am sorry the honorable gentleman on the Committee on Ways and Means from that State [Mr. Kelley] is not present. He spoke of the distress of workingmen and workingwomen in England. I regret he is not here to learn something of WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 121 the condition of the workingmen in his own State. He went across the waters to find a very mild case of hardship com- pared with those in his own State. If he had visited some localities in Pennsylvania he would have learned of distress in comparison with which the cases he cites in Europe pale in significance. I find here from this report that the monopolists of Penn- sylvania, having got the tariff fixed to suit them so as to ex- clude foreign products from the country under the pretext of protecting American labor from competition with the pauper labor of Europe, having got these laws so arranged as to keep out the products of the pauper labor of Europe, have sent their agents to Europe and brought the paupers themselves to our country and put them in the mines, in the coke- pits, and in the mills to take the places of American work- ingmen. The men struck. The employers defied them and sent to Europe for Hungarians and put them in their places. Those very men are now displaced by the most degraded of the pauper labor of Europe. The extracts from this report which I will print in my remarks, and some newspaper articles, to which I call the attention of gentlemen, will show that women, with infants at their breasts, and little girls but ten )'ears old are aroused at i o'clock in the morning and put in the coke- pits along with sturdy men to work for seventeen hours a day. And that is in Pennsylvania, under the very shadow of the temple of protection that the honorable gentleman from that State [Mr. Kklley] has been so instrumental in rearing. One of the witnesses before the committee stated that since the new tariff went into effect there had been scarcely any importation of bottles, upon which the duty had been raised. He stated that two American blowers could turn out 80 dozen bottles per day, while two foreign blowers could turn out only 50 dozen per day. He said further that " the manufacturers seem to favor free trade in labor, but they were in favor of a high protective tariff on their own manufactured goods or wares." So it seems that the laborers have at last found out what is the matter in this business. They have learned that the manufacturers are for protection on the manufactured article, but are for free trade in labor. I desire to call attention to a paper published at Reading, Pa., the Morning Herald, of April 18, 1884, which gives an account of women working on the streets, in the midst of in- clement weather, breaking stones for a living. 122 TARIFF REFORM. Mr. DUNHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. SPRINGER. Certainly. Mr. DUNHAM. Does not the gentleman know as a mat- ter of fact that, in the case of these same women who he says are breaking stones upon the streets, their real ordinary busi- ness is that of washerwomen ? Breaking stones is to them lighter work, as they perform it while sitting on chairs, and they find it easier to do than to wash clothes. Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman may apologize for this system as much as he likes. He may see nothing onerous or toilsome in breaking stones on the streets for a living. But when women have to do that in protected America, I hope, in the language of the honorable gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Kelley], that the time will come when no such scene as that will be witnessed in this favored land. Mr. DUNHAM. And does not the gentleman know it to be the fact that these women do that work from choice ? Mr. SPRINGER. Oh, yes, all laborers work from choice. It seems that they must work or starve; that is the choice they have. [Applause.] Mr. BEACH. " Hobson's choice." Mr. SPRINGER. The Committee on Labor, in the report to which I have referred, submitted by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Foran], says: As evidence tending to show the efforts employers of labor are making to supplant American workmen with foreigners, and as still further demonstrating the necessity for passage of this bill, attention is called to the following resolution of the Window Glass Manufac- turers' Association, held at West End Hotel, Long Branch, July ii, 1S83, which is submitted without comment: " On motion of Mr. Gorsuch it was resolved, by a vote of 13 to 8, that the treasurer be authorized to pay a sum not exceeding $30 per man for each blower or gatherer brought over from Europe after August I, 1883, provided the same be employed by some member of this association, and provided they are not workmen who have been in this country within the twelve months last past." The committee had before it and took the testimony of some of the leading and most intelligent men in the labor organizations of Massa- chusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio. A summary of their testimony is appended hereto, as are also copies of contracts signed in Europe by the imported workmen. The im- portance of this subject, its bearing upon the social, political, and economic condition of our people, together with the magnitude of the interests involved, will, it is hoped, furnish an apology for the length of this report. WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 123 SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE. Mr. T. V. Powderly of Scranton, Pa., master workman of the Knights of Labor of the United States, representing 500,000 work- ingmen, who are interested in several bills which are before Congress, testified as follows: " I am interested in the eight-hour law, the land bill, and bill on imported labor under contract, introduced by Mr. Foran. These imported men show no disposition to become citizens of this country, but, on the contrary, seek to obtain a certain sum of money, which they consider a competence, and with it return to Italy or Hungary. I have seen eight of these people and one woman living in a small house, without beds or furniture, sleeping on the floor, and have been informed by reliable authority that these nine persons' expenses for one month was only $27. I have seen them in the Frostburg region of Maryland, where they had been brought by agents, who engaged them at Castle Garden, living in a wooden building, sleeping on bunks, this building being fenced in to prevent them being communi- cated with by the people whose places they had taken. The diet of these men was water and mush, with a small quantity of meat on Sunday. These men are brought into competition with skilled as well as unskilled labor, and it is fast becoming as bad as the compe- tition of the Chinese in the West. A demand is now going up for an amendment of the ^Chinese bill in such particulars as it has been shown deficient." William F. Barclay, representing the miners of the coke region of Pennsylvania, said: " We have a great many of these so-called Hungarians. They are not Hungarians, but Slavonians. They are not brought to our region on a written contract. There is an agency in Pittsburgh and in New York for the employment of these people, and to send them where they are called for. We are against the importation of these people, because their influence is degrading. Firms employ these people in preference to Americans or other emigrants. They are easily im- posed upon, not 5 per cent, of them being able to read. They per- form this soft-coal mining very well, as it requires little skill. They have usually about one woman to every ten men. Their habits are disgusting in the extreme. I saw and counted one day thirty-five women and children employed in forking coke, and working about the ovens; the children poorly clad, of every age ranging from 5 years upward. They do not work on Sunday. To illustrate how they live: A yard-boss who went to get men to work got thirty-seven men out of a house containing four small rooms. They had no beds, but laid on the floor, heads and tails, I suppose. " I never knew one of these men to stay in the country. They spend comparatively nothing, saving their money to return home. Even when sick they go to the poor-house, until at last the authori- ties refused to longer entertain them while they had money. They will eat anything. They hang their meat out in the sun that it may become soft and tainted. The business men of the region are opposed to them. They get the same wages as the Americans, except when they work by the day; then they are paid 33 per cent, less, which is all 1:^4 TARIFF REFORM. they are worth. This importation has reduced the price of mining, and makes it impossible for the men to do other than submit to what- ever the operators demand or require of them, regardless of its just- ness. The condition of the miners and coke-makers generally is aggravated by the company stores which abound in this district. I priced potatoes before I left, and could have bought them of an outside dealer for 50 cents per bushel, while the price in the company stores is 80 cents per bushel. If the men do not deal in the store they are discharged. " I never met one of these Slavonians who could speak English. We tried to organize the men to enforce the statutes of Pennsylvania, but it was a failure. The companies discharged the men who were 'active in the matter. They were black-listed, and refused work throughout the region. I was urged at another time to get up a strike by one of the operators, so that the price of coke might be raised. " The Hungarians are paid 60 cents per ton, but they are so igno- rant that they do not know what a ton is. The mines are wet, and these people work from i o'clock A. M. to 7 P. M. for a day. Americans and more skilled workmen could do the same amount of work in eight hours, but all have to wait on the wagons, the filling of which is de- layed by these men, thereby putting the skilled and the unskilled on an equality. We dare not lay our grievance before the coke manu- facturers, for whoever does so will be immediately discharged. We are opposed to strikes, as they are of no use, and could not succeed with us while these people are in this state of ignorance. Our citizens and merchants are leaving the region. The conditions are becoming insufferable. The works run from two to five days per week, and the wages paid about Si. 25 per day, or generally eight tons at 13 cents per ton. The coke manufacturers are now trying to form a syndicate, that they may monopolize the coke business. There av some manu- facturers who will not employ these foreigners, one of whom lives in the region." I have here also extracts which I have caused to be taken from the report of the evidence before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, of which Senator Blair, of New Hampshire, is chairman. This committee was in session for six or eight inonths, and visited many parts of the country, taking evidence as to the condition of workingmen. The evidence taken by that committee is now being printed at the Ciovernment Printing Office. This evidence contains a vast amount of valuable information in reference to our industrial interests and condition, and will be appreciated hereafter much more than it is at this time. I have here extracts from that document which more than confirm all that I have stated with regard to Pennsylvania atid Illinois. These ex- tracts will prove to gentlemen on the other side that their boasted system of protection is one to protect manufacturers only; that the pauper laborers of Europe are being brought to our very doors to take the places of the striking working- WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. • I25 men of our own country; that manufacturers have black- lists, upon which they record the 'names of the strikers, by reason of which they are driven from place to place as out- casts, and that the condition of wage-earners in this country has deteriorated rather than improved during our high-pro- tective era. The attention of gentlemen is earnestly requested to the evidence taken before that committee. ******* A great mass of such testimony was presented which I have not room to reproduce here, but its general tenor is well illustrated by these extracts. The gentleman who took the lead in introducing the testimony sums it up as follows: THE FACTS PROVED BY THE CENTRAL LABOR UNION. In presenting the case in behalf of the Central Labor Union, we have proved so far, with reference to the city of New Yorii, first, that the productive power of labor here has been vastly increased by machinery; and secondly, that, concurrently with this increase of productive power, the wages of labor have at least been at a stand- still, if they have not decreased; while at the same time we have shown that the workingman's style of living and his social condition have deteriorated, and that, in many cases, his wages are actually lower in dollars and cents, while the price of living is considerably higher, than some years ago. We have also shown that a worlving- man nowadays learns no complete trade, and, therefore, never be- comes an independent workman, but must always seelc a master. We have shown that it is almost, if not quite an impossibility, for a worli- man going into the mechanical trades to ever become the employer of himself; that in consequence of that, in many cases, he loses spirit and becomes despondent and thriftless, and in other cases desperate and disorderly. We have shown, to some extent, th^it children, in- stead of being at school, are put to work here at a very early age merely to eke out the income of their parents, and we may yet be able to show specifically by employers instances of the employment of child-labor in factories. I know of my own knowledge that in one dry-goods house, that of Ehrich Brothers, children who I should say are not above 10 years of age are kept busily at work during the week, from about 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning until 6 or 7 o'clock at night, every day except Saturday, and on Saturday until 11 o'clock at night. I have seen Ehrich Brothers' store open and crowded as late as 11 o'clock at niglit, and those children still on duty. It is my intention, at present, to try to have Mr. Ehrich on the stand as a witness to testify on this sub- ject. We have proved these facts, which I have thus rapidly recited, by intelligent witnesses of various trades, representing probably ten or twelve of the principal mechanical trades carried on in this city, and, if the committee desired, it would be possible for us to offer ad- ditional proof in regard to other trades in which the same general state of facts would be found to exist. 126 TARIFF REFORM. From the last annual report on labor and industries in New Jersey, from the hands o* a protectionist, I extract the fol- lowing statement: Progress and poverty seem to be the concomitants of our civiliza- tion, and while the phrase so generally heard, that the rich grow richer and the poor poorer, may not be strictly true, it is painfully evident that the advance in our social life, great as it has been during the past half-century, bears no sort of proportion to the increase of wealth, knowledge, and material appliances. Labor receives no fair share of these advantages which bring out in strong relief the in- equalities of our modern life; with the increase of palatial residences for the rich few, the tenement-hovels of the many poor increase; with the erection of the costly church edifices and school-houses of the country, the enlargement of our jails and almhouses. The greed for gain, so characteristic of our age, makes the chief end of life the ac- quisition of wealth, and the increasing competition is the plea by which the employing class seeks to justify the reduction of wages of the employ^ to the lowest possible level sufficient for bare existence. In periods of business depression, which so often recur, the wages cease entirely, and the wage-workers are left dependent on private or public charity. The great army of tramps and vagrants is re- cruited from unemployed workmen. As long as this state of affairs continues it is idle to talk of any social improvement of the workmen. This is the sad condition to which labor has been brought in many of the richest States in the Union. There has been no famine or pestilence or war to produce this condition of things. The facts set forth in these extracts are furnished by the workingmen themselves. Read them. They are an indict- ment which the American workingmen have drawn up against this protective system. On that indictment we are going to the country this fall. As sure as these laboring men are allowed to cast their votes at the polls in November next they will speak there in no uncertain sound in condemnation of this system. [Applause.] PROGRESS OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN ENGLAND. The honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt], in his able speech on this bill on Wednesday last, referred to the inaugural address of Robert Giffin, LL. D., president of the London Statistical Society, read November 20, 1883. The gentleman from New York justly regards him "the most eminent living authority on the subject of statistics." Mr. Giffin's address was on the subject of " The progress of the working classes in the last half-century." This article WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 127 is published in the Popular Science Monthly for May, 1884. The importance of this article can not be overestimated. It proves conclusively that the condition of the wage-earners of Great Britain has constantly and steadily improved during the last half-century — covering the free-trade era of Eng- land. After an exhaustive presentation of facts and statistics, Mr. Gififin concludes his article as follows: From this it appears that the increase of what is known as work- ing-class income in the aggregate is greater than that of any other class, being 160 per c?nt. , while the return to capital, and the return to what are called the capitalist classes, whether it is from capital proper or, as I maintain, a return only in the nature of wages, has only increased about 100 per cent., although capital itself has in- creased over 150 per cent. At the same time the capitalist classes themselves have greatly increased in number, so that the amount of capital possessed among them per head has only increased 15 per cent., notwithstanding the great increase in capital itself, and the average income per head can have hardly increased at all. On the other hand, as the masses of the nation, taking the United Kingdom altogether, have only increased about 20 per cent, since 1843, when these income-tax iigures begin, while their aggregate incomes have increased 100 per cent., it is explained how these incomes have gain- ed, individually, about 100 per cent, as against hardly any increase at all in the incomes of what are called the capitalist classes on the average. Thus the rich have become more numerous, but not rich individually; the "poor "are, to some smaller extent, fewer; and those who remain " poor " are, individually, twice as well off on the average as they were fifty years ago. The " poor " have thus had al- most all the benefit of the great material advance of the last fifty years. We may now conclude this long inquiry. It has been shown directly, I believe, that while the individual incomes of the working classes have largely increased, the prices of the main articles of their consumption have rather declined; and the inference as to their be- ing much better off, which would be drawn from these facts, is fully supported by statistics showing a decline in the rate of mortality, an increase of the consumption of articles in general use, and improve- ment in general education, a diminution of crime and pauperism, a vast increase of the number of depositors in savings-banks, and other evidences of general well-being. Finally, the increase of the return to capital has not been in any way in proportion, the yield on the same amount of capital being less than it was, and the capital itself being more diffused, while the remuneration of labor has enormously increased. The facts are what we should have expected from the conditions of production in recent years. Inventions having been multiplied and production having been increasingly efficient, while capital has been accumulated rapidly, it is the wages-receivers who must have the benefit. The competition of capital keeps profits down to the lowest point, and workmen consequently get for them- selves nearly the whole product of the aggregate industry of the country. It is interesting, nevertheless, to find that the facts corre- spond with what theory should lead us to anticipate. 128 TARIFF REFORM. Individual cases of distress and hardship among the work- ing people of England may be cited there as in this country. But the evidence submitted by Mr. Gififin shows that the condition of this class has improved over loo per cent, since free trade was established, and that they are now better fed, better clothed, better housed, better educated, and better in all that contributes to human happiness than ever before. OUR HIGH PROTECTIVE TARIFF. We have had on our statute-books for nearly a quarter of a century what is called " a high protective tariff." The friends of that system revised such laws at the last session of Congress, and made some slight reductions and some slight increases of rates, all in " the interest of the protected in- dustries themselves." In the case of many of the leading industries, notably the manufactures of iron and steel, the importation of many classes of such manufactures is practi- cally excluded by our tariff laws. On every schedule of the tariff law except in the case of sugar the tariff has been im- posed for protection, the revenue to be derived being the merest incident. Protectionists continually assert that tariffs are imposed for the benefit of the workingmen; that they are highest on luxuries and lowest on articles of general consumption. Let us examine this claim. Eighty-five per cent, of the women and children of the country, in fact all the laboring classes, wear more or less of worsted and cotton dress doods. I have obtained from a prominent merchant in New York a table showing the rate of duty on this class of goods weigh- ing under four ounces to the square yard. A careful ex- amination of this table will prove very interesting. It will be seen that the highest tax is on the lowest-priced goods. Un- der the old law in force prior to June 20 last the duty on the cheapest qualities of these goods was 125 per cent., and this exorbitant rate was reduced to no per cent, by the new law. As the price increases the tax decreases step by step until the highest-priced goods, those worn by the wealthier portion of the community, are reached, where we find the tax only 60 per cent, under the old, and 58 under the new law. The goods of the very poorest classes are taxed 100 per cent, more than are the goods worn by the rich. This discrimi- nation against the poor and in favor of the rich is preserved in all the schedules imposing duties on wearing apparel, ex- WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 129 cept that there is a uniform tax of 60 per cent, on all classes of silk goods. Before the war the duty on these goods was 19 per cent, ad valorem. I have another table showing the duty on woolen dress goods weighing under four ounces to the square yard. The same peculiarity is observed in this table as to the rates. The highest tax is on the cheapest goods, those worn by the poor. And not content with imposing a tax of 741^ percent, under the old law, the protectionists in the last Congress raised this tax to ggji per cent. But as the goods rise in price the taxes are reduced, until the fine goods of the rich come in at 43 per cent. Thus it will be seen that protection does not protect work- ingnien, but imposes taxes upon the articles which they con- sume twice as great as upon the articles consumed by the rich. In view of the present condition of the laboring class- es in this country, in view of innumerable strikes, of con- tinuous . lockouts, of unrequited toil; and in view of the languishing condition of the manufacturing interests them- selves, of extensive business failures, of the general unrest of both labor and capital, I hold that the protective system, after twenty-four years of trial, has proven a dismal failure. Its pretenses have been false; its promises of high wages to workingmen have been delusive; its claim that it has pro- moted the general prosperity is without foundation in fact. " This insubstantial pageant " of protection has faded and all its boasted advantages have dissolved into thin air — Like the baseless fabric of a vision. Let us go a step further. We are told by the advocates of the protective system that protective tariffs are necessary in order to prevent our country from being inundated with the cheap goods of other countries; that the products of the pauper labor of Europe will flood our country, and destroy home industries. If this were true I should favor the high- est protective rates, even to the exclusion of foreign articles. But is it true that our country — our workingmen, if you please — would be injured by being permitted to supply their wants from the world's cheapest market ? Let us reason upon this subject for a few moments, and in doing so I will refer to some facts taken from the annual report on the foreign commerce of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, the last fiscal year, by Mr. Joseph Nimmo, 130 TARIFF REFORM. Chief of the Bureau of Statistics. From this report it will be seen that the total value of the exports of merchandise, including gold and silver, during the last year was $855,000,- 000. This large amount of exports embraced among others the following items: OUR SURPLUS PRODUCTS. Value of exports of agricultural products was $619,000,000, or 77 per cent, of the whole amount exported. The value of exports of manufactures was $111,890,000, or nearly 14 per cent, of the whole amount. The products of our mines exported, including mineral oils, were valued at $51,000,000. What do these facts prove ? They show that during that fiscal year the workingmen of this country created articles of value sufficient in amount to supply the demands of all the people of the country, and had left a surplus of articles for which there was no market in this country equal in value to $855,000,000. What was to be done with this surplus of products ? These products had been produced by the sweat and toil of workingmen, and they were entitled to dispose of them to their best advantage. Of what did these surplus articles consist ? The report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics shows that 77 per cent, of them were the products of the soil. The farmers had produced products during that year of the value of $620,000,000 in excess of the demands of the country. The transportation of these products to the seaboard fur- nished employment to thousands of men on railroads, and the freights contributed to the dividends of stockholders. The laborers in manufacturing establishments and mines pro- duced articles in excess of home demands of the value of $162,000,000. The production of these surplus products of the factories, mills, and mines, gave employment to thousands of workingmen, and vastly increased the amount of wages paid to labor. But what became of the surplus products ? No man in this country would buy them. They went abroad to seek a market in foreign countries. They went forth to be disposed of to the best advantage for those who had created them, and whose wages and remuneration had been fixed by their supposed commercial value in other coun- tries. Practically they belong to the workingmen of the country, and were to be sold on their account and for their benefit. WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. I3I Now comes the practical question: " In what shall the pro- ceeds of the sales of these articles be invested ?" The pro- tectionists have suggested we should sell our surplus products for gold and silver only. Let us see how this would work. Eight hundred and fifty millions in gold and silver drawn from other countries each year for five years would exhaust the coin supply of the world. At the end of that time our customers would be impoverished and could purchase no more. We would thus "kill the goose that lays the golden egg." But the proposition is absurd. It is contrary to the course of trade and the experience of mankind during all the ages of the past. We must dispose of our surplus products in some other way. The protectionists again come forward and inform us that there are some products which may be brought into this country which will not injure our manufac- tories and workingmen. These they have enumerated in the taritf laws under the head of the "free list." According to the report to which I have already referred, the value of merchandise which was imported into this country during 1883, free of duty, was $206,000,000. This amount exhausted our wants, so far as the free list is concerned. We have still on hand as the proceeds of our surplus products a credit to the amount of $650,000,000. In what must this large sum of money be invested ? We can not sell our prod- ucts for gold and silver. We have already purchased the harmless articles not produced in this country and admitted free of duty. We do not need food or breadstuffs; we have those articles for sale. There is but one course left us. We must invest our six hundred and fifty millions in the manufactured products and raw materials of other coun- tries. That is just what we did do, just what we were obliged to do. Let us see what kind of articles we did purchase. First on the list we find sugar and molasses, of which nearly one hundred million dollars' worth were imported. The other leading articles imported during the past year were the fol- lowing: Wool, raw |io, 949,000 Manufactures of wool 44,274,000 Silk, raw 14,000,000 Manufactures of silk 36,000,000 Chemicals, drugs, dyes, &c 43,000,000 Iron and steel, and manufactures thereof 40,000,000 Manufactures of cotton 36,000,000 Hides and skins 27,000,000 132 TARIFF REFORM. These will serve to illustrate the character of imported articles. It will be seen that many of these articles are raw materials which furnish employment to labor in converting them into useful commodities. Now, the question arises was our country benefited or injured by these importations ? The protectionists would have us believe that they were an injury. But were they? How did it happen that they came to this country ? It was not the result of an accident. It was not the result of a design on the part of wicked foreign- ers to inundate us with cheap goods and thus destroy our home industries. On the contrary, they came as the result of natural causes. We had a surplus of products; we could find no market for them here and hence sent them abroad. We invested the proceeds to the very best advantage for us and our people, and especially for the best advantage of those who created by their toil and sweat those surplus prod- ucts. The articles which were purchased with such pro- ceeds were for the use and benefit of our own people and the measure and recompense of their own toil. Shall they be excluded ? The protectionists find it impossible to exclude them entirely. But they insist upon imposing a heavy tax upon the articles coming in. Who pays this tax? In the first instance, the importer. But finally the burden falls upon the persons who consume the articles, upon those who use the sugar, woolen goods, cotton goods, iron and steel manufactures, and, in short, all articles which pay duties. A greater part of the burden falls upon the workingmen themselves, those who created our surplus products and caused them to be ex- changed for other products that they desired and could not otherwise procure. If any injury has resulted from the im- portation of foreign goods into this country, the workingmen and farmers who produced our surplus products are alone responsible. They alone are answerable for the conse- quences. They toiled too early and too late. They created too much, they overdid their business, and thus produced commodities beyond our home wants. Wicked workingmen and farmers! how could you do such a thing ? Protection- ists often refer to our large imports and lament that those articles were not produced in our own country. They tell us how many days' work were lost or transferred to foreign- ers, to the pauper laborers of Europe. This employment, they say, should have been given to our own people. Our own workingmen could have made all these imported articles, WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 133 but in our folly and blindness we have gone off and hired strangers and aliens to work for us. This is the argument of protectionists. A FAIR EXCHANGE would be no robbery. Foreigners bought from us eight hun- dred and twenty-five million dollars' worth of our products (excluding coin), and thus gave employment to millions of our people who created these products, while we have pur- chased articles from them to the value of only $700,000,000. If each dollar's worth of products represented a day's labor, foreigners paid us during that year for 125,000,000 days' work more than we paid them. As a mere matter of busi- ness and reciprocity, how and wherein was our country in- jured by the operation? We merely exchanged products we did not need for those we did need. And we paid off $125,- 000,000 at least of our indebtedness abroad at the same time. Those countries which have no surplus products are not troubled with the cheap goods of other countries. The Esquimaux, in the frozen region of the poles, would be de- lighted to be inundated with cheap blankets, cheap coal, and cheap clothing from foreign countries. But they are not. They have nothing to sell; no surplus products of theirs crowd the world's markets, and they are saved the calamity of cheap foreign goods. The ignorant inhabitants of the tropical isles whose articles of apparel are patterned, not after the latest Paris fashions, but follow the simple styles of our first parents in the garden, are not troubled with the cheap goods of foreigners. They have nothing to sell. No surplus products of theirs go abroad to be exchanged for cheap clothing. They need no protective tariff to keep out such goods. Their own igno- rance and indolence serve their purposes equally well. They have nothing to exchange and are thus perfectly protected against the cheap wares and pauper labor of foreign coun- tries. Thus it will be seen that ignorance and indolence are as perfect protection against the pauper productions of other nations as the most perfect system of prohibitory tariffs. They will both accomplish the same result — suppression of all trade between different nations, and secure what protec- tionists regard as the perfection of their system — a nation entirely independent of all others — neither seeking nor re- quiring commercial dealing, but living wholly within and of itself. Such a nation has existed. Its example is the most 134 TARIFF REFORM. Striking illustration of the workings of the protective and ex- clusive system of government. I refer to THE EMPIRE OF CHINA. There the people enjoyed for hundreds of years whatever of benefits the principles of protection, put in full effect, could bestow. The Chinese closed their seaports. They built a great wall on their northern border 1,200 miles long and twenty feet high as a protection against the Tartar tribes. They shut themselves in and all other nations out. They enjoyed all the benefits of a home market and all the advan- tages to be derived from the consumption of home products. They had freedom from all competition with the pauper labor of India and the isles of the sea. No cheap foreign goods appeared in their storehouses or market-places. They had a nation and spelled it with a large N. They could live upon their own resources, and were independent of all other na- tions, peoples, and tongues. Their motto was doubtless: "China for Chinamen." They enjoyed their exclusive policy until British guns broke down the barriers and British armies opened their ports to the commerce of the world. Here we should have found the paradise of the protectionists, the mil- lennium of labor. Hundreds of years of the practical workings of the protect- ive system should have elevated labor to its highest estate and lifted the workingmen to that proud, prosperous, and happy condition which protectionists promise as the practical result of their teachings. But the facts were not encourag- ing. Protected China was neither happy nor prosperous. The people were destitute of religious feelings and beliefs. Women were inferiors and but little better than slaves. The Chinese possessed great skill in handicraft, but labor was poorly paid. Poverty and vice were everywhere to be found. Ignorance and superstition prevailed. Workingmen were de- graded and poorly paid, meanly fed, and in a great measure destitute of the comforts of life. The Congress of the United States has seen fit in its wisdom to exclude those much-pro- tected Chinamen from coming to our country and settling m our midst. We have regarded them as too degraded to asso- ciate with our people, and have denied them citizenship and an asylum. This we have done in the case of no other peo- ple in the world. A few years of commercial freedom have wrought a won- derful change in China. An immense trade has been opened WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 1 35 up between that country and all others. Many modern in- ventions have been introduced. Telegraphs are being built, and the time is not far distant when railroads will be permitted in the empire. The construction of the thousands of miles of railroads which the four hundred millions of Chinese will require in the near future will create a revolution in the busi- ness and financial world, and bring immense advantages to the manufacturing industries of our own country, if we know how to avail ourselves of the opportunity which will be offered. COMMERCE BETWEEN THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH has been carried on from the earliest period of antiquity. It has never been detrimental to mankind, but always beneficial. Yet there could be no foreign commerce without trade be- tween nations. It results from the natural desire to exchange the products of one country for those of another. Such ex- changes are not hurtful, but mutually beneficial to all con- cerned. One country — as did ours last year — produces more of certain kinds of commodities than can be profitably dis- posed of in the country of their production. They go abroad, and are exchanged for other products which are in demand and which serve a useful purpose. The cheaper the freights both ways the better for both buyer and seller. Hence im- proved methods of navigation on the high seas and improved facilities for transportation on land have always been looked upon with favor. And why ? Because the best interests of all concerned were promoted by bringing the cost of commod- ities at the place of consumption as near as possible to that at the place of production. Cheap transportation does this; and hence cheap transportation is regarded by all as being beneficial to both producer and consumer. But why have cheap transportation and protective tariffs at the same time and imposed on the same commodities ? If steamship companies were organized into a grand monopoly and allowed to charge as freights 50 per cent, upon the value of the cargo, the effect upon the home products of like char- acter would be precisely the same as would be the collection of tariff taxes to the same amount, and the benefits (if I may be pardoned for using that word) to the workingman would be precisely the same. There would be this difference only: the Government would get no revenue. But the steamship company could afford to pay the Government a large tax for the monopoly which it would enjoy. In this way the result all around would be practically the same. But if I should 136 TARIFF REFORM. advocate a steamship monopoly to control, freights on all products being shipped to this country I would, by the uni- versal judgment of the people, be condemned and repudiated. But what is the difference between high freights and high tariffs ? Both increase the prices of commodities to the con- sumers and protect producers from competition. Why im- prove our rivers and harbors ? Why vote millions of acres of the public lands and millions of dollars of the people's money to aid in building railroads and canals for the purpose of cheapening transportation and then counteract all the benefits secured by imposing protective taxes ? All obstructions to trade and commerce are detrimental to the best interests of the people. The greater the freedom the greater the benefits to all. The Creator of the universe evi- dently intended that man should enjoy all the blessings that the earth could supply. He created the poles, where are frozen seas and mountains of ice. He created the tropics, where summer lasts all the year, and fruit and vegetation are the spontaneous growth of the soil. Between these extremes there is every variety of climate, soil, and resources. A high order of civilization and a right appreciation of the goodness of Providence will bring all of earth's blessings within the reach of man. He can sit " under his own vine and fig-tree " and enjoy the choicest products of all countries. He can procure his coffee from Java; his tea from Japan and China; his wines from California, France, or Germany; his furs from the Arctic regions; his spices from the tropics; his silks from Lyons; his laces from Brussels. His home may be furnished with comforts and luxuries drawn from the world's best mar- kets. His person may be clothed in garments illustrating the highest skill which any people had attained. His wife and children may also enjoy with him all those comforts, con- veniences, and luxuries which those in like circumstances in any part of the world enjoy. IN CONCLUSION. Why should we seek to deprive ourselves of any good and perfect thing which a kind Providence has placed within our reach ? Why should not the workingmen be permitted to exchange their surplus products to the best advantage to themselves ? They are entitled to the full measure of the fruits of their own earnings. Both producers and consumers are entitled to the benefits of the world's best markets; such markets will not kill busi- WAR TAXES FOR SURPLUS REVENUE. 1 37 ness but make it alive. They will not impoverish, but enrich mankind. They are the centres of the world's best thought, life, and enterprise, and their approach, with perfect freedom, is one of the inalienable rights of man — the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. SPEECH ON TIN PLATES. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, June 14, 1888, On the paragraph of the Mills bill putting tin plates on the free list. Mr. SPRINGER rose. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent tliat the distinguished gentleman from Illinois .[Mr. Springer], who will now address the committee, be permitted to proceed for fifteen minutes of the time allot- ted to this side of the House. Mr. KELLEY. And in addition to the hour heretofore allowed ? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky. No, but for that part of the hour allotted to this side. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dockery in the chair). Is there objection to the gentleman from Illinois being permitted to proceed for fifteen minutes ? There was no objection. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the committee for extending this indulgence to me, and I shall endeavor to improve that time by making an argument solely in reference to tin plates, and I shall not digress upon other subjects connected with tariff legislation. This is one of the most important items embodied in this bill. It is a proposition to place on the free list tin plates, which are consumed universally, and by the great body of our people. The present duty upon tin plates is i cent a pound, and it is proposed by gentlemen on the other side of the House to strike this item from the free list, as proposed by the pending bill, and insert a clause when we reach the dutiable items of the bill in subsequent proceedings, increas- ing the duty to 2.2 cents a pound. At I cent a pound the duty paid to the Government on this article last year amounted to $5,706,433, the value of the imported article being $16,883,813. This was the value in Europe on board ship, and does not include freight charges 138 SPEECH ON TIN PLATES. I39 or insurance, nor does it represent the cost to the consunners of this country, who are obliged to pay these freights, and also the commissions to the middlemen. This duty collected, of $5,700,000, is added to the cost of this commodity to the consumers of this country. I know it has been denied by gentlemen upon the other side that the duty paid upon this article, or similar articles, is carried forward, and placed upon the value of it, and paid eventually by the consumer. But it seems to me, Mr. Chair- man, that if there is any proposition plainer than another in connection with such legislation, it is that the $5,700,000 paid as customs duties upon the article of tin plates was charged up by the merchant to the purchaser, and by him charged up to his customer, and by the merchant finally to the consumer. I am amazed that any gentleman should dis- pute a proposition so perfectly plain as that. Mr. ADAMS. That is true, because no tin plate is pro- duced in this country. Mr. SPRINGER. My colleague concedes that none is pro- duced here. It is admitted, then, by my colleague that this addition of the duty to the prime cost is paid by the consumer. There is no industry of this kind in this country now, and it is admitted upon the other side that there can be no such in- dustry. [Cries of " Oh, no ! " on the Republican side.] Do not be in a hurry, gentlemen; it is admitted that there can be no such industry unless the duty is increased, as indicated by gentlemen upon the other side, to the amount of 2.2 cents per pound. That is the completion of the sentence that I had started to utter when I was interrupted by exclamations from gentlemen on that side. Of course I can not say every- thing at once. The proposition, then, is this: Tin plate is a product com- ing into this country to the value of over $16,000,000 annu- ally, which is not produced here now, and can not be produced under the present duty in this country; but if the present duty, as is proposed 011 the other side, shall be doubled and two-tenths of a cent more is added, it can be, and will be eventually produced. That is the condition. That is what is claimed. Now, the effect of doubling the duty or rather increasing it to 2.2 cents per pound would be to increase the cost to the consumer by the additional tax placed upon the article, none being made at this time in this country, and none could be made until a plant could be produced for its manufacture. I40 TARIFF REFORM. Mr. WASHINGTON. Which would take at least twelve months. Mr. SPRINGER. And which the gentleman from Ten- nessee says would take twelve months. In my own opinion it would take very much more time than that, but, at least for the present, and until such plant was established, it would add to the cost of this article to the consumers of the country the increased burden of 1.2 cents a pound. In other words, in- stead of paying a tax upon the article to the amount of the duty now collected of $5,700,000, we would pay not only that but an additional tax of 1.2 cents per pound, making an ag- gregate of $12,554,000 a year. Until the new plant was established in this country the Government would receive the additional revenue caused by adding 1.2 cents a pound to the duty on this article. But as soon as the home plant was completed, and the home demand could be supplied in this country, importations of tin plates would cease, and the Government would cease to collect the tax or customs duty. Our revenues would then be cut off to the extent of $12,554,000 a year. Tin plates would not be sold much, if any, cheaper, for it is admitted that tin plates can not be manufactured in this country at a profit with a duty of I cent a pound. The home manufacturer would charge the people an amount just below that at which the for- eign product could be sold after paying the duty of 2.2 cents per pound, and freights and other necessary charges. The sum of $5,700,000 now paid as a duty upon the im- portation of tin plates goes into the Treasury of the United States, and becomes a part of the people's funds, to be ap- plied to public purposes; but if you increase the duty, as proposed on the other side of the House, the effect will be ultimately to transfer the $5,700,000 from the public Treasury to the pockets of the manufacturers who may grow up here- after, and also give them an additional bonus of 1.2 cents per pound, or over $6,000,000 more, making a total bonus of $12,554,000 a year. If successful in this, it would be the inauguration of a policy that would take $5,700,000 out of the public Treasury, add $6,000,000 to it, and turn over the whole amount, $12,554,000, thus extorted from the consumers of tin plate, to the National Tin Plate Association, to enable it to manufacture the article in this country. This is protection pure and simple, and solely for the sake of protection. It is a perversion of the taxing power, and has no warrant in the Constitution. SPEECH ON TIN PLATES. I4I It is, in other words, a proposition to malce, by legislation, a business profitable that would not be profitable, and could not be carried on without the tax. If the Government is to enter upon such a policy, gentlemen may turn their attention to other industries which we could encourage in like manner with equal propriety. They may insist hereafter that tea, now the product of Chinese cheap lapor, should be produced m this country. We pay out annually some f 16,000,000 for tea, just as we pay about $16,000,000 annually for tin plates. With a view of protecting against Chinese cheap labor some- thing may yet be proposed with a view to establish tea-culture amongst ourselves. There may hereafter be in California or some other part of, the country gentlemen who will proclaim, that it is a great outrage to continue paying $16,000,000 to China a year for tea. They may contend that our own people should produce what we require. This could perhaps be accomplished by placing a duty of $1 or $2 a pound on tea. Give a sufficient bonus to our own people for producing it, and it certainly can be done if we resort to forced production. Other industries could be created, and fostered in like manner. But such a policy is unwise, and not in accordance with the spirit of our institutions. I am utterly opposed to it, and am ready to meet gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber before the people on this question. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bayne] stated on yesterday that this article had been taxed at the rate of 2^2 cents per pound at one time, and that under the operation of that tax this business flourished, and the price of tin plate was brought down from $12 to $5 a box. I have looked over the statistics and tariff records, and I can not find that that article ever was taxed 2yi cents a pound. It never was taxed at that rate. There was a clause put in the tariff act of June 30, 1864, which for a few weeks was con- strued in that way by the custom-house officers; but Mr. Fessenden, then Secretary of the Treasury, on the 22d day of July, 1864, construed the clause in the bill to refer to another article entirely, and admitted tin plates at 25 percent, ad val- orem. If the gentlemen will refer to Evans's Imports and Duties from 1867 to 1883, they will find a statement, on page 431, of tin plates, terne plates, and taggers tin admitted into this country from 1867 to 1883, with the rates of duty upon them, and the prices prevailing during that period, and they will find 142 TARIFF REFORM. that the duty, ad valorem, never exceeded 25 per cent, until 1883, when it was increased by reason of the fluctuations in price to 29.9 per cent, ad valorem; but the price of tin plate has continually declined in this country without reference to the duty. Under the rate of i.i cents per pound which was established by the act of February 8, 1875, the price contin- ued to decline from 5.20 cents to 3.74 cents per pound, which was the price in 1883; and the price at this time is 3 cents per pound or $3 a hundred. The decline in price is caused entirely by the decline of prices abroad. The price in this country is affected solely by the freight, insurance and duty. The fluctuations in Europe occur by reason of the increased competition, and the improved facilities for production. Mr. BAYNE. The gentleman will not deny that at the time the industry started in this country tin plate was selling at $12 a box ? Mr. SPRINGER. That was not caused at all by the duty on the article. At that time there was a corresponding price abroad. The duty never exceeded i.i cents per pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem. During the Forty-seventh Congress this subject was before the Tariff Commission, and Mr. Nathan A. Taylor, of Phila- delphia, on behalf of the importers of tin plate and the manufacturers of tinware of this country, appeared before that commission and delivered an address. Persons inter- ested in that industry in the city of Philadelphia sent a peti- tion to Congress at that time. In 1882 when the distinguish- ed gentlemen from Pennsyvania [Mr. Kelley] was chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman in- terested in the manufacture of tinware in this country de- sired to be heard before the Committee on Ways and Means. They were refused a hearing; at least so they say in their petition, which I hold in my hand. I read from that pe- tition: Inasmuch as the Committee on Ways and Means decided to hear no oral argument on any matter relating to the revision of the tariff now under consideration by them, thus debarring us from refuting some of the serious errors and misstatements which have been pre- sented to the committee and as printed in their report, we therefore communicated with them in the only way possible, namely, letter and telegram, and we think they did not receive our communications in time to consider our suggestions. We deem it now our duty to call your attention to the inconsistency in the recommendation of the tariff committee to advance the duty on tin plates, and as you will be called upon to vote upon this revision, vie deem it necessary that SPEECH ON TIN PLATES. I43 you should have all the points of information which we can give you, so that you will be enabled to vote intelligently and understandingly upon this important item. This is the introductory to the petition and memorial of fifty-five firms in the city of Philadelphia who represent, as they state in their memorial, two hundred thousand persons in this country who are engaged in the manufacture of tin- ware that is consumed by every family in the United States. The petition sets forth the facts very clearly in regard to this industry. I quote further: In every former tariff bill which has been enacted, the item of tin plate has occupied a specific and independent place, and not taken in conjunction with any other article, and we think very wisely, inas- much as there has been nothing of the kind successfully produced in this country. And I call the gentleman's attention to this: And we think that the present duty of i.i per pound, which is equivalent to about 33 per cent, ad valorem, should have been suf- ficient protection to any one ambitious of manufacturing in the United States, especially as Congress, in order to encourage the manufacture of tin plate in this country, abolished the duty on pig- tin in I875. Notwithstanding the abolition of the duty on pig-tin for the purpose of encouraging its manufacture in this country no firm began the industry, for the reason, I presume, that the product could not be made at a profit with a duty of i cent or I.I cents a pound. I desire to call attention to the specious argument offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall] on this side of the House, and also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Joseph D. Taylor] on the other. The gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. Randall], in his remarks yesterday, said: To-day there are coming to the United States $117,000,000 in value of tin plates. If those tin plates were produced in this country twenty-four thousand people here could be employed in this in- dustry. The labor in Great Britain and Wales required to produce the tin plates we consume amounts, I am advised, to fg, 000, 000, and it is only fair to conclude if we produced those tin plates in this country the laborers engaged in that work would receive from it some ten or twelve millions of dollars. A similar statement was made by the gentleman from Ohio on the right, and it is a customary argument upon that side of 144 TARIFF REFORM. the House, that we ought to have a Chinese wall built up round this country so as to prevent any foreign product from coming in that can possibly be made here. Now, what are the facts in regard to imports and exports ? The fact is, that last year there were exported from this country articles which could not be consumed at home, and which found no home market, valued at$725, 000,000. If these products were produced by laborers earning $400 each per annum, that would show that 1,800,000 persons were engaged in making products which could not be sold in this country and could only find a market abroad, and consequently that the wages to remunerate their labor came from foreigners. The laborers would represent, counting five persons to every family, 9,000,000 of our population. Hence during last year that number of our population were dependent for the means of support entirely upon the people of foreign countries. Mr. BRUMM. Those articles were exported in the face of a protective tariff, I believe. Mr. SPRINGER. And yet gentlemen rise here and de- plore the fact that $16,000,000 worth of tin plates are con- sumed in this country which are made abroad, and which they say ought to be made here. Do they forget that more than $700,000,000 worth of our products were taken and consumed and paid for by foreigners last year ? Now, what are we getting in exchange for these products which we must export ? Here is a pamphlet which shows what we did get, the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, giving our ex- ports and imports for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887. This report shows that of the foreign products which came here in exchange for ours sent abroad there were $233,000,- 000 worth that were on the free list, articles adjudged by gentlemen on the other side to be safe and harmless to be admitted free. Then there were articles worth $165,000,000 that were imported in a crude condition, materials which en- tered into the various products of our domestic industries. Only $59,542,000 worth of these crude articles were dutiable, the remaining $106,000,000 worth being on the free list. Will gentlemen say that that importation injured our work- ingmen ? Why, these were the materials that were imported by manufacturers and workingmen, in order that they might have employment in making the different useful articles of our domestic production. Without these articles many of our home industries could not have existed, SPEECH ON TIN PLATES. I45 Then there is another list of " articles wholly or partially nnanufactured for use as materials in the manufactures and mechanic arts," amounting to $79,000,000, among which are found tin plates. Only |i2, 000,000 worth of these partially manufactured articles are on the free list. These articles require labor to make them suitable for consumption, and furnish employment to millions of our people. There is also a list of articles of luxury, articles used only by the rich, such as wines, jewelry, etc., amounting to $90,- 000,000 in value, less than $4,000,000 of which are on the free list. And the manufactured articles which come in ready for consumption amount to $136,000,000 and only $11,000,000 worth of which are on the free-list. Those articles ready for consumption which pay a duty are taxed at the rate of 49.73 per cent, ad valorem. Surely this is pro- tection enough! On these articles, amounting to $136,000,000 in value, which came in manufactured ready for consumption, the people of the United States had to pay a tax of nearly 50 per cent, ad valorem, amounting to $61,898,366, and the benefit of that protection, whatever it was, went to the protected industries. Mr. Chairman, there are other things that I desire to say, but I see the gavel raised, so I will not further trespass upon the time of the committee. SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, July 19, 1888. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. R. go5i)to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenue (Mr. Dockery having been called to the chair) — Mr. SPRINGER said: Mr. Chairman: The debate on the pending bill began on the 17th day of April last; since that time the committee has been occupied in general debate twenty-three day and eight evening sessions. There were consumed in the general de- bate one hundred and eleven hours and fifty-four minutes — fifty-six hours and eighteen minutes by Democrats and fifty- five hours and thirty-six minutes by Republicans, or those opposed to the bill. In all, one hundred and fifty-one speeches were made during the general debate on this bill. The de- bate upon the bill by paragraphs began May 31, since which time there have been occupied twenty-eight days or one hun- dred and twenty-eight hours and ten minutes, including the time that will be consumed to-day. The whole number of days devoted to the debate and consideration of the bill has been fifty-one, and the number of hours two hundred and forty. This debate will perhaps be known as the most re- markable that ever occurred in our parliamentary history. It has awakened an interest not only throughout the length and breadth of our own country, but throughout the civilized world; and henceforth, as long as our Government shall en- dure, it shall be known as " The Great Tariff Debate of 1888." The House in committee of the Whole on Monday last voted on the question of striking out of the pending bill the paragraph which placed all wools imported into this country after the ist day of October next on the free list. The vote by tellers showed that 120 members voted for free wool and 102 voted to retain the present tax. It was my intention be- fore that vote was taken to have addressed the committee in opposition to striking out the paragraph; but on account of a slight cold I was unable to do so at that time without personal discomfort. But as the motion to strike out did not prevail, 146 SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. I47 and the clause securing free wool still remains in the bill, and must be voted on as a part of it on the final passage, I beg the indulgence of the committee at this time to express some views on the subject. CHANGE IN WOOL TARIFF IN 1 883. On the 3d day of May, 1882, 1 had the honor to address the Committee of the Whole House on the bill to provide for the appointment of the Tariff Commission. In my remarks at that time I referred to the tariff on wool at some length, and advocated the placing of wool on the free list. That Con- gress passed at its second session the tariff act of March 3, 1883, which slightly reduced the duty on wool. It repealed the ad valorem duty of 10 and 11 per cent., but retained the specific duty of 10 and 12 cents a pound on unwashed wool of the first and second class. The specific duty on coarse carpet wools was reduced one-half. It is claimed by gentle- men on the other side of the Chamber that these reductions worked disaster to the wool-growers of the country. I do not concede this. On the contrary, I hold that the reduction of the duties on wool did not produce the changes in the prices of wool or number of sheep which followed. First, as to the number of the sheep in the country before and after the change, take the four years immediately preceding the change and the four years succeeding it. The act of 1883 took effect July ist of that year. The number of sheep in the United States in 1883 was 49,237,291. The number in each of the four years preceding this year was as follows: Sheep. 1879 38,123,800 1880 40,765,900 IS8I 43,569,899 1882 45,016,224 Total 167,475,823 Or an average of 41,868,955 sheep for each year. The number in each of the four years succeeding the change was as follows: Sheep. 1884 50,626,626 1885 50,360,343 1886 , 48.322,331 1887 44,759,314 Total 194,068,514 148 TARIFF REFORM. Or an average of 48,517,128 sheep for each year. This shows an average of 6,648,173 more sheep in each of the four years succeeding the change than there were in each of the four years preceding the change. If the change in the tariff in 1883 had any effect in this respect it was to increase the number of sheep in the country. Gentlemen on the other side are in the habit of pointing to the number of sheep in 1883 and in 1887, and assuming that these two items de- termine the whole question. And in this connection I desire to call attention to the resolution adopted in this city in January, 1888, at the confer- ence of wool-growers, wool-dealers, and wool-manufacturers. Those resolutions were addressed to Congress as a remon- strance on the part of the representatives of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, and of the Wool Growers' National Association, against the passage of the Mills bill, and assumed to furnish Congress information upon the condition of wool-growing and wool-manufacturing in the United States. I quote from the Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, dated Boston, 1887, and of the resolu- tions adopted, which is found on page 336 of that bulletin, as follows: The fact that the reduction in the tariff on wool in 1883 was im- mediately followed by a decrease in the number of sheep in the coun- try from 50,626,626 in 1884, to 44,759,314 in 1887, gives warning that the abolition of duties on wool would seriously cripple the raising of sheep in this country, which is the third producer in quantity among the nations, and would thus increase the price of wool all over the world, while the consequent destruction of sheep would materially affect the supply and the price of meat, and to a considerable degree, of all provisions. A person reading this resolution would naturally infer that there had been a great destruction of sheep in the United States since the reduction of the tariff on wool by the act of March 3, 1883. These honorable gentlemen, assuming to furnish the representatives of the people with valuable infor- mation upon interests represented by themselves, assume that the condition of wool-growing in the United States after the passage of the act of 1883, gives warning that the abolition of duties on wool would seriously cripple the raising of sheep in this country. They assume with a positiveness which amounts to assertion that there was a great falling off of sheep in this country after the passage of that act, while, as I have shown, there were in the United States on an average for each of the SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. I49 four years which have elapsed since 1883, 6,000,000 sheep more than there were on an average for the four years pre- ceding the change. What confidence can we place hereafter in the representations of interested parties on this subject? There are fluctuations in all business. Sheep-raising is no exception to the rule. But general conditions can only be reached by taking the average for several years. The aver- age of four years preceding and succeeding shows a large in- crease in the number of sheep after the tariff reduction on wool in 1883. Now, in the second place, as to prices of wool. There was a decrease in the average price of fine wool of about 10 cents a pound during the four years succeeding the change as com- pared with the four years preceding the change. There was a corresponding decrease as to other classes of wools. The average price of fine wools in January for the years 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882 was 46.25 cents per pound. For the succeeding four years, 1884 to 1887, the average was only 35.50. But there had been a gradual decline in the average price of wool from 1867, when the high protective tariff on wool was passed, until the present time. In 1867 the price was 68 cents a pound. In 1869 it was 50 cents, in 1873 it was 70 cents, and then it dropped each year thereafter to 58, 55, 48, 46, 44, and to 34 in 1879, O'^ about the same price it now commands. What caused the decline in 1879 to 34 cents a pound while the tariff was unchanged ? What caused the decline from 70 to 34 cents a pound on wool during the highest tariff era ever known in this country? Gentlemen must find other causes for these changes than the raising or the lowering of the tariff on wool. I concede that such changes of the tariff do affect prices remotely, but not directly. Prices of all commodities are controlled by the inexorable law of supply and demand. There was a greater supply of wool in this country during the four years succeeding the change in the tariff in 1883 than during the four years preceding the change. The statistics prove this. But the average number of sheep each year was 6,648,000 greater. If each produced a fleece of 6 pounds, the wool supply would, from the home clip only, exceed by 40,000,000 pounds each year that of the preced- ing four years. This would materially depress prices, unless there was a corresponding increase in demand. We have no statistics since 1880 that would accurately determine this fact. The 150 TARIFF REFORM. probabilities are, however, that there has been in recent years a large overproduction of woolen goods in this country. As such goods are loaded down with the taxes on the raw mate- rial, they can not be shipped abroad and sold in competition with goods manufactured out of untaxed raw material. Hence they must overcrowd our home market, and thus de- press not only the prices of woolen goods, but also of wool itself. Overproduction is the inevitable consequence of high tariffs. In many branches of business, combinations or trusts have been formed for the purpose of limiting production and controlling the prices of their products. Thus high tariffs produce overproduction and overproduction produces the combine and the trust. I do not charge that there has been a trust formed by those engaged in woolen interests. But it is conceded that the high tariff on wool has restricted our wool-growers to the home market; they can not ship their wool, under present conditions, to other countries. A restricted market places their products at the mercy of the manufacturers of woolen goods in this country. When they overstock the market, they must shut down their mills or work them on limited time and with less force. This diminishes the demand for wool, and a fall in prices is the inevitable result. NOT AN INFANT INDUSTRY. On yesterday we heard the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Buchanan] speak of the potter's art as one of the old- est industries known to man, but the raising of sheep is of even greater antiquity. The stereotyped pretext of protecting an infant industry can not be set up in defense of taxing either wool or pottery. The very earliest industry known to man was that of raising sheep. Abel, the second son of Adam, was "a keeper of sheep." [Laughter.] The offering of the firstlings of his flock as a sacrifice to the Tord proved more acceptable than did the offering of his brother, and the murdero.us jealousy ensued which caused Abel's death. In Exodus (22: i) the penalty for stealing sheep was the restoration to the owner of four sheep for each one stolen. In Deuteronomy (22: i) is found the injunction "not to see thy brother's sheep go astray." The law required every shepherd to look after the welfare of his neighbor's flock as well as his own, and not to permit his sheep to go astray. On the occasion of great as- semblies of people, sheep were slaughtered for their food. SPEECH ON FREE WOOL 15I We are told in 1 Chronicles (5: 21) that the sons of Reuben took from the Hagarites in war 250,000 sheep. This was 1,300 years B. c, and indicates that there was a large sheep- growing industry more than three thousand years ago. Mr. McCREARY. Did they have free wool in those days? [Laughter.] Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; they had free wool in those days. The Scriptures are filled with references to sheep. Abel and David were shepherds. The Savior of the world is called the Good Shepherd, and his birth was first announced " to the shepherds who watched their flocks by night " on the plains of Judea. What excuse can there be for placing the business of raising sheep and growing wool in the category of infant industries ? What nonsense to assert that this in- dustry can not exist in the United States of America, where the soil and climate are unsurpassed, unless Congress imposes a high tariff on wool! What folly to load down with taxes that article of all others which most contributes to the health and comfort of mankind ! A CONDITION CONFRONTS US. At the beginning of this session of Congress we were con- fronted with a condition of affairs which demanded a revision of the tariff and a reduction of the surplus revenue in the Treasury. The President, in his annual message to Congress in December last, called attention to this condition, and rec- ommended the immediate passage of a bill to correct the inequalities of the tariff and reduce the surplus, characteriz- ing our tariff laws as " the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation." At that time the excess of revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, amounted to $55,000,000, and the estimated surplus at the end of the fiscal year was placed at $140,000,000. According to the statement made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery] in the House on July 3, last, the surplus at the close of the last fiscal year (June 30, 1887), was $129,272,- 205.90, notwithstanding a purchase of bonds during the year up to that time to the amount of $32,386,800. THE president's MESSAGE ON FREE WOOL. In view of these facts President Cleveland was justified in departing from the usual custom of sending in a message on the leading topics of home and foreign affairs and devoting the whole paper to the subject of the surplus and suggesting 153 TARIFF REFORM. the proper means for its reduction. He urged the reduction of tariff taxes and a revision of the customs laws as essential to the removal of unnecessary burdens on the people and in order to promote the general welfare. Among other sub- jects referred to by him was the tariff on wool, and he urged the reduction or removal of this duty in any revision of the tariff laws that might be made. This part of his message is clear, forcible, and convincing, and deserves the careful con- sideration of every person in the United States, and especially of the voters who are to pass upon this question at the polls in November next. The following are the portions of the message on this subject: The farmer and the agriculturist, who manufacture nothing, but ■who pay the increased price which the tariff imposes, upon every agricultural implement, upon all he wears and upon all he uses and owns, except the increase of his flocks and herds and such things as his husbandry produces from the soil, is invited to aid in maintain- ing the present situation; and he is told that a high duty on imported wool is necessary for the benefit of those who have sheep to shear, in order that the price of their wool may be increased. They of course are not reminded that the farmer who has no sheep is by this means obliged, in his purchases of clothing and woolen goods, to pay a tribute to his fellow-farmer as well as to the manufacturer and mer- chant; nor is any mention made of the fact that the sheep-owners themselves and their households must wear clothing and use other articles manufactured from the wool they sell at tariff prices, and thus as consumers must return their share of this increased price to the tradesman. I think it may be fairly assumed that a large proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers throughout the country are found in small flocks numbering from twenty-five to fifty. The duty on the grade of imported wool which these sheep yield is lo cents each pound if of the value of 30 cents or less, and 12 cents if of the value of more than 30 cents. If the liberal estimate of 6 pounds be allowed for each fleece, the duty thereon would be 60 or 72 cents, and this may be taken as the utmost enhancement of its price to the farmer by reason of this duty. Eighteen dollars would thus represent the in- creased price of the wool from twenty-five sheep, and $36 tliat from the wool of fifty sheep; and at present values this addition would amount to about one-third of its price. If upon its sale the farmer receives this or a less tariff profit, the wool leaves his hands charged with precisely that sum, which in all its changes will adhere to it until it reaches the consumer. When manufactured into cloth and other goods and material for use, its cost is not only increased to the extent of the farmer's tariff profit, but a further sum has been added for the benefit of the manu- facturer under the operation of other tariff laws. In the mean time the day arrives when the farmer finds it necessary to purchase woolen goods and material to clothe himself and family for the winter. SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 1 53 < When he faces the tradesman for that purpose he discovers that he is obliged not only to return, in the way of increased prices, his tariff profit on the wool he sold, and which then perhaps lies before him in manufactured form, but that he must add a considerable sum thereto to meet a further increase in cost caused by a tariff duty on the manu- facture. Thus in the end he is aroused to the fact that he has paid upon a moderate purchase, as a result of the tariff scheme, which, when he sold his wool seemed so profitable, an increase in price more than sufficient to sweep away all the tariff profit he received upon the wool he produced and sold. When the number of farmers engaged in wool-raising is compared with all the farmers in the country, and the small proportion they bear to our population is considered; when it is made apparent that, in the case of a large part of those who own sheep, the benefit of the present tariff on wool is illusory; and, above all, when it must be conceded that the increase of the cost of living caused by such tariff becomes a burden upon those with moderate means and the poor, the employed and unemployed, the sick and well, and the young and old, and that it constitutes a tax which, with relentless grasp, is fastened upon the clothing of every man, woman, and child in the land, rea- sons are suggested why the removal or reduction of this duty should be included in a revision of our tariff laws. CONSUMPTION or WOOL AND WOOLEN GOODS. The manufactures of wool enter into universal consump- tion. No other element enters so largely into domestic affairs as does wool. From the cradle to the grave it is around and about us. In the Northern portions of our coun- try huinan existence would be intolerable and vast areas would be comparatively depopulated if woolen goods were eliminated from our domestic economy. The health, com- fort, and prosperity of the people largely depend upon a liberal supply of the productions of wool, or those of which wool is the chief component. The production of wool in the United States for the year 1886 was 285,000,000 pounds. The imports of wool for that year were 129,084,950. It is estimated that the woolen goods which were imported into the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, contained raw wool to the amount of 196,000,000 pounds. This would show that the amount of raw wool consumed in the United States for the year 1886-87 amounted to 610,084,958 pounds. Assuming that the population of the United States at this time is 60,- 000,000, this would show that the consuinption of raw wool per capita for the past year was 10 pounds, or for a family of five persons 50 pounds of wool was consumed. The average price of raw wool at this time is 34 cents a pound, and the 50 pounds consumed by each family would therefore amount to 154 TARIFF REFORM. $17, which would represent the cost to each family of five persons in the United States of raw wool for the past year. If we multiply the whole number of pounds of raw wool con- sumed by the price of wool at this time, it will show that there were $207,428,885 worth of raw wool and wool in manufactured woolen products consumed in the United States in the year 1886-87. The value of manufactures of woolen goods consumed in the United States in 1880 is estimated as follows: The domestic production of woolen fabrics, according to the census of 1880, was valued at $267,252,913. There were imported duringthe year 1880 woolen goods to the amount of $35,013,- 255. The duties paid upon the imported goods amounted to $21,152,070. The manufactures of men's and women's clothing in the United States for the census year 1880, less the cost of materials used therein, were valued at $90,630,- 745. I deduct the materials used in the manufacture of clothing for the reason that they were composed of the domestic productions and importations already estimated. The aggregate of these amounts would represent the total value of woolen goods consumed in the United States in 1880 in the hands of the manufacturers, or at the port of entry, plus the duty upon the imported goods. It is well known, however, that the cost of bringing these goods to the consumers of the country, will add at least 25 per cent, to their value in the hands of the importers and manufacturers. The 25 per cent, thus added would amount to $103,512,245, making a grand aggregate of cost for that year of woolen goods to the people of the United States of $517,561,228. There were in the United States in 1880, in round num- bers, fifty millions of people, and if we divide the aggregate of woolen goods consumed by the whole number of the popu- lation it will show that the cost for woolen goods to each person was $10, or for a family of five persons, $50. There is an element in this cost which is attributable to the tariff on wool and woolen goods. It will be interesting to determine how far the aggregate of cost of woolen goods was increased on that account. I do not claim that the whole amount of the duty paid on foreign importations is in all cases added to the cost to the consumers of like products produced in this country; but where the home product does not exceed the home demand for consumption and foreign productions must come in to supply the deficiency, the cost of the home product is fixed SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 1 55 by the cost of the foreign product plus the duty. In the case of woolen goods, the supply did not equal the demand, as it appears that $25,000,000 worth of woolen goods were im- ported into the United States in 1880, upon which duties were actually paid to the amount of $21,000,000. TARIFF INCREASES COST OF WOOLEN GOODS. It is safe to estimate that the woolen goods manufactured in this country were enhanced in value on account of the tariff on imported goods of like quality to the extent of at least 40 per cent., or on this account to the amount of $106,- 873>i65. There were actually paid in duties on imported woolen goods for that year $21,152,070. This amount was necessarily added to the cost of the imported articles. This would make a total increase of the cost of the domestic prod- uct of woolen goods in the hands of the manufacturers and importers to the amount of $128,025,235. If we add to this amount 25 per cent, as commissions and expenses necessarily incurred before the goods reached the consumers, making $32,006,308, we will find that the total cost to consumers in the United States in 1880 on account of the tariff on woolen goods amounted to $160,031,543. At that time, as stated before, there were 50,000,000 inhabitants in the United States, the cost of protection to wool and woolen goods would therefore amount to $3.20 per capita, or to a family of five persons, $16. If each Congressional district contained at that time 150,- 000 inhabitants, which is about the ratio, the woolen goods consumed in each district would cost the consumers in 1880 $1,500,000. The tariff burden /f;- capita, as before stated, for that year was estimated at $3.20. The amount of tariff burden, therefore, to each district would be $480,000. These estimates are based on the statistics of 1880 for the reason that we have no statistics since that time of the amount and value of domestic manufactures of woolen goods. It is safe to say that there has been an increase in domestic manufactures of woolen goods since that time equal to the increase of population, and perhaps greater, as our wants are continually expanding. The ratio of tariff burdens on woolen goods consumed has at least been pre- served since 1880, and in all probability increased. It is therefore safe to estimate that there has been an increase in each item of at least 10 per cent. The account in 1880 would then stand as follows: The 156 TARIFF REFORM. whole amount of woolen goods consumed in 1880 was $517,- 561,228. Ten per cent, of this amount would be $51, 756,- 122. Our total cost in 1880 of woolen goods consumed was $569,316,350. The tariff burden in 1880, as before stated, was $160,031,543. If we add 10 per cent, to this, namely, $16,003,154, we will have a total of tariff burdens in the United States in 1888 amounting to $176,034,697. The tariff burden in each Congressional district in 1880 was estimated at $480,000. If we add 10 per cent, to this, namely $48,000, we would have a tariff burden to each Congressional district of $528,000 on account of the tariff on wool and woolen goods. VlfHAT PROTECTION TO WOOL-GROWERS COSTS. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] said on Thurs- day last: Nothing can be clearer than that if wool is admitted free of duty it will result in a decline of wool nearly to the extent of the duty. This means that the domestic product of wool is increased in value or price to the purchaser to an amount equal to the duty on the imported article. This will be true as long as the duty remains. The average rate of duty on imported unwashed wool for 1887 was 35.10 per cent, ad valorem, or about 10 cents a pound. The production of wool for 1886 was 285,000,000 pounds. If the wool-growers in 1886 realized an increased price on their wool to the amount of 10 cents a pound the gain would amount to $28,500,000. They do not, however, realize the full amount of 10 cents a pound. But for the sake of argument let us concede a loss the first year to the wool-growers of $28,500,000 on their wool product in case of a repeal of the duties on wool. ' This would be a loss to the wool-growers of each Congres- sional district, assuming (which is only approximately the fact) that the wool-growers were equally distributed to each district, of the whole sum divided by the number of districts, including Delegates, or only $85,585. It appears also that in order to afford the wool-growers a protection on their wool product of 1886 of only $28,500,000 the consumers of wool in the United States were subjected to a tax equal to $176,034,697. This tariff burden on account of the protection to wool- growers amounted in each Congressional district to $528,000, SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 1 57 while the average amount of protection realized to each dis- trict is only $85,585 a net loss to each district of $442,415. Assuming that the wool-growers receive all the protection which is claimed, we submit that such protection is an ex- pensive luxury to the consumers of woolen goods in this country. It is not true, as stated by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley], that "to admit wool free of duty would result in a decline in wool nearly to the extent of the duty." It is true that during the continuance of the protective duty the price may be advanced after the business of the country has become adjusted to the duty, to the extent of the tax, or nearly so. But if we abolish the duty, and place wool on the free list, there will be a variety of conditions or circumstances which would result therefrom, which would all tend to increase again the price of wool, and that, too, within a very short period of time. TARIFF ACT OF 1 86 7 AND ITS RESULTS. In 1867 the wool-growers of the country and the manufac- turers of woolen goods succeeded in inducing Congress to impose protective duties on the importation of foreign wools, and also to impose such additional duties upon importations of foreign woolen goods as would compensate them for the loss they would sustain by reason of the duties on the raw material. The tariff upon wool prior to 1867 had been fluc- tuating under various acts of Congress from 1824 to 1865. Some of these acts place the duties very low. From 1858 to 1 86 1 wool costing 20 cents per pound or less was on the free list, and all other wools paid a duty of 24 per cent, ad val- orem. From 1862 to 1864 the duty on wools costing 18 cents per pound and less was but 5 percent, ad valorem; and over 18 cents and less than 24 cents it was 3 cents per pound; and over 24 cents per pound in price, 9 cents per pound in duty. Between 1865 and 1866 the tariff on wool costing 12 cents per pound and less was 3 cents per pound, and costing over 12 cents up to 24 cents per pound the duty was 6 cents per pound, and between 24 cents per pound and 32 cents per pound the duty was 10 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem; and all wools costing over 32 cents per pound the duty was 12 cents per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. The act of August 22, 1866, slightly changed these duties, but 158 TARIFF REFORM. they remained substantially the same until the taking effect of the act of March 2, 1867. The duties were very unequally distributed by the act of 1867 on the different classes of wool, carpet wools being taxed at the rate of from 18 to 39 per cent, ad valorem, while iine wool pays from 37 to 88 per cent, in the grease, and from 31 to 96 per cent, if washed, and from 73 to no per cent, if in scoured condition. It will be seen that the high tariff upon fine washed and scoured wools has had a marked effect upon the manufacture of woolen goods in this country, and has worked greatly to the injury of both the wool-growers and manufacturers, as will be seen as I proceed further. The wool-growers felicitated themselves after the passage of the act of 1867 upon the success which had attended their efforts in securing a protective tariff on their product; but we will see how far their expectations have been realized. Their object in securing tariff legislation was to prevent foreign wools from competing with their products. They desired to practically exclude many classes of wool from our markets in order that they might receive greater prices for all they might raise. I shall be able to prove that, so far from realizing their expectations, the market was actually depressed; that in the States east of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers the number of sheep vastly decreased, and that the price of wool averaged less per pound after the high tariffs were imposed than prevailed previously under low tariffs. HOW TARIFFS AFFECT PRICE OF WOOL. The American wool-growers are not the only persons who have been disappointed in this respect, and our Government is not the only government that has imposed protective duties on wool at the instance of wool-growers to realize later that the object had in view was not only not accomplished, but the opposite of public expectation occurred. The history of protective tariffs on wool in this country and in France and England shows how wrong in theory is the idea that tariffs of themselves control prices. Tariffs may contribute to raise or to lower, as other circumstances may contribute to produce results, but they are not the sole cause of high prices or low prices. It has frequently happened in the history of our country, and in the history of other countries, that protec- tionists have secured high tariffs on particular articles only to realize low prices at home for articles intended to be pro- tected; while, on the other hand, free-traders hoping to secure SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 1 59 low prices by taking off duties have been disappointed to find the prices higher after than before. I have the authority of Mr. Bastiat (Sophisms of Protection, page 211) for the follow- ing information in reference to protective tariffs on wool in France and in England : For instance — Says Mr. Bastiat — In France, to protect the farmer, a law was passed imposing a duty of 22 per cent, upon imported wools, and the result has been that na- tive wools have sold for much lower prices than before the passage of the law. In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed exempting foreign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native wools have sold higher than ever before. History has repeated itself in the United States on this subject; and this leads us to consider how prices are affected by tariffs. The reason a protective tariff may result in dimin- ishing the price of the home product is from the fact that while the supply may have diminished by cutting off the for- eign importation of the raw material the embarrassment to manufacturers resulting from this may have caused a dimin- ished demand; and if the demand should diminish in greater proportion than the supply should diminish, the price would fall instead of increase. On this subject I may be permitted to quote again from Mr. Bastiat. He says: 1. Prices rise either on account of augmented demand or dimin- ished supply. 2. They fall by reason of an augmentation of the supply or diminu- tion of the demand. There are two kinds of dearness and two kinds of cheapness. There is a bad dearness, which results from diminution of supply, for it im- plies scarcity and privation. There is a. good dearness, that which results from an increase of demand, for this indicates the augmenta- tion of general wealth. There is also a good cheapness, resulting frdm abundance, and there is a baleful cheapness, such as results from the cessation of demand or the inability of consumers to \i\ixz\isse:.— Sophisms , page 214. Applying these general principles to the facts in relation to the wool interest of the United States, the complications con- cerning the subject will be easily understood. The average price of medium American washed clothing fleece wool in New York for the fifteen years preceding 1867, the date of the passage of the act of that year, placing high l6o TARIFF REFORM. protective duties on wool, was 51.8 cents per pound. The average price for the fifteen years succeeding the passage of that act was 48.6 cents per pound. This shows that there was a depreciation in prices for fifteen years after the passage of the high tariff duties on wool equal to 4.'2 cents per pound. The whole amount of wool produced from 1867 to 1881 was 2,796,750,000 pounds, upon every pound of which the American wool-growers have averaged a loss of 4.2 cents. The average production for each of the fifteen years would amount to 186,450,000 pounds, and the average annual loss amounted to $7,830,900 while the grand aggregate of fifteen years' loss amounted to $117,463,500. There was not only a great fall in the price of wool after the passage of the act of 1867, but there was an immense re- duction in the number of sheep in the country. DISASTROUS RESULTS. There were other striking results which followed the high protective tariff of 1867. I asked the Bureau of Statistics to furnish some figures on this subject showing the number of sheep in the States east of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers for i860 to 1888, that being the portion of the coun- try which was principally interested in procuring the high protective tariff on wool. From this table, which I will print in connection with my remarks, it appears that in i860, after the period of free trade in wool which preceded that time, there were in the States east of the Mississippi and the Mis- souri 19,221,714 sheep, while in 1888 in the same States there were only 18,696,719, showing a falling off of over a half-million sheep in the States east of the Missouri River since i860. (See appendix to Report on Free Wool Bill.) But that is not all. Between i860 and 1867, when the tariff duties were very low and scarcely affected the produc- tion or the price of wool at all, there was an increase of from 19,000,000 to 38,991,912 sheep in all the United States, and in the States east of Mississippi and Missouri there was an increase to 37,864,609. That was the number in this coun- try when the wool-growers formed a combination with the woolen manufacturers and secured a high protective tariff on wool. Immediately after the passage of the act of 1867 there began a decline in the wool interests in all of the States which had invoked that change, from the Missouri River east to the Atlantic Ocean. The fall was so great that at this time (1888) in the same SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. l6l States east of the Missouri River we have only 18,000,000 of sheep, whereas in 1867 there were 37,000,000. In other words, we have now less than one-half as many sheep in this portion of the country as we had at that time. It will be in- teresting for gentlemen upon this floor to compare the figures in this table showing the number of sheep in their own States at different periods and to see what a besom of destruction was visited upon the flocks east of the Mississippi and the Missouri after the tariff of 1867 was passed. I desire espe- cially to call the attention of the Republican Representatives from the State of Ohio, a State that has a large sheep-growing interest, and one which contributed, perhaps, more than any other to secure the tariff legislation of 1867 for the protection of wool-growers. In that State in 1867 there were 6,730,126 sheep. In 1875 the number had decreased to 4,592,600; in 1878 103,783,000, a loss in ten years of nearly one-half the sheep of the State. There has been a gradual increase from 1878 to the present time, 1888, when the number in the State is put down at 4,106,622, which shows that there are now in Ohio 2,623,504 sheep less than there were twenty-one years ago, when a pro- tective tariff was invoked by the sheep-growers of that State to protect their industry. I hope the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] and his colleagues will be able to explain to their constituents during the ensuing vacation how it is that the protective tariff has reduced the number of sheep in Ohio in twenty-one years nearly 33 per cent., when by natural causes there should have been at least an increase to that ex- tent. I will also ask the gentlemen who represent the State of Pennsylvania on this floor, and who are so clamorous for protection for wool-growers, to consider the effects of the tariff of 1867 upon the sheep industry of Pennsylvania. In 1867 there were in that State 3,422,002. There is in that State to-day the beggarly amount of 984,891, being a loss in that State in twenty-one years of 2,437,311, a loss exceeding two-thirds of the entire number in the State. The eloquent gentleman from Michigarr [Mr. Burrows] has raised his voice on this floor on many occasions in behalf of a high protective tarifi: on wool, presumably in the interest of the wool-growers of Michigan. Let us see how that State has flourished under the protective regime. There were in Michigan, in 1867, 3,948,191 sheep, while in 1888 there are only 2,113,004, a loss in that State, in twenty-one years, of 1,824,987, nearly half of the entire number in the State. If l62 TARIFF REFORM. this protective system can remain in force another twenty-one years, the entire number will be wiped out of the States with the same ratio of decrease. I perhaps ought to refer to the State which I have the honor in part to represent, Illinois. That State is represented on this floor by fourteen Republicans, all of whom are opposed to putting wool on the free list, presumably in the interest of the wool-growers of our great State. Let us see how Illinois has fared during the era of high protection on wool-growing. In 1867 there were in that State 2,736,431 sheep, while in the year 1888 the number is put down at 814,177, showing a loss of 1,922,254. Neither ought I to neglect the State of Maine in this con- nection, although the number of sheep raised in that State is scarcely worth mentioning. In 1867 the number of sheep in that State was 752,542; the number in 1888 is 547,725, show- ing a loss in this State of 204,817 sheep; not great in num- bers, but being a proportionate reduction of nearly one-third, thus showing that the general average of reduction is pre- served along the whole line. I have already referred to the fact that during this same period the price of wool has fallen from 68 cents a pound in 1867 to 34 cents a pound in 1888, a fall of just one-half in the number of sheep east of the Mis- souri and Mississippi rivers and just one-half in the price of the wool which they bear. I commend these facts to the careful consideration of the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber. They will have plenty of time between this and the reassembling of Congress in December to explain to their constituents how it happened that after the Republican party, at the instance of the wool-growers, placed a high protective tariff on wool in 1867, that immediately in the States interested in that pro- tection the number of sheep fell off, the price came down, and now, after twenty-one years of sad experience, they have reduced the number and the price one-half. So much for the benefits of protection to wool-growers of the country. It will be seen from these statistics that after twenty- one years of protective tariffs on wool the number of sheep in the States intended to be benefited has fallen off one- half, notwithstanding the fact that the population of the country during that time increased over 30 per cent., and railroads penetrated all the Western States and Territories, and immense agricultural interests grew up everywhere. Contrast these facts with the sheep interests in Great Britain. SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 163 The whole number of sheep in Great Britain in 1866 was 25,- 795,000, in 1874 it was 35,000,000, an increase in eight years of 35 per cent, under absolute free trade in wool, and with an area no greater than some of our larger states. I desire to explain, as clearly as I am able to do, the re- markable results following the passage of the protective tariff on wool in 1867. I know that protectionists are slow to be- lieve facts so unwelcome to them as those which I have pre- sented, but facts are facts and must be accepted as true. These facts are consistent with all other facts which have taken place since the passage of the act of 1867. I have stated that prices are sometimes affected by other causes than by the imposition of customs duties to protect the home product, but in the case of the tariff on wool, passed in 1867, which, instead of increasing the price of the home product, diminished it, the explanation is found in connection with other facts to which I will call attention. As I said before, prices may be enhanced by diminishing the supply, or prices may be reduced by limiting the de- mand; in other words, prices are controlled by the inexorable law of demand and supply. The immediate effect of the passage of the act of 1867, placing high tariffs on wool, was to encourage sheep-raising, and the productions of wool in the United States increased from 168,000,000 pounds in 1867 to 180,000,000 pounds in 1868, being an increase of 12,000,000 pounds. This over- production of wool immediately depressed the prices of wool, and reacted on wool-growing. The number of sheep fell off rapidly, as already explained, especially in the States east of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. The production of wool began to fall off, and in 1871 the product was only 150,- 000,000 pounds. But the disaster to wool-growing was taken advantage of by the importers, and the imports of wool in- creased from 25,000,000 pounds in 1868 to 126,507,000 pounds in 1872. But the prices of wool have never reached, on an average, the prices which prevailed in 1867, when the high tariff on wool was first imposed. The price of fine wool in January, 1867, was 68 cents a pound in New York; of medium, 53 cents, and of coarse, 50 cents. In January, 1883, the prices of the same grades were 40, 43, and 33, and in January, 1887, they were 33, 38, and 33. Reference is made to a statement which will be found of interest in this connection, and which I will print in the ap- 164 TARIFF REFORM. pendix, showing the quantities of wool produced, imported, exported, and retained for consumption in the United States, from 1839 to 1886 inclusive. Neither the wool-growers nor the wool-manufacturers were benefited by the high-tariff act of 1867. THE ACTS OF 1867 AND 1 883 COMPARED. It is claimed and has been frequently asserted since this debate began that the slight reduction of the wool duties by the act of 1883 produced disastrous results to the wool-grow- ers of the country. The reduction was very slight, only about ID per cent, ad valorem. The ad valorem duty was dropped and the specific duty of 10 and 12 cents a pound was retain- ed. The greatest reduction was on the high-priced wool. ******* The average rate of duties imposed on unwashed wool by the act of 1883 was, on the importations of 1887, equivalent '"to 35.10 per cent, ad valorem, surely a sufficient protection to prevent disastrous or even injurious competition. This duty is on the unwashed product. If washed the duties are doubled, and if scoured the duties are trebled. This as- sumes that unwashed wools have only 33 per cent, of pure wool — the rest is dirt and grease. The dirt and grease con- stitute no part of the wool, and the duty is therefore the treble duty on scoured wool, namely, under the present law, on first and second class wools, 30 and 36 cents a pound, and on the carpet wools, or third class, •] }i cents and 15 cents a pound. The average duty on the scoured wools of the first and second classes was, on the basis of the importations of 1887, 67 per cent, reduced to an ad valorem basis. It will be seen by reference to the Treasury report of im- ports and exports for 1887 that the amount of scoured wool imported was valued at only about $78,000, and the washed wools at only about $131,000, while the total value of wools imported during that year (1887) was $18,206,987. DIRT AND GREASE. There is a great outrage concealed in this classification of wools under the tariff laws. I call attention of members to the definitions of "washed " aod "scoured" wools, and to the percentages of scoured wool, as given in the special report of the Treasury Depart- ment (1887) on "wool and manufactures of wool," pages XXV. and XXVI.: SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 165 Washed wool. — Washed wool is wool washed on the back of the ■ animal by a bath or by spout-washing, or washed upon the pelt or hide of the slaughtered animal. Scoured wool. — All wools that are washed after they are shorn or pulled from the pelt or hide of the animal are called scoured wools. This term is generally applied where the use of warm or hot water is made. Penenlage of scoured wool. — Unwashed merino wool shrinks from 50 to 80 per cent, in scouring. The lightest and choicest Australian medium unwashed, will yield 50 per cent, less of scoured wool, and the heaviest mestiza buck's fleeces will yield about 20 per cent, of pure scoured wool. Most unwashed wools yield less than 50 per cent, of scoured wool. The light, open, coarse, unwashed wools of the carpet class yield from 50 to 70 per cent of scoured wool. Fine Ohio full-blood merino unwashed wool, exclusive of buck's fleeces, yields from 35 to 40 per cent, of scoured wool. The merino fleeces grown in Texas and on the Western prairies of the United States yield from 25 to 30 per cent, of scoured wool. Unmerchantable Ohio fleeces yield from 37 to 40 per cent, of scoured wool. British and Canada wools yield from 70 to 85 per cent, of scoured wool. Cross- bred, washed Ohio fleeces yield from 60 to 80 per cent, of scoured wool. Cross-bred Western American prairie fleeces yield from 30 to 50 per cent, of scoured wool. Tub-washed wools and cross-bred sheep generally yield from 80 to go per cent, of scoured wool. Scoured wools, as usually manufactured or as scoured for sale, yield from 85 to go per cent, of scoured wool in rewashing. It will thus be seen that the Australian wools, such as are required in this country to mix with our native wools, will yield 50 per cent., and the British and Canadian wools from 70 to 85 per cent, of scoured wool. Hence, it pays the im- porter better to import wool in the grease or in its natural state than after scouring. Australian wool, if imported in the grease, would pay a duty of ten cents a pound, if valued at less than 30 cents a pound; if valued over 30 cents a pound, 12 cents a pound. In 100 pounds of this unwashed wool there would be 50 pounds of scoured wool. The duty on the 100 pounds would be, if imported un- washed, ten or twelve dollars. If scoured, the duty would be thirty or thirty-six dollars. Or on a package that would yield 50 pounds of pure wool, the duty would be, if imported in the grease, f 10 if valued before scouring at 30 cents or less per pound, or $12 if valued at over 30 cents a pound; but if imported as pure wool the duty would be $15 or $18, according to the same classification. Hence the importer re- quires his customers, the producers of the imported wool, to ship it in the grease. Or in other words, the producer is re- quired to ship and pay freight on 100 pounds of dirt and grease in order to ship 100 pounds of wool to market. Thus l66 TARIFF REFORM. Congress throws a great obstacle in the way of commerce in wool by requiring a pound of dirt to be shipped with every pound of wool which may come into our country from abroad. This is precisely the same in effect as raising the freights loo per cent, on all imported wools, without any benefit to any one except the owners of ships, whose freightage is thus in- creased. As imported wool is consumed by our own people, the burden thus artificially created is borne by the American consumers of woolen goods. Can legislative folly be carried to greater extent ? Suppose a law should be passed requiring the Western farmer, when he ships a bushel of wheat to England, to ship at the same time a bushel of sand, and to pay the same freights on both; would not everybody cry out against it as iniquitous in the extreme ? Yet that is strictly analogous to the law now in force on the subject of importing wools. [De- risive laughter on the Republican side.] Gentlemen may laugh, but the law remains as I have stated it, and they can not deny it. DEPRESSIONS, HARDSHIPS, AND DISASTERS. But notwithstanding the folly of Congress and the insatiate greed of private interests, the tariff on wool has not resulted in the benefits to woolen manufacturers that they anticipated and confidently expected. Since the imposition of the high protective duties by the act of 1867, there have been many seasons of depression, hard times, and even disasters. In 1874 a committee of the New York Wool Trade made a report to the committee of the Chamber of Commerce of New York on the revision of the tariff, in which it was stated "that our woolen interest is depressed and suffering, and that in reality it has never reached that degree of stability and security which would be commensurate with its magnitude and importance; that the amount of capital invested in it, and that the indomitable energy which has so far preserved it from serious decline are facts too well known to require any proof at our hands." This report then proceeds to explain some of the difficulties which beset the wool interests of the country. It says: Our manufacturers are prone to rush into the production of such classes of goods as a momentary demand has rendered profitable, and the invariable result is an overproduction of those fabrics. Such an overproduction sometimes happens to manufacturers in Europe, but they can relieve themselves of their surplus stock at a comparatively SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 167 small sacrifice, by consigning their goods to foreign markets, where their cheapness has already introduced them. Our manufacturer, having made his goods out of highly taxed wool, has no such outlet for them, and is compelled to await the slow operation of time, or sub- mit to a heavy sacrifice by forcing his surplus on the home marliet in competition with his similarly situated neighbors. This argument applies with equal force to all other manu- facturing interests. But I quote further from the same report: Before we enter upon an examination of the effects of our tariff on the wool-growing interest it will be well to consider that neither our country, nor any country in the world, does or can produce to advan- tage wools of all kinds and grades. It must further be borne in mind, that in order to produce the endless variety of woolen fabrics demanded by our times, with the highly improved machinery now in use, and with the active competition among all manufacturing nations, the free and unrestricted selection of the most suitable classes and grades of wool has grown to be a matter of much more importance to the manu- facturer of every country than it used to be in old times. Nor will it be denied that but few of our mills can at this day be run to advan- tage without using to some extent wools of such working quality as can not be produced in this country, or are not produced here in suf- ficient quantity. The simple fact that even under our present tariff we have annually imported from fifteen to sixty million pounds of fine wool sufiiciently proves these positions. The question of duty on fine wool can therefore never be a simple question of protection or no pro- tection to the wool-grower. The report points out wherein the tariff of 1867 failed to accomplish the object for which it was established, as follows: These facts show most conclusively that the object ostensibly aimed at by the tariff of 1867, namely, the protection and encourage- ment of the wool-growers, has most signally failed. The wool-grower must be blind, indeed, if by this time he has not learned the lesson that he can not prosper as long as the woolen interest does not flour- ish; why should he not also understand that our industry can not permanently flourish until it is relieved of the present heavy burden of obstructive tariff legislation? By helping the manufacturer he would certainly help himself, and secure a better reward for his labor and investment than he could ever expect to derive from the illusive protection of any tariff. The conclusion reached by this report is as follows: Facts, indeed, as well as sound reasoning, call loudly for the aboli- tion of all duties on wool. In the light of past experience, it is clear that neither the wool-grower nor any other special interest ought to plead any injury as likely to result in our country from a policy that has had the most encouraging effect in all other parts of the civilized world. No perfectly safe and solid ground will be reached until wool takes its permanent place on the free list, and this must be the goal of the manufacturer as well as of the wool-grower — in fact, of the whole people. l68 TARIFF REFORM. The foregoing report was published in 1874. In 1878 the leading manufacturers of woolen goods in the United States united in a petition to Congress in favor of a revision of the tariff on woolen goods, in which they requested that the du- ties on all wools may be largely reduced, if not wholly re- moved; that wools not produced in this country be put on the free list, and that the duties on woolens may be fixed at a moderate rate, corresponding with the scale adopted in other manufactures. They represented to Congress in their petition that for sev- eral years past their industry had " suffered great and general depression;" also that " many failures have occurred, many mills have stopped, and many others continue to run without adequate remuneration to their owners." They say: We believe that one great cause for this wide-spread depression is to be found in the present high rates of duty on wool. And again: High cost of our fabrics has limited consumption and entirely pre- vented exportation, while low-cost foreign goods have forced their way into our markets through both legitimate and illegitimate chan- nels. After pointing out the facts that the shrinkage of values since 1867 had impaired the ability of consumers to pay the high prices contemplated by the tariff; that the number of those who can afford to purchase at a given price is lessened; that the wool-growers had not realized the advantages from the act of 1867 which they expected; that the depressed con- dition of woolen industry had given the wool-growers a poor market; that the production of fine wools has absolutely de- clined; that manufacturers of woolen goods must be left free to select their raw materials with reference to the goods they wish to make, the petitioners conclude by expressing their " deliberate conviction, after ten years' experiment, that the tariff of 1867 has not promoted the interests of the wool-manu- facturers, has not promoted the interest of the wool-grow- ers, and has been a great burden upon all the consuming classes, in return for which it has yielded no adequate revenue to the Government." This petition is dated at Boston, January 17, 1878, and is signed by over one hundred of the leading woolen-manufac- turing establishments in the United States. What more could be said against any tariff law than the SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 169 leading' manufacturers of the country have said in this peti- tion ? When the manufacturers, for whose benefit the high tariffs have been enacted, learn from sad experience that their coveted protection has ceased to protect, the great mass of consumers and tax-payers may hope for and confidently ex- pect relief. HOW TARIFF ON WOOL EMBARRASSES AMERICAN WOOL MANU- FACTURERS. [Under this heading the reader is referred to the report of the Ways and Means Committee, Fifty-second Congress, pub- lished in this volume.] A NEW DEPARTURE. Since the imposition of high protective duties on wool has resulted so unsatisfactorily to the interests intended to be protected, why not try a new departure, as proposed in the Mills bill, and put all wool on the free list, and reduce duties on manufactured goods to 40 per cent, ad valorem, as this bill provides ? What would be the probable effect of such a policy ? First. It would result in a large reduction in the price of woolen goods and goods into which wool enters as a component part to any extent. I have already pointed out the probable saving in dollars and cents. But there would be another ad- vantage. ADULTERANTS IN WOOLEN GOODS. Our woolen goods would be of better quality. According to the statistics of the Tenth Census, 1880, the total amount of raw material consumed in the manufacture of woolen goods was as follows: Pounds. Domestic wool 222,991,531 Foreign wool 73,200,698 Camel's hair 1,583,119 Mohair 159.678 Buffalo hair 671 .027 Hair of other animals 5,664,142 Cotton 48,000,857 Shoddy 52,163,926 Total raw material 404,434,978 The wool used is reported as wool in the grease, and should be reduced at least 60 per cent, to obtam the amount of pure 170 TARIFF REFORM. wool consumed. The legal ratio of loss is 66.66 per cent- Thus only 118,476,891 pounds of pure wool were consumed. This shows that the adulterants of woolen goods made in 1880 were as 108 parts of adulterants to 118 parts of pure wool, or that 118 pounds of pure wool were mixed with 108 pounds of hair, shoddy, cotton, etc. Any one acquainted with the in- ternal workings of our woolen factories will recognize the truth of this statement. And I presume that if the truth were known that ten-dollar "alT-wool" suit which the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] presented for the inspection of the House some time ago was composed of these adulterants in that ratio and sold out as "all wool." [Laughter.] That, however, im- plies no fault on the part of the gentleman who sold it, be- cause that is the way those goods are rated in the market. I quote from a petition of workingmen in woolen mills in Philadelphia, presented by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Breckinridge], and printed in the Jieccrd oi June 30th, page 6253. This petition represents the views of those who work in Philadelphia woolen mills, and the facts therein stated can not be disputed: It is no stretch of the truth to say .that these discriminations against the manufacturing industries have very materially dis- couraged the use of wool and promoted the substitution of adulter- ants, most manufacturers having for some time given more attention to the manipulation of substitutes, so as to give them the appearance and touch of wool, than to the matter of improvements in the making of pure woolens in order to compete in quality with their foreign rivals. This has given rise to the impression that we are less skilled than the European workmen, yet it is self-evident that it requires as much if not more skill to work up the adulterants so as to give them i marketable appearance as to jnanipulate the genuine materials. A great deal of stuff is put upon the markets now as cassimeres, etc., that does not contain over 10 per cent, of wool. Manufacturers who attempt to make nothing but pure woolens are compelled to close their mills, To make stuffs that shall compete in the markets with foreign makes in textures and variety it is almost invariably necessary to use some wools of foreign growth for mixing with the domestic; but as the tariff enhances the cost of these wools by from 25 to 150 per cent, there is no possibility of the American manu- facturer using them in competition, and hence we are forced to give over to the foreign manufacturers the monopoly of all the markets and allow them to supply our own people with goods into which not a pound of American wool enters. Thus the woolen manufactures imported in 1887 amounted to 49,000,000 pounds, which, at 4 pounds of raw wool to the pound of finished product, represented 196,000,- 000 pounds of wool, which, with the 115,000,000 pounds of raw wool, makes a total importation of 311,000,000 pounds, or considerably more SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 171 than the entire wool-clip of the United States. If all this had come in free in the raw state it would have aborbed for mixture a large quantity of domestic wool, instead of every pound that did come in anyhow displacing a pound of American wool, and at the same time depriving American labor of employment, and our poor people of the comfort of woolen clothing. From a statement recently made public by a leading carpet manu- facturer we glean the fact that ingrain carpets which formerly were made largely of wool are now made of an average of one-fifth wool, and four-fifths adulterants, and in the whole of the carpet industry probably not a million pounds of domestic wool is now used. There is no carpet wool raised in this country, and yet a tax of over 26 per cent., which far exceeds all the wages paid in the manufacture of carpets, is still imposed upon the wool which is necessarily brought in from the outside. If this wool were admitted free, a greater quantity would be used, and probably not less than 10,000,000 pounds of domestic wool would be absorbed for mixture. For these reasons we fail to see how the wool-growers are bene- fited by the tariff on wool, as it inevitably restricts the market for their wool both by forcing the use of substitutes, and by promoting the importation of wool in the manufactured state, of which must re- dound to the injury of both the wool-grower and the woolen-worker. TAILORS AND WORKERS IN WOOLEN GOODS. The tariff on wool and woolen goods bears with peculiar force and hardships upon American tailors, tailoresses, mil- liners, seamstresses, and those engaged in the manufacture of clothing. The high prices of cloths, thread, linings, and all materials used, by reason of the tariff thereon, raises their products to such a high price that the margin of com- pensation for the labor, both skilled and otherwise, is very- small. According to the census of 1880 there were in the United States at that time 430,980 persons employed as tailors, tailoresses, seamstresses, and like industries, and in the manufacture of clothing, men's and women's, there were 186,000 employed. It appears from the census that the materials used by those employed in making clothing were valued at more than three times the amount of wages paid to employes. This poor remuneration to labor is attributa- ble in great measure to the high price paid for the materials. WOOL AND WHEAT. Much has been said during this discussion about the rela- tive prices of wheat, wool, and other farm products at various periods in the history of our country. The price of wheat in i860 in New York was, highest, $1.70; lowest, $1.35 ; average, f 1. 5 2 a bushel. Six and thirty-five sixtieths bushels 172 TARIFF REFORM. of wheat would buy a $10 suit of clothes at that time. The price of wheat in 1886 in New York was, highest, 95^ cents; lowest, 83 cents; an average of 89^4^ cents a bushel. Hence it would require 1 1 14-16 bushels to buy a fro suit of clothes in 1886, the difference in favor of i860 being 4 39-60 bushels. In other words, it required 4 39-60 bushels less in i860 to purchase a $10 suit of woolen clothes than it requires at this time, 1888. If the price of woolen goods had not been in- creased by the high protective tariff on wool and woolens a Western wheat-grower would probably be able to-day to pur- chase a f 10 suit with 6 35-60 bushels of wheat, as he did in i860. THE AVERAGE CLIP. Much has been said during this debate about the average number of pounds of each fleece of wool. There has been in all parts of the world marked improvement in the wool product per capita. In 1840 the average weight of each fleece was only 1.85 pounds, in 1850 it was 2.42 pounds, in i860 it was 2.68 pounds, in 1870 it was 3.52 pounds, in 1880 it was 4.79 pounds, and in 1887 it was about 6 pounds. Strange and preposterous as it may seem, gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber have claimed repeatedly that this in- crease was owing to the protective tariff on wool ! It was all on account of the tariff ! The same gentlemen, in their zeal to sustain their pet theories, attribute all the blessings, or most of them, that we enjoy in this country to protection. Nothing is attributed to the skill of ourworkingmen, the perfection of our machinery, the productiveness of our soil, and the salubrity of our climate. If the protective tariff produced the large increase in the average clip in this country from 1.85 pounds in 1840 to 6 pounds in 1887, what has produced a much greater in- crease in the weight of the clip in Australia ? In 1880 there were in that country 51,000,000 sheep, and the wool crop amounted to 392,000,000 pounds, or 8 pounds per fleece. In 1886 the number of sheep had increased to 86,254,000, and the wool crop of that year at 8 pounds per fleece would amount to 690,000,000 pounds. In Australia there is free trade in wool, and the industry, both as to the number of the sheep and the weight of the fleece, is even more prosperous than in this country. The increase in the weight of the clip is accounted for in both cases by the improvement in the science of sheep-breeding, the mixing of different breeds and SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 173 varieties, and the proper care and treatment of the sheep so as to produce the best results. It is science and not sub- sidies that produces the change. It is proper treatment, and not protective tariff ! CALAMITIES PREDICTED. Since this debate began we have heard the same iteration and reiteration from day to day. The burden of the argu- ment, if it can be dignified by that name, is that if we pass the Mills bill the particular industry under discussion will be ruined. The petitions from manufacturers and other inter- ested parties are to the same purport. Ruin, swift and com- plete, will follow as to every item touched by the bill. It makes no difference whether the item be put on the free list or whether a prohibitory duty be reduced within the possi- bility of a slight competition, the result will be the same. Ruin to the industry is inevitable! The persons employed will be thrown out of employment, the factories or mills will be closed, and bankruptcy and financial depression will ensue. It would be invidious to quote from any one on the other side to illustrate the character of their lamentations and forebod- ings in case this bill should pass. In reference to wool, they all agree on the other side of the Chamber (with a few excep- tions) that the placing of wool on the free list and the reduc- tion of the duties on manufactured woolen goods to 40 per cent, ad valorem will wreck wool-growing and wool-manufac- turing in this country. They can see nothing, after the passage of this bill, so far as the wool interests are concerned, except the slaughter of our sheep for mutton, closing of our woolen mills, and the flooding of our country with the manufactured woolen goods of free-trade England, whose manufacturers, in view of the destruction of our own sheep and mills, will charge their own prices. We will then be without the home supply and at the mercy of the enemy. Do gentlemen really believe what they say.? Are they so blinded to every fact which controls the subject that they can not reach a logical conclusion ? Do they ignorantly follow the teachings of interested parties, and protected classes, who are growing rich by the protective sys- tem ? Perhaps there are some who seek to blind the eyes of the people for partisan purposes and advantages. But for the sake of this argument I will assume that gentlemen sup- porting the other side of this question are honest in their views, and that they are merely mistaken. 174 TARIFF REFORM. FREE WOOL IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Fortunately for the friends of this bill the raising of sheep and the manufacturing of woolen goods are not left to the experience of this country. In June, 1887, the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain was 37,000,000, about two-thirds of the population of the United States. The total cultivable area of land is only 47,874,369 acres, yet there were 29,401,750 sheep in Great Britain at that time raised and supported on land worth from $500 to $1,000 an acre. The wool imported into England in 1886 amounted to 596,- 470,995 pounds, and the amount exported amounted to 312,- 006,380 pounds; retained for home consumption, 248,464,615 pounds. There were in England at that time 2,751 woolen, shoddy, and worsted factories, 6,144,594 spindles, and 282,- 255 persons employed in- woolen manufactories. The ex- ports from Great Britain for 1887 of woolen and worsted goods were valued at a hundred million dollars. Thus have flour- ished the wool and woolen industries of Great Britain under perfect free-trade in wool and woolen goods. Compare this condition of the woolen interests in free-trade England with the same interests in the United States. Here we had in 1880, the last census on the subject, 2,689 factories; 161,557 persons employed, and no exports worth mentioning of wool or woolen goods, but imports of wool in 1887 valued at $18,206,000, and of woolen goods valued at $40,000,000. The number of sheep in this country in 1887 was 44,759,314, or about three-fourths of one sheep to each inhabitant, while in England the number of sheep was 29,- 401,750, and the population only 37,000,000, or about four- fifths of one sheep to each inhabitant. In this country there were in 1880, according to the census, 536,081,835 acres in farms, of which 284,771,042 acres were improved, or culti- vated, or about 6 acres of improved land to each sheep, and about 12 acres of farm lands to each sheep. This does not include an estimate of the ranch sheep that pasture on plains in the Western States and Territories. The cultivable area of lands in Great Britain is only 47,874,369 acres, or about one and six-tenth acres to each sheep. If free-trade in wool and woolen goods in England will support a sheep on every acre and six-tenths of an acre of cultivable land, what have we to fear in this country if wool is put on the free list ? Under a high protection on wool we have only an average of one sheep on 12 acres of farm lands. SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 175 while in England, with free wool, the number of sheep has reached one for every acre and six-tenths. TAXES HIGHEST ON CLOTHING OF THE POOR. Gentlemen on the other side who are opposing free wool continually assert that tariffs are imposed for the benefit of the workingmen; that they are highest on luxuries and lowest on articles of general consumption. Let us examine this claim. Eighty-five per cent, of the women and children of the country, in fact all the laboring classes, wear more or less of worsted and cotton dress goods. I have obtained from a prominent merchant in New York a table showing the rate of duty on this class of goods weighing under 4 ounces to the square yard. A careful examination of this table will prove very interesting. It will be seen that the highest tax is on the lowest-priced goods. Under the old law in force prior to June 30, 1883, the duty on the cheapest qualities of these goods was 125 per cent., and this exorbitant. rate was reduced to no per cent, by the new law. As the price increases the tax decreases step by step until the highest- priced goods, those worn by the wealthier portion of the com- munity, are reached, where we find the tax only 60 per cent, under the old and 58 under the new law. The goods of the very poorest classes are taxed 100 per cent, more than are the goods worn by the rich. This discrimination against the poor and in favor of the rich is preserved in all the schedules imposing duties on wearing apparel, except that there is a uniform tax of 60 per cent, on all classes of silk goods. SHEEP ON THE RANCHES AND IN THE TERRITORIES. It will be seen from the examination of the tables of statis- tics which I have furnished that there has been a constant in- crease of sheep on the ranches and in the Territories, and in the States west of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, while in the States east thereof there has been a falling off, since 1867, when high tariffs were enacted to protect wool-growers. The States east of those rivers procured the tariff legislation to protect them not only from foreign wools but also from the wools grown on the ranches and plains west of those rivers. The Western sheep interests were not taken into the protected circle and have received no practical benefit from the tariff. The tariff was intended to keep out the fine wools of Australia, which come in competition with the wools grown in Ohio and the States east of the Missouri River. It would 176 TARIFF REFORM. vastly improve the condition of sheep husbandry in the Ter- ritories and extreme Western States if the fine wools of Aus- tralia could come in free. This would increase largely the demand for our coarse Territorial and Western wools, to mix with the finer grades in making desirable qualities of cloth. An increased demand would cause an advance in prices, and thus the conditions would be greatly improved by admitting wool free of duty. But there would also be an increased demand for all grades of wool, as the manufacture of woolen fabrics would be greatly stimulated and increased by lowering the prices of woolen goods and bringing more of them and better qualities within the reach of consumers, who constitute the great mass of our people. THE world's supply OF WOOL. All calculations in reference to the production and prices of wool should take into consideration the world's supply of that article. In recent years there has been an immense de- velopment of this industry in Australasia and South America. By refering to table No. 3, which I will print in the appendix to my remarks, it will be seen that the number of sheep in Australia in 1860 was only 20,000,000, and the number of pounds of wool exported was less than 70,000,000. The sta- tistics for 1886 show that there were in Australasia at that time 86,352,020 sheep, and that the exports amounted to nearly 400,000,000 pounds of wool. It will be remembered that there are in Australasia only 3,552,602 inhabitants, showing that there were nearly 25 sheep to each inhabitant. It must also be remembered that there is perfect free-trade in wool in all Australasia, and that this vast industry has grown up without the stimulus of a protec- tive tariff. The contribution of Australasia to the wool prod- uct of the world is so important that the increase of the in- dustry in that country will be eagerly watched by business interests in all parts of the world. I will also print a table in the appendix to my remarks, showing the wool exported from the Argentine Republic dur- ing each year from 1870 to 1886. The number of sheep in that republic in 1885 was estimated at 75,000,000, as appears by a report of the Agricultural Department for January and February, 1887. There is a small tax upon importations of wool into South America, but it does not affect in any way the price of the domestic product, as there is an immense ex- SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. 177 port of wool, as will be seen by a reference to the table al- ready referred to. The number of inhabitants in the Argen- tine Republic in 1887 was 3,436,286, which shows 2\}i sheep to each inhabitant. The next largest sheep-growing country in the world is Russia, the number in that empire being put down in 1882 at 47,500,000. The United States comes next in order with 44,759.314 sheep in 1887. Great Britain is next in impor- tance so far as the number of sheep is concerned, the number in the United Kingdom being put down for the year 1887 at' 251858,000. There has been a falling off in recent years in Great Britain, attributable to local causes and in no way af- fected by commercial restrictions, as there is perfect free trade in England in reference to wool and the manufactures of wool. FREE HIDES. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Russell] has called the attention of the committee already to the fact that Congress in 1872 placed hides on the free list, and that the leather and boot and shoe industries of the country had vastly improved since that time on that account, and that the farmers were also benefited by the greatly reduced cost of the leather and boots and shoes they must use. Mr. Switzler, the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, has furnished me at my request a table showing the vast increase in those industries. I call attention also to the fact that the number of pairs of boots and shoes made at the factories in 1870, namely, 80,627,244, was increased in 1880 to 125,478,511 pairs, and the number of persons employed in the factories increased from 91,702 in 1870 to 111,052 in 1880, being an increase in ten years of over 55 per cent, in the output and an increase of nearly 20 per cent, in the number of hands employed. So much for free hides. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Breckin- ridge], in his remarks on the i6th day of this month [Record, page 6942), submitted some very interesting information ob- tained from the statistics, in reference to the growth of the leather and boot and shoe industries under the stimulating influence of free hides. He pointed out the gratifying fact that the census of 1870 and 1880 showed immense increase in those industries in the ten years covered. In 1870 the capital invested was $126,441,716, and the value of the prod- uct was $376,392,211. In 1880 the capital was $149,856,694, 178 TARIFF REFORM. and the value of the product was $452,824,925. These sta- tistics embrace the manufacture of all kinds of leather, boots and shoes (including custom work), and saddlery and har- ness. He further showed that our exports and imports for 1887, of leather and manufactures thereof ($10,000,000 in value each), were about equal to each other, and that our im- ports of hides in the same year were valued at $24,225,776. In 1872, when hides were put on the free list, our imports of leather and manufactures thereof amounted to $11,879,000, and our exports to only $3,684,029, and our imports of hides in that year amounted to $14,345,727. Of the $10,000,000 of leather importations in 1887, there was only $553,213 worth of manufactures of boots and shoes. The rest was in leather to be used in manufacturing and in kid and leather gloves. TAXED WOOL. Contrast the flourishing condition of the leather and boot and shoe industries, brought about through untaxed hides, with the languishing condition of the wool manufacturers of the country, as shown by the census of 1870 and 1880. WOOLEN MANUFACTORIES, 1870 AND 1880. Census reports show the following facts in respect to woolen manufactures in the United States for the above decades: 1870. 1 880. Establishments. Capital invested Hands Spindles Wages Material Product 2,891 198,824,531 80,053 1,845,496 $26,877,675 $96,432,601 8155.405.358 1,990 $96,095,564 86,504 1.756,740 $25,836,392 $100,845,611 $160,606,721 Comment on these facts is unnecessary, the whole story. The facts tell MR. SWITZLER S LETTER. Reference in this connection is made to the letter from Mr. Switzler, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, in which it is stated on the authority of Mr. J. R. Dodge, Statistician of the Department of Agriculture, that the price of farming land SPEECH ON FREE WOOL. I79 in Great Britain ranges from $500 to |i,ooo an acre. It is also stated that the cash rental for lands at this time in Great Britain is 30 shillings per acre, or about $7.50. If the people of England with land worth $500 to $1,000 an acre, and renting for $7.50 an acre, can raise sheep profit- ably without the aid of a protective tariff, why can not the people of the United States do so ? also our lands are worth from $20 to $75 an acre, and rents from $3 to $5 an acre, and we have in addition, west of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, immense plains and public lands upon which sheep are grazed the year round. We have also the advantage of a richer soil. In Russia raw wool pays a customs duty of less than 2 cents a pound — a purely revenue tariff. In Germany and France wool is admitted free. There is no reason, either in the past experience of our country, or in the history and condition of wool-growing in other countries, why the United States can not raise sheep and wool with profit without the aid of pro- tective tariffs. ADVANTAGES TO FOLLOW. The putting of wool on the free list will result in a large reduction, as already stated, in the price of woolen goods. This will create a larger demand for them. A larger demand will cause an advance in prices of raw wools for manufactur- ing purposes. This increased demand and consequent in- crease in price of wool will soon restore the prices prevailing under protection without increasing the cost of woolen goods. This statement at first consideration may seem paradoxical, but it is confirmed by the truth of history in England, France, and the United States, as already shown. The reduction of the tariff on wool or its abolition has more frequently resulted in increasing the price of raw wool than in reducing it. The tax or duty being talien off of the foreign product, a greater proportion of free untaxed wool would be used. Better op- portunities would be afforded the manufacturer to mix to ad- vantage the native with the foreign wool, fewer adulterants would be used, and a cheaper and better cloth or manufact- ured article would be produced. With a larger percentage of cheap foreign wools, with free dye-stuffs, with mills run- ning on full time, with quick sales, and with a steadily in- creasing demand, woolen manufacturers could well afford to pay the prices they now pay for native wools and still sell their products at lower prices and realize better profits. l8o TARIFF REFORM. Putting wool on the free list will result in innumerable blessings to the American people. It will bring increased health and comfort to every home in the land. It will bring cheap and abundant woolen clothing to our workingmen dur- ing the rigors of our Northern winters. It will cover the floors of the poor man's house with a woolen carpet. It will furnish his children with suitable apparel for the school and the church. It will cover the beds of the people with all- wool blankets in the winter time, and furnish the workingman, his wife, daughters, and sons with more solid enjoyment than any other act of legislation that can be devised. It wiii stimulate manufactures. It will create a demand for labor, for machinery, and for fuel. Every branch of industry will feel the healthful impetus, and new life and vigor will be in- fused into all trades, professions, and employments. There will be no falling off in the production of wool in this country; no hands now employed can possibly be thrown out of employment; no wheel that now moves can possibly be checked or hmdered. It will result in benefits to all, in injury to none. Pass this bill and a new era of industrial prosperity will dawn upon us Factories will spnng up in the States of the South and West and in the Territories. Those already in existence m all parts of the country will run on full time and increase their plants from year to year. Instead of import- ing into this country $40,000,000 worth of woolen goods, as was done in 1887, we will soon be able to supply the home market with woolen goods and export immense quantities to other nations. Pass this bill. Let it become the law of the land. It will result in good to all. The people will be better fed, better clothed, and will live in better houses, and sleep in better beds. In after years, when the full measure of countless blessings shall have been realized, the generations then living and those who may come after them will rise up and invoke the blessings of Providence upon those who originated it and upon those who gave to it the force and power of law ! [Great applause.] FREE QUININE. REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, Septeinber 14, 1888, On the bill (H. R. 9051) to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenue. Mr. SPRINGER said: Mr. Chairman: I have received numerous letters request- ing information on ttie condition of the quinine industry since that article was placed on the free list. In order to answer such inquiries fully and satisfactorily, I requested Mr. John W. Springer, who is well informed upon such mat- ters, to thoroughly investigate the whole subject and prepare an article thereon for publication. He gave the matter a very careful consideration, as will be seen by reading his article, which I ask leave to print in the Record. FREE QUININE. Quinine is perhaps the most indispensable medicine in this country, and is universally used. Its price affects its con- sumption. If the price is high, the poor cannot buy what they really need, their suffering will be unrelieved, and even death in many malarial districts may ensue. Much has recently been written upon this subject to prove that the tak- ing off of the duty of 20 per cent, on imported quinine in 1879 has resulted in ruining this industry, in closing the fac- tories, and in throwing many laborers out of employment, and that no benefit to the consumer of this article has re- sulted. The facts in the case are just the opposite from the statements sent broadcast over the country by the Repub- lican campaign committee at the instance of the quinine monopolists. In 1823 the price of quinine was $20 per ounce, in 1888 only 50 cents. What has brought about this great reduction in price to the consumer? As is well known, quinine is manufactured from cinchona bark, which, until 1870, was all obtained from the mountam forests of South America. England and Holland, seeing the 181 1 82 TARIFF REFORM. increasing demand for quinine, planted forests of the cin- chona tree in India and Java, and since 1870 these three countries have supplied bark for the quinine markets of the world, of which London is the center. From the most reUable information obtainable, there are about sixteen quinine manufactories in the world, of which number six are in the United States. Two of these — Powers & Weightman, and Rosengarten & Sons — both being in Philadelphia, monopolized the market before 1879, and have kept it well in hand ever since, and failed only in one point, and that was in keeping up the price. At the request of the writer, Mr. Switzler, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, addressed a letter to each of the above firms, and also to half a dozen other firms, asking for in- formation on this subject. Five have responded. Rosen- garten's (1888) "Quinine Protection Tract" contains a table of prices which by computation shows that from 1823 to and including 1879, a period of fifty-seven years, the highest average price of quinine was $3.38 per ounce in the United States. It also reveals the fact that from 1879, when quinine was put on the free list, to 1888, the highest average price has been $1.74, the lowest $1.20 per ounce, while the ruling price at present is only 50 cents per ounce. In addition to the " tract " just mentioned, one was received from Powers & Weightman, dated December 20, 1887; one from McKes- son & Robbins, dated March i, 1888; one from the Iron and Steel Association, and several others not necessary to mention. How do these manufacturers and protectionists explain this great drop in the price of quinine ? These " tracts " all agree on an answer, and that is, " the lowering of the prices of cinchona bark brought about by the large supplies from India and Java." These interested witnesses further agree that the taking off of the duty of 20 per cent, had nothing to do with lowering prices of quinine, and they argue that, to so hold would subject the "assertion to ridicule," is " simply an absurdity," and " would expose the ignorance or the malicious falsehood of the utterance." If taking off the duty on quinine in 1879, and the conse- quent breaking of the " corner " had nothing to do with this fall in prices, why was the market not overstocked with bark between 1870 and 1880, when the source of supply was the same and when quinine went as high as $4.50 per ounce and averaged in price over $3 per ounce to and including 1879 ? FREE QUININE. 1 83 If the duty had nothing to do with maintaining high prices by " cornering the market and preventing competition," why has the average price of quinine ever since 1879 been less than $1.50 per ounce, while the present price is only 50 cents ? When I assert that the repeal of the duty on quinine in 1879 was directly the cause of breaking the " quinine trust" in the interest of the consumers of this country, I state a fact that any man free from prejudice will readily admit. When the McKenzie bill for free quinine was introduced in Congress in 1879 there was a great outcry against it from the protectionists and a vigorous protest " from the qui- nine manufacturers " (the same men who are still protesting), declaring that if the bill should pass they would have to quit business at once, that their employes would be turned out to starve, and that the price of quinine would rise instead of fall. They asserted that if the bill should pass it would have the effect to immediately close their factories, and that there- upon the foreigners would at once put up prices of quinine, and our consumers would then be at the mercy of the "pauper quinine" of Europe. It was the same old story which we hear so frequently to-day, even in the face of the facts. The chain of protection is no stronger than its weak- est link, and the quinine link being broken, the whole system is liable to destruction. Congressman Bingham said on the floor of the House, on June 30, 1879, " This bill to put quinine on the free list ought not to pass " — would ruin an infant industry. Mr. Keluey and Mr. Bayne agreed with him; so did Mr. Burrows of Michigan. The Democratic members all supported the Mc- Kenzie bill, and it was passed by a vote of 125 to 33 — not voting, 128. Of those in favor of the bill 100 were Demo- crats, while every one of the 33 votes against were Republic- ans, save one Democrat, who was paired with a Republican, but voted " no " to make a quorum. It went to the Senate, and was vigorously opposed by Senator Morrill of Ver- mont, a Republican, who said: They (the quinine manufacturers) import annually 5,000,000 pounds of bark, and have large quantities on hand, and will be deprived of any povper of profitably using it, for they vpill be compelled to stop the manufacture of quinine. They will be closed at once, although the duty is but 20 per cent, on the article. My judgment is, the repeal of the duty upon quinine wrill not result in giving the American con- sumer any lower-priced article for any length of time, and that in the 184 TARIFF REFORM. end we shall have to pay even higher prices. . . . When you get up the cry of " mad dog " the dog is sure to die. I am very sure that the result desired will not follow, and that within two years from now, or one year from now, the price of quinine will be higher than it has been heretofore unless the demand shall subside. Senator Sherman of Ohio also said in the debate: It is represented to us that 25 per cent, is the lowest rate at which the manufacture can possibly be maintained. Such was the opinion of the leading Republicans of both Houses at that time. Quinine was then $4 per ounce. Sen- ator Morrill predicted that it would immediately be higher. What can this distinguished Senator say to-day when the people get quinine at 50 cents per ounce ? This is a fair sample of similar prophecies in the Fiftieth Congress against the passage of the Mills bill. The quinine petitioners added their testimony to the prophecy of Senator Morrill, as follows: Will the consumer be benefited? We assert, most emphatically, he will not. Prices will fluctuate; average rates will be as high or higher than they have been during the existence of the protective tariff, but even should the wholesale price be as low as now at times, a consumer using it in small quantities will get no benefit from it. In whose interest, then, is the duty to be reduced ? They further ask in their petition: Why should objection be made to a duty of 20 per cent.? Why should the chemical industry be singled out to be ruined ? Notwithstanding protests, remonstrances, and predictions the bill became a law, and quinine has fallen from $3.60 to 50 cents per ounce, the three factories of 1879 ^^e still manu- facturing quinine, together with three other new firms, one of which is the New York Quinine and Chemical Company. These firms employ as many hands, and more than they ever did, and pay undoubtedly as high wages as heretofore. Al- though Mr. Powers, Sr., died not long since, six or seven times a millionaire, the business still goes on, but not at the old stand, as that burned down, and a larger and more costly establishment was immediately erected to meet the demands of the large increase in the chemical industry. The Republican Tariff Commission in 1882 was appealed to by the quinine manufacturers, who " testified together" and " worked together " for protection for quinine, but the FREE QUININE. 185 commission decided that there was no necessity for restoring the duty. Mr. Alexander H. Jones, of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States, testified before the com- mission as follows: We are as much entitled to a fair share of the accepted policy of the government as are any other manufacturers. And again: We are no infant industry, but no matter how long it has existed, unless everything is equalized we want protection, but we do not want to be classed in the same schedule with bladders, peanuts, and corsets. Mr. John D. Di.\, representing the drug and chemical trade, testified The majority of work done in chemical factories is done by un- skilled labor. I do not think there is one-third of five hundred men all told employed in manufacturing of quinine in this country, and not 8150,000 invested in all the five factories in operation now (1882). I believe that there is no business in the world that could so well afford to have its profits cut down as this. The evidence of the quinine manufacturers before the commission was to the effect that they were losing money, but upon a cross-examination it was finally conceded that they had managed to run their factories at a profit, but not a substantial profit. What a substantial profit is may be in- ferred when it is stated that since 1878 quinine has fallen in price from $4.50 to 50 cents an ounce. In the great tariff debate of 1888 in Congress on the Mills bill Mr. Atkinson of Pennsylvania, a Republican, said : The United States deserves no credit for the reduction in the price of this important drug, and anybody that claims that putting quinine on the free list made the great reduction in price falls into a great error. The duty should never have been removed. It does the con- sumer no good. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when a man is sick, good medicine, and not cheap medicine, is what he wants. To this speech he attached the circular of Powers & Weight- man as a part of his argument. Mr. Rosengarten was more radical in his answers to the commission, and insisted upon calling things by their right names. Of course — 1 86 TARIFF REFORM. Said he — a duty makes quinine higher, for if it don't, what do you have it for? And further — The great object is to get baric down and prices up. In 1870 the quinine manufacturers came to Congress and got the duty of 20 per cent, on cinchona bark removed, the duty on quinine being 45 per cent., a prohibitory duty. With free bark the importations of this bark doubled, and has con- tinued to increase, proving what free raw materials will do for any business. The duty on quinine was reduced in 1872 to 20 per cent., and quinine was put on the free list July i, 1879. Since 1879, when the duty was taken off of quinine, the consumption has more than doubled in quantity, while the price is only one-seventh what it was in 1879. Then (for three years prior to 1879) ^^^e consumer paid an average of $3.90 per ounce, while for the last three years the average price has only been 65 cents per ounce. These figures clearly show that the saving to the consumers of quinine in this country since 1879 1^^^ been over $50,000,000. In the face of such facts how can any one insist that the consumer has not been benefited ? The Rosengartens, of Philadelphia, and Charles T. White & Co., both allege, in letters to the Bureau of Statistics — That the amount of quinine manufactured in this country has been decreasing year by year as the quantity of the foreign article has increased. As I stated before, quinine is made exclusively from cin- chona bark, none of which is grown in this country. The bark being used only for quinine and being imported, it will only be necessary to refer to the Treasury statistics on im- portations. From 1872 to 1879 ^^^ quinine manufacturers of this country imported 28,819,552 pounds of cinchona bark, or an average of 4,117,079 pounds per annum. From 1879 (when quinine was put on the free list) to 1888 the manu- facturers imported 40,678,375 pounds of cinchona bark, or an average of 4,519,819 pounds per annum, being an increase of 402,740 pounds of bark annually under free quinine over the period of protection. The table furnished by Powers & Weightman to the Tariff FREE QUININE. 187 Commission in 1882 (see page 2573 of Volume II.) shows that for the three years preceding 1879 the quinine manufacturers imported 96,800 bales of cinchona bark, or an average of 32,266 bales per annum, while for the three years succeeding 1879 (under free quinine) they imported 110,900 bales of bark, or an average of 36,966 bales, which shows an average of 4,700 bales more per annum under free than under pro- tected quinine. In the letter of Rosengarten & Sons they say: The importation of sulphate of quinine last year probably equaled the entire consumption of this country. For the year ending June 30, 1888, the importation of quinine amounted to i,628,4i40unces, valued at $651,535, or 40 cents per ounce. In 1880 there was imported one-fourth this number of ounces at twice the cost. If it be true that foreign quinine supplied our entire home consumption, what then became of the large importation of cinchona bark made during that year ? The consumption of quinine in 1882 was 1,600,000 ounces; it was more than double that amount in 1888. In the circular of Powers & Weightman they say: Not a single ounce of American sulphate of quinine was exported from 1874 to 1887. If that was oh account of free quinine, what prevented the exportation of quinine under a protective duty of 20 per cent. ? And again they say: The American manufacturer of quinine once supplied the wants of this country in full, and while not in a position to export, they held the home market. Of course they held the " home market ;" but the poor of this country learned to their sorrow that they were compelled to pay an unjust proportion of their scanty earnings in order to enable these two quinine kings to hold the " home market." Prior to 1862 the duty on quinine was only 15 per cent. Under the low duty a French firm moved their factory to New York, purchased property, and erected a plant to manufac- ture quinine. No sooner had they begun operations than these American quinine monopolists got together and decided l88 TARIFF REFORM. it was absolutely necessary "to hold the home market" as against the "pauper French quinine." To do this the monopolists decided to cut the price of quinine 75 per cent., which was done, and this figure maintained until the "pauper French quinine manufacturer of New York " was bankrupt, and was driven back to France. When this was accomplished the monopolists held another meeting, at which it was unani- mously decided that cheap quinine was not conducive bo the public health, and further that " to hold the home market " it would be absolutely necessary to raise the price of quinine 100 per cent. This was done, and as a result the " home market" was held by them until 1879, when a Democratic Congress put quinine on the free list. I shall now consider the question asked by Powers & Weightman, Rosengarten & Sons, and Charles T. White & Co. in their petition to the Ways and Means Committee in 1879, namely: Why should the chemical industry be singled out to be ruined ? It is not generally known, but it is a fact, that over two- thirds of all raw materials for manufacture into chemicals, together with the manufactured articles, are on the free list. Still, the business has prospered. In i860 there were in this country 173 chemical establishments, with a capital of fi,- 977,385. The number of hands was 1,059 ; wages paid, $372,127; value of product, $3,465,594; the average annual wages, $351.41 ; the average weekly wages, $6.76. In 1870 there were 292 establishments; capital, $12,750,800; em- ployes, 4,729; wages paid, $2,141,238; product, $19,417,194; average yearly wages, $452.90; average weekly wages, $8.70. In 1880 there were 592 establishments; capital, $28,598,458; employes, 9,545; wages paid, $4,157,163; product, $38,173,- 658; average annual yearly wages, $400; average weekly wages, $7.71. Besides building up an immense trade in this country, these establishments have increased their " exports " as fol- lows : From 1850 to i860 they exported drugs, etc., valued at $6,730,320; from i860 to 1870 they exported drugs, etc., valued at $15,209,173; from 1870 to 1880 they exported drugs, etc., valued at $22,310,696; from 1880 to 1890, at present rate of increase, will amount to $40,000,000. These figures are taken from the census, and, after carefully read- ing them over, is there any man so blinded by the theory of protection as to assert in the face of the facts that Congress FREE QUININE. 1 89 singled out t le chemical industry to ruin it ? And now as to the wages paid in this industry. We have seen that the average weekly wages in i860 was $6.76; in 1870, $8.70, and in 1880, $7.71; while the average wages of woolen operatives in Philadelphia (all very highly protected) is only $5.71 per week. And now, in conclusion, having demonstrated that the quinine factories existing in 1879 l^^ve not closed, but are still " doing business;" that the number of factories is at least six, as against three in 1879; that they employ as many hands, and doubtless more than they did in 1879; that they pay as good wages as they did in 1879; that they pay higher wages than the average paid in the protected industries; that they have manufactured an average of over 402,000 pounds of cinchona bark per annum more than they did before 1879; that the average price of quinine for three years prior to 1879 of $3 has been reduced to 65 cents for the three years end- ing with 1888; that the consumption has more than doubled, possibly trebled, since 1879; that the Republican tariff com- mission in 1882 after hearing the "special pleading " of the quinine monopolists, failed to give or suggest a reestablish- ment of the duty on quinine; that when the duty was re- moved the "corner" was immediately broken, and quinine placed within reach of the workingmen of this country; and that the McKenzie bill for free quinine was a Democratic measure in the interest of the consumer. I respectfully sub- mit that the placing of quinine on the free list has resulted in great benefit to the people and no wrong or injury to any industry in the country. A REVENUE TARIFF. SPEECH AT PHILADELPHIA, Septembei- 15, 1888. \From the Philadelphia Record.^ Over 5,000 people assembled at Solar Tip Baseball Park, Twenty- fourth street and Columbia avenue last night to hear the doctrine of Tariff Reform expounded by Congressman William M. Springer of Illinois, and ex-Secretary of the Commonwealth, W. S. Stenger. The demonstration was under the auspices of the Twenty-ninth Ward Democratic Club. It was the largest meeting that has been held in the northwestern section of the city in this campaign. The attendance was composed in a great measure of worlcingmen. At half-past 8 o'clock Mr. James Calely, the temporary Chairman, called the meeting to order, and introduced, as the permanent Chair- man of the meeting, Mr. William M. Singerley, "a man," said Mr. Calely, " who stands in the front of the battle now being waged in behalf of the many against the claims and wishes of the favored few." CHAIRMAN SINGERLY'S ADDRESS. Mr. Singerly, stepping forward, said: Friends and fellow-citizens — The Chairman in his kindness has painted me a little too red. I am proud to say I am and have been an earnest advocate of Tariff Reform, which means the reduction of taxa- tion for the benefit of the workingmen. Your standard-bearer, Grover Cleveland, will live in history as the emancipator of the working classes, the same as Lincoln emancipated the slaves. His sole de- liverance last December has solidified the wage-workers with the Democratic party, who will be heard from in November next. The only protection we need in Philadelphia is => market for our goods. No law nor government has a right to tax you beyond the expendi- tures of the government. Protection has fostered so many combina- tions and trusts, and they have grown so oppressive, that wages have been continually reduced, and to-day the most protected industries pay the least wages. [Applause.] The gentlemen who will address you to-night are able speakers, who have given this subject a careful study, and I trust you will give them the respect and attention that they merit. I now have the honor to introduce to you Congressman William M. Springer of Illinois. [Applause.] MR. SPRINGER'S SPEECH. THE PENDING ISSUE DISCUSSED WITH INTELLIGENCE AND SPIRIT. The welcome accorded the distinguished speaker was a most hearty one, and after the cheers and applause had died away he spoke as follows: xgo A REVENUE TARIFF. I9I Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very glad to see so many persons here this evening. It is an' omen of victory in November. There is no reason why Pennsylvania should not take her place in November next in the Demo- cratic column. The Republican party in this State has relied and now re- lies upon the votes of the wage-earners of this State in order to secure a majority of the people at the polls in November. The wage-earners have been voting — a great many of them at least — for many years with the Republican party. It has promised them during the last twenty-five years that if they would continue the Republican party in power the working- men would improve their condition — in fact they would all get rich, and the millionaires would get poorer. After twenty-five years of trial and hard experience on the part of the workingmen you find that your wages have not increased, while the millionaires are getting more plentiful every year. [Laughter and applause.] THE PROBLEM OF TAX REDUCTION. What is the condition of affairs that confronts you at this time ? The people of the United States are paying into the Treasury from Federal taxation more than $100,000,000 a year in excess of the necessities of the government honestly and economically administered. The condition of things that confronts us is one requiring a reduction of taxation. How shall that be accomplished ? It seems to me that the prob- lem of reduction is one which ought to be understood and comprehended by every citizen in the land, and I was sur- prised, nay, amazed, when I read in the letter of acceptance of General Harrison that his plan of reducing the surplus was to buy United States bonds. [Laughter.] You all remem- ber when these bonds were negotiated. The government got from 40 to 60 cents on the dollar for them; and now, Tihen the time comes to pay them. General Harrison recom- mends that we buy them from the bondholders and pay them a premium of $26 to $27 on every $roo worth. Do you propose, then, to dispose of your surplus by giving the bond- holders an additional premium of one-fourth the face of the bonds? [A voice: "No, sir."] Or will you stop the col- lection of taxes and leave this money in the pockets of the people, where it belongs ? [Cries of "Yes " and applause.] 192 TARIFF REFORM. WHERE TO USE THE KNIFE. The Democratic party is in favor of reducing the taxes; and this brings us to consider the question as to how and where the reduction shall take place. We are collecting at this time, as internal revenue, $70,000,000 from distilled spirits — whiskey; $30,000,000 from tobacco; $16,000,000 or $18,000,000 from beer; and another small item from oleo- margarine, not necessary to mention. [Applause.] The re- mainder of the taxes of the Federal government are collected by duties upon goods brought into this country from other countries, and the payment of these taxes at the custom houses of the country causes an increased cost to be added to the imported article equal to the amount of the taxes paid upon them. I know that this proposition is disputed; but it seems to me that whoever could dispute a fact so plain and palpable as this is beyond the reach of reason. In the case of some of the customs duties the taxes paid exceed the value of the imported article, and will any one tell me how the im- porter can afford to pay $100 on the importation of the $100 worth of products and then sell the article for $100 which has cost him $200 ! If some Protectionist will explain that, he will have less difficulty in wrestling with some of the other problems of economical science. A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. • This amount added on the imported articles permits a like amount to be added to the cost of articles of similar charac- ter manufactured in this country, but that additional amount is not always added.' In many instances nothing is added at all, but in the majority of the manufactured products of the country a large portion of the amount of tariff taxation is added to the cost of the domestic article as well as to the foreign. Therefore, in reducing the customs revenues we not only reduce the amount of taxes that are paid upon the im- ported article, but we also relieve the people from paying the increased value or cost that may have been added to the do- mestic article, and hence this offers a field for reduction of taxation which will afford substantial relief to the consumers of the country. But how is this problem met by our Repub- lican friends ? They are teaching a strange doctrine for statesmen at least. They are trying to make people believe that the more they are taxed the richer they will get. [Laughter.] They are advocating a theory — and sometimes A REVENUE TARIFF. I93 they violate all the proprieties and conditions by calling it a principle — which is based upon the idea that the more labor is taxed the more wages workingmen will get. The Demo- cratic party, in reducing these taxes proposes to take them off of custom revenues and to make the reduction upon arti- cles that enter into the universal consumption of the people. The necessaries of life ought to be relieved as fast and as far as possible from taxation, such as woolen goods, cotton goods, boots and shoes, sugar, and those articles which are most consumed by the people and which are most essential to their health and comfort. FREE WHISKEY AND CIGARETTES. But our Republican friends, in the platform which they have laid down in Chicago, declare that rather than give up any part of the protective system — rather than make a reduc- tion of the custom duties upon such articles as I have just mentioned — they would abolish the entire internal revenue laws of the country, which include not only tobacco and oleo- margarine but whiskey also. [A voice: "Whiskey is cheap enough."] You are right, my friend, and I know of no Democrat in my acquaintance that desires to reduce the price. We prefer to let whiskey remain taxed and g:et $70,000,000 revenue from that source rather than submit to a high tax upon woolen goods and the necessaries of life. [Applause.] We must have a reduction of taxes. Will you take them off the necessaries of life, or will you take them off whiskey, tobacco, and cigars ? [A voice: "Whiskey."] There is an- other Protectionist. [Laughter.] The Democratic party proposes and has proposed to take off the internal revenue upon manufactured tobacco but to leave it upon cigars and cigarettes. Our Republican friends insist that these cigar- ettes which the dudes of the country are smoking at every corner shall be put on the free list. Mr. Blaine said that tobacco in all its forms is one of the necessaries of life. [A voice: " I eat it."] We propose to leave the tax upon cigars and cigarettes and upon whiskey, and to make some reduction if possible upon the necessaries of life. The Democratic policy in this respect has been formulated in a bill. We have placed a limit to our intentions in what is known as the Mills bill. [Applause.] We will select certain articles used in all the manufacturing establishments in the country known as raw material, and will place them upon the free list in order to encourage production, encourage manufacturers, and en- 194 TARIFF REFORM. able the workingmen in the country to obtain the necessaries of life for less than they now do. ARTICLES THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. The first article in the list to which I have referred is that of lumber. During the last year the people of the United States paid the lumber monopolies over$75, 000,000 on the in- creased price of the lumber consumed in this country in order to enable the lumber lords of Maine and Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin to pay 200,000 Canadians 82 cents a day. [Laughter and applause.] Lumber enters into every house- hold. It is a part of the outfit of every family. We cannot get along without it. It never ought to have been taxed. It was an outrage upon the people of this country to have ever put lumber upon a tax schedule. Another article which we have selected and placed upon the free list is that of salt — an article necessary to human existence, as necessary almost as light, as air, as water — an article that never ought to have been selected to pay taxes upon. We place this upon the free list, and offer free salt to the toiling millions of the country. We have also selected a vast number of articles known as chemicals — articles used in the woolen and cotton mills of the country, raw material coming into every establishment and assisting in building up the manufacturing interest of the country. We prefer that these materials should be free, so that the manufacturers can secure them at the lowest possi- ble cost, and thus have a larger margin of profits to divide with the workingmen of the country. This bill also puts upon the free list what is known as tin plates. There are none of them made in this country. About $17,000,000 worth were imported last year, upon which the government received revenue amounting to $6,700,000. We propose to place this article upon the free list. It goes into universal consumption; it furnishes a tin roof upon your houses and the tin buckets for carrying the dinner of the workingman. We place this upon the free list, and let the people have the benefit of the luxury. MILLIONS FOR THE TIN PLATE TRUST. We think that an article of*this kind entering into universal consumption should, by universal acclaim, be placed upon the free list in view of the fact that it does not enter into com- petition with any establishment in this country. Our Re- publican friends have opposed this reduction, and still op- A REVENUE TARIFF. I9S pose it. They are not in favor of retaining the present rate, however, which is i cent a pound. They propose to double that rate, or make it 2.1 cents a pound. What would be the effect of this ? Instead of collecting $6,700,000 as revenue upon that article and putting it in the Treasury, we would collect f 12,000,000 for the first year, thus increasing the surplus rather than reducing it. But they promise us that after one year they will be enabled to build up a plant in this country that will produce all the tin plate that the people of this country can consume. What will then be the effect? The people would be taxed about $12,000,000 in- stead of $6,700,000, and instead of $6,700,000 going into the Treasury, the whole $12,000,000 would be turned over to the National Tin Plate Association. And they endeavor to make the workingmen of this country believe that if they pay 33 per cent, more, the 70 per cent, upon the tinware, in addition to its cost, would inure to the benefit of the work- ingmen of this country ! Or, in other words, they tell you, with a brazen effrontery, that if you are taxed twice as much upon that article you will be twice as well off. But they de- plore in this connection the fact that any goods come into this country from abroad. They say that that will never do, and that is where their lamentations come in — that $17,000,- 000 worth of manufactured articles were brought into this Gauntry from a foreign land. They forget the fact that we send abroad every year $700,000,000 worth of the products of our farms and factories. They forget the fact that 10,- 000,000 of our people are furnished with daily bread and em- ployment for the whole year by those who live beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, and who purchase and con- sume these products of our toil. Notwithstanding this fact, our Republican friends tell you that it is a great outrage upon the workingmen of this country to take $16,000,000 worth of tin plate in return. SAND THROWN INTO THE LABORERS* EYES. Why, their theory would carry you to the conclusion that, instead of bringing anything back to this country to pay for these $700,000,000 worth of product, we should give them away, or that, if perchance we should buy something with these articles, and they should be loaded on ships, and start to this country, no greater boon could happen to the working- men of this country than that a storm or a cyclone would sweep the ocean and send these ships to the bottom of the sea. 196 TARIFF REFORM. That is the political economy that the protectionists teach, and they ask laboring men to believe it. Why, who created these products ? Whose are they ? They were not created by Jay Gould or by the Vanderbilts; they are not producers of wealth. They were produced by the laboring men of the country. It is this condition of trade that is beneficial to all persons engaged in it. But these protectionists would have you be- lieve that trade must be, like the handle of a jug, all on one side — and a very small jug, too, it would be. [Applause.] You cannot sell $700,000,000 worth of your products abroad unless you take an equal amount of the products of those countries in exchange for them. And this is what is ac- complished now, even under a high protective system which requires the workingmen who created these products, and for whose benefit they are shipped abroad, to pay $47 on every $100 worth of these goods which come back to them for their comfort, and as a reward for their toil. That is the system that has been enacted into law; and you are told by those who have devised this cunning scheme to rob the working- men of the country, that the more taxes of this kind you pay the richer you will get. WAGES IN THE OLD WORLD. But we are met by our opponents with the assertion that if you reduce the tariff taxation you will reduce the wages of the workingmen of this country. Mr. Blaine, when he ar- rived in this country from Europe, asserted that the great and only question involved in this contest was the reduction of wages, and he congratulated himself and the wor,kingmen of the country upon the fact that there would be no reduction unless they voted for it. He said, "If you vote for Cleveland you vote to reduce your wages; if you vote for Harrison you vote to keep your wages up." Mr. Blaine said that he regret- ted that the workingmen had not been with him to observe the condition of workingmen in Europe. Now I will ask you to come with me across the water, and for a few moments to forget that there is such a place as America. We find in England, where a comparative free-trade system prevails, the wages amount to from 50 to 75 per cent, more than those paid in all protective countries except the United States. Compare the wages with those paid in protective France, protective Russia, or that nearer country, Mexico, and if you are not satisfied with this, and the time holds out, we will sail around A REVENUE TARIFF. I97 the world and come to China. There is a protective country where for 2,000 years they have had a system of China for the Chinese. VICTIMS OF A PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. In that protective country you will find that the Chinamen work for |i a week and board themselves, and of all the peo- ples in the world these are the only persons that are excluded from coming to the United States, for recently we have passed a law excluding any Chinaman, whether a skilled or un- skilled workman, coming into this couni^y for any purpose, and we are all in favor of that. These are the victims of a protective system. Now, Mr. Blaine, we have visited the countries of the world; we have seen that in free-trade Eng- land better wages are paid than in any protective government of the world except the United States. That is what the work- ingmen will find if they will cross the water and investigate this problem instead of riding with Carnegie on top of a tally- ho coach. But why are things different in the United States ? What causes the payment of a better rate of wages on the average than is paid in England or the rest of the world ? These differences are to be accounted for by natural causes. Where there are many persons and there is little to do, wages will be low, and where there is much to do and few to do it, wages will be high. Take that proposition in connection with the superior skill of the workingmen of this country as com- pared with those of other countries, our superior machinery, inventive genius, the salubrity of our climate, the richness of our soil, and of our endless resources in the earth beneath, and the heavens above, and you will find a condition that in- sures good wages to the workingmen if they can have the fruits of their earnings. THE CONSUMER PAYS THE TAX. You may believe, some of you, that workingmen can be protected. What is protection ? Republicans tell you this, and if it is not this it is nothing: That if you will keep out by a high protective tariff the manufactured goods of other coun- tries they can be manufactured here, and higher wages can be paid by reason of the fact that the manufacturer can sell his goods for more than he would otherwise do. Well, sup- pose that this is true. Suppose he can pay more. But does he pay more ? Does he pay by reason of his benefit ? You pay more for your goods, more for your clothing, more for 198 TARIFF REFORM. the necessaries of life. The tax is paid by the consumer, but how about the manufacturer ? Does he pay? Does he call his workingmen around him, and say: "I get so much pro- tection upon these goods, and I am willing to divide with you?" No; he says: " I will take all the protection I can get, and pay the lowest wages I possibly can." If you strike for higher wages it is very easy to send a cablegram to Eu- rope, and to ship a cargo of laborers over from there, and these laborers go through the custom house, and no duty is imposed. When steamships carry 1,000 emigrants in one trip, and can cross the ocean in eight days — with the gates wide open — and 500,000 a year coming into this country from abroad — will any workingman tell me that he is not now in sharp daily competition with the pauper labor of the world ? [Applause.] So that this boasted protection is a protection to the manufacturer only. The door is open, and the laborer comes in from all parts of the world except China. The Democratic Congress closed that door. [Applause.] Mr. Springer expressed his gratification upon the action taken by the Knights of Labor. He heartily welcomed their resolution, which he regarded as an evidence that the true friends of organized labor had come forward to protect them- selves. He advised the workingmen to rely not upon their employers, but upon themselves, and to demand an honest wage for an honest day's work, and they would get it. He hoped that the workingmen of Philadelphia would begin their organization to-night, and would labor to perfect it day and night. It would not be very irreligious, he thought, if they worked a little on Sundays to perfect their organizations. By this means they would effectively promote the passage of the Mills bill, and the election of Grover Cleveland and Allen G. Thurman. [Long-continued applause.] THE Mckinley bill — a Chinese wall to CHECK IMPORTS AND PREVENT EXPORTS. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Saturday, May lo, 1890, The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 9416) to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports — Mr. SPRINGER was recognized. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] may be per- mitted to continue his remarks without limit, the time to come out of the time allotted to that side of the House. There was no objection. Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the honorable gentleman from New York and the House for the courtesy extended to me. I will endeavor not to abuse the privilege. In his message to Congress, December 6, 1887, President Cleveland said: " It is a condition which confronts us, not a theory." The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Burrows], in his remarks on the pending bill, desiring to improve upon this oft-quoted sentence, said that it was a theory that con- fronted us, and not a condition. I shall endeavor to show before I conclude that we are now confronted with both a condition and a theory. And first as to the condition which confronts us. THE SURPLUS. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his report to Congress last December, estimated the receipts for the year ending June 30, 1890, to be $385,000,000, and the expenses of the Government at $293,000,000. This would show a surplus of $92,000,000, from which deduct the amount required for the sinking fund, namely, $48,321,116, and the net surplus for the year will be $43,678,884. In the Secretary's estimates for the expenditures for the igg 20O TARIFF REFORM. current year the expenditures on account of pensions is put down at $104,000,000. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, the Secretary estimated the receipts at $385,000,000 and the expenditures at $292,271,404. The estimated surplus is $92,728,595, from which deduct amount required for the sinking fund, namely, $49,159,073. This would leave a net surplus of $43,569,522. In his estimate of expenditures he puts down the amount re- quired for pensions at $98,587,252. This estimate for pen- sions does not contemplate additional pension legislation. If the general pension bills which have already passed the House during this session become laws they will increase the pen- sion demands upon the Treasury at least $50,000,000 a year. This will more than exhaust the net surplus of $43,000,000 estimated for the next fiscal year. In view of these facts and of the further fact that we are threatened with increased appropriations for public buildings, for rivers and harbors, for fortifications, for new ships, for sugar and silk bounties, for steamship subsidies, and many other objects which will largely increase the expenditures during the next fiscal year, we are confronted with a condi- tion which demands the most serious consideration of the representatives of the people in Congress. The pending bill, it is claimed by the majority of the Com- mittee on Ways and Means, " will certainly reduce the revenue from imports at least $60,930,539 and probably more, and from the internal revenue $10,327,878, or in the aggregate $71,264,414." If there really is in the pending bill the reduction claimed, the next fiscal year will close with a deficit which will absorb the sinking fund and encroach upon permanent reserve funds now in the Treasury to the extent of forty or fifty million dollars. So much for the condition which confronts us. The theory adopted by the majority of the Ways and Means Committee, and I presume which will be approved by the majority of this House, is embodied in the pending bill. The theory is not wholly new, but it has never been avowed so frankly before. If I understand the bill and the report of the majority thereon, it is bottomed upon the theory that the more taxes you impose on the people the richer and more prosperous they will become. This theory is called by the friends of the bill " Protection to American industries." This protection is to favored classes. If I had been em- THE Mckinley bill. 201 ployed as an attorney to draught a bill for the purpose of conferring special advantages on particular individuals in con- sideration of past favors, I could not have improved on the pending bill. ELECTION DEBTS. I do not assert that there was any agreement between cer- tain manufacturers in the country during the last Presidential campaign and the chairman of the national Republican com- mittee that certain contributions were to be made to the campaign fund of the Republican party, and in consideration of such contributions, if Mr. Harrison were elected with a Republican Congress, the industries in which those gentle- men were interested were to have additional protective tariff. I do not assert this; but if such were the fact, if it were liter- ally true, the framers of this bill could not possibly have responded to the agreement with more fidelity and success than they have done. Let us examine some of these pro- tected industries to see what it is proposed to bestow upon them. I have not time to go into these things at length, but I de- sire to call attention to some of these schedules. HOSIERY. Now, in regard to hosiery. We had protected that industry sufficiently already. If there was any industry anywhere in the country that should have prospered by reason of ample protection, it should have been this. The duties are so cun- ningly increased in this bill in the hosiery schedule that the committee do not pretend to state what the increase will be and the importers cannot tell, neither can the parties in inter- est, how much this increase is to be; but the committee en- lightened us to this extent, that the increase "is large." This is all we are permitted to know. CUTLERY. Take the cutlery schedule. The discussion before the Ways and Means Committee showed these facts. I quote from a printed protest which has been placed in my hands: It was stated and repeated before the Committee on Ways and Means by a committee from the American Table Cutlery Association that unless they could secure an advance of 50 per cent, more than present rates they would be obliged to quit business. In answer to this statement it was shown by the testimony of a merchant who is a 202 TARIFF REFORM. very large buyer of table cutlery that for twenty-five years he has not been able to import a single gross of table knives and forks, for the simple reason that the American manufactur-ers have controlled the market on these goods. It was shown that on nineteen-twentieths of the table cutlery sold in the United States the difference between the American cost- and the cost to lay down the foreign article under the present duty was 77 per cent, in favor of the American article. A statement was submitted for the year 1889 from one of the Amer- ican manufacturers, which showed a profit of about 21 per cent, on the investment, and it was shown that the American manufacturers are in a strong combination on prices, which they have advanced a number of times during the last three years, and have for over two years been paying $12,000 per year to keep a factory in Beaver Falls Pa., shut down and closed up. [Applause.] The only table cutlery that is imported is well-known brands of high quality made by Joseph Rodgers & Sons, Sheffield, and like makers, and does not exceed f 120,000 per annum, while the amount made and ftiarketed by the American manufacturers must reach iiearly if not quite $3,000,000 per annum, and yet the statement of Ihe American manufacturers is that unless they get an advance of 50 ;)er cent, in the duties they must quit business. It would have been lardly possible for them to make a more absurd statement than this. So much for the cutlery trust, which is able to pay $12,000 a year to one concern to shut up and not make cutlery in this country, and which enjoys profits amounting to 21 per cent, on the capital invested. This cutlery trust comes be- fore Congress, demands a large increase in the tariff, and gets it. I do not know whether the American Table Cutlery Association subscribed anything to the campaign fund of the Republican party or not during the last election, but I do know that if it did not it ought to subscribe liberally to the next. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] I have no doubt that protected monopoly duly appreciates the enormous increase of the duty on cutlery. GLASS AND GLASSWARE. I now call attention to another industry, glass and glass- ware, which is also controlled by a trust. On student's-lamp chimneys, on which there is under the existing law a protec- tion of 45 per cent., this bill proposes to increase the duty to 450 per cent. Mr. McMILLIN. Will the gentleman allow me right there ? Mr. SPRINGER. Certainly. THE McKINLEY BILL. 203 Mr. McMILLIN. One of the largest manufacturers in the United States, Mr. Macbeth, of Pittsburgh, Pa., came before the Committee on Ways and Means and urged a re- duction of the duties, and said if they would give him his raw material free he would compete with the whole world. Mr. SPRINGER. Yet the Committee on Ways and Means have raised the duties' from 50 to 120 and 200 per cent, in the pending bill, and in the case I have cited, student-lamp chimneys, the increase is from 45 per cent, to 450 per cent. On tumblers, on those thin shell glasses used by the rich for drinking wine and champagne, they have increased the duty from 40 to 75 per cent., while on the heavier article used by the poor they have raised the duties to 115 per cent., and all through these schedules the grades of articles that are used by the poor are taxed from 100 to 150 per cent., and in one case 450 per cent., for the benefit of favored monop- olists. LINEN GOODS. The present duty on manufactured linen goods is 35 per cent, ad valorem. The pending bill proposes to increase this duty, specific and ad valorem, from 62 to 114 per cent. I hold in my hand a protest against this proposed increase, which states that it will increase the cost to American con- sumers of linen goods from eight to nine million dollars an- nually. PEARL AND SHELL BUTTONS. I have another protest here against, the proposed duty on pearl and shell buttons. This protest states that the in- creased tax proposed of 4 cents a line will amount to from 103 to 358 per cent, average on the great bulk of pearl but- tons used in and imported into this country. " HARK ! FROM THE TOMB ! " Among the many protests I have received against the in- crease of duties proposed in the pending bill, several have been from firms in the district I have the honor to represent, protesting against the increase of the duties on tombstones or monumental work. This increase appears to be for the benefit of a few favored individuals in the State of Maine. The tariff-grabbers, it seems, are determined to pursue the people from the cradle to the grave. 204 TARIFF REFORM. TIN PLATES. But the most uncalled-for and outrageous provision in this bill is that which increases the tax on tin plates from i cent to 2.15 cents a pound, an increase of 115 per cent. Tin plates are not manufactured in the United States. All con- sumed in this country are imported. The importations of last year amounted in value to $21,002,209, '^nd the duties amounted to $7,279,459. This paragraph of the act does not take effect until July i, 1891. In the meantime, it is as- sumed that a plant will be constructed by the National Tin- plate Association, at Pittsburgh, Pa., which will be able to supply a large portion of the tin plates required in this country. But after July i, 1891, the duty will be 2.15 cents a pound. This rate will increase the receipts from this source to the amount of $8,372,000 per annum, or in the aggregate the tax to be realized will be $15,650,000 a year. This amount of revenue will be decreased to the extent that the domestic production will keep out the foreign product. We have no basis upon which to estimate this reduction. But the consumers are but little interested in the matter. They will be compelled to pay an increased price for the tin goods con- sumed to the extent of at least $15,000,000 a year over and above the price they would pay if tin plates were on the free list. If the National Tin-plate Association could make the whole amount required, that association would get the benefit of nearly the whole tax; for it could sell at a price that would keep out the foreign product which would be subject to the tax, while the domestic product would pay no tax, but it would sell at the same or slightly less price as that at which the foreign product could be sold. The effect of increasing this tax will be to deprive the Treasury of whatever amount would be received into it by reason of this tax and turn it over to the National Tin-plate Association, and thus per- mit a burden of $15,000,000 a year to be imposed upon the consumers of tin goods in order to foster a huge monopoly and build up an unprofitable industry. AGRICULTURE AND THE TARIFF. Speaking of the agricultural industry, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means in their report on the tariff bill state that they offer in the bill presented (the McKinley bill) all the relief which tariff legislation can give it. THE Mckinley bill. 205 What is that relief compared with the relief given to the manufacturing interests ? We will endeavor to answer this question satisfactorily. The majority report (page 17) contains the following: A critical examination of tlie subject will show that agriculture is suffering chiefly from a most damaging foreign competition in our home market. The increase in importations of agricultural products since 1850 has been enormous, amounting from $40,000,000 to more than $356,000,000 in i88g. This is an increase of nearly goo percent., while the population increased for the same period less than 300 per cent. During the past ten years this growth in importation has been most rapid, and has been marked by a significant and corresponding decline in prices of the home-grown product. Taking it for granted that the increase in the importations of agricultural products is as stated, that fact proves nothing. In 1850 there were only 9,000 miles of railroads in the United States. The freights on those were enormous then as com- pared with those of the present time. Agricultural products are bulky, and it did not pay to transport them far into the interior, as may now be done. But what constitute agricultural products ? The importa- tions for 1889 amounted, as the majority of the Ways and Means Committee state, to the enormous value of $356,000,- 000. This grand aggregate is made up of the following items : Sugar and molasses , $93,301,894 Tea, coffee, and cocoa 89,859,322 Animals and their products, except wool 42,263,014 Fibers, animal and vegetable. 59.453.936 Miscellaneous 71,254,874 Total imports, agricultural products, 1889 356,133,060 But few of these products come into competition with the agricultural products of this country, and the greater portion of them are thus placed on the free list. Tea, coffee, and cocoa are not grown in this country and can not be. They are all on the free list. Sugar and molasses are by the Mc- Kinley bill put on the free list, and a bounty of 2 cents a pound, to be paid from the Federal Treasury, is provided for the sugar-grower in this country. This bounty will be paid principally to the citizens of Louisiana, and, as to sugar, the protection afforded by Congress is direct, and is to be borne equally by the tax-payers of the country, not by those 2o6 TARIFF REFORM. who consume sugar, but by those who consume everything else that is taxed. It is stated in an article published recently by the Secre- tary of Agriculture that the agricultural products coming into competition with products actually raised upon our own soil amounted to $115,000,000. By a statement to which I will call attention later he estimates the amount at $128,459,699. And the Secretary of Agriculture is of the opinion that if we should secure to our farmers adequate tariff protection we could raise in our country $240,000,000 or $250,000,000 worth of the agricultural products which are now imported. I invite a careful examination of the imports of agricultural products that actually come into competition with the pro- ducts of this country and those which do not so compete. The Secretary of Agriculture's estimate of agricultural products coming into competition with products actually raised upon our own soil is as follows : Animal products $42,263,015 Including wools 17,974,514 Total animal products 60,237,529 Cotton 1,194,505 Hemp and flax 9,504,503 Barley 7,723,838 Other breadstuffs 1,247,884 Barley malt 111,381 Hay and hops 2,238,357 Fruits and nuts 18,746,417 Oils 2,987,864 Rice 3.499.437 Tobacco 10,868,226 Vegetables* 2,269,799 Wines 7,829,959 128,459,699 ESTIMATE TOO LARGE. I do not agree with the Secretary as to the estimate of $128,000,000 worth of agricultural products which come into competition with home products. Many of the articles he includes in his statement are on the free list and have, there- fore, been adjudged by his friends to be not hurtful to do- mestic products. The following itemized statement shows the imports into the United States for the year ending June 30, 1889, of such agricultural products as may fairly be regarded by protec- Last year over $7,000,000. THE Mckinley bill. 207 tionists as coming into competition with similar products raised in tliis country and the duties collected on the same for the same fiscal year, and the rates of duty imposed on such products by the McKinley bill, not including sugar, tea, coffee, hides, and other articles on the free list; Value. Duty col- lected. Rate of duty ad valorem McKinley bill Animals: Horses Cattle Hogs Slieep All others Breadstuffs: Barley Barley Malt Barley, pearled Buckwheat Corn Corn-meal Oats Oatmeal Rice, cleaned Rice , uncleaned, etc , Rye Rye flour Wheat Wheat flour Butter Cheese Milk, fresh Milk, condensed Beans Cider Eggs, 5 cents per dozen Hay Honey Hops Onions Pease Plants, trees and shrubs Potatoes, 25 cents per bushel.. Seeds Vegetables, pickles and sauces Straw Grapes, plums and prunes Figs Oranges and lemons Raisins $2, 146, 514 542,764 4.770 1,189,192 33.789 7.678,763 in. 381 13,607 25,469 1,212 352 10,178 55.995 1,229,873 1,372,894 24 20 3.997 5,804 17,689 1,132,143 5.684 83.272 759,802 536 2,419,004 1,082,685 16,357 1,100,408 No data 52,738 323,762 321,120 4.227,557 1,161,915 2,309 1,815,716 477,5" 5,219,838 1,712,196 $429,302 108,552 954 237,838 6,757 1,130,092 30,038 1,141 2,546 238 29 2,232 9,573 1,443,7" 561,479 I 2 389 1,160 323,650 7,792 568 16,654 75,980 107 Free list 210,744 10,491 326,446 Per cent. 70.07 61.94 45.68 50.30 20.00 10,547 132,504 745.949 277,814 692 474,932 209,906 1,078,235 687,870 208 TARIFF REFORM. Articles. Duty col- lected. Rate of duty ad valorem McKinley bill Breadstuffs: Corafits, etc Fruits preserved in their own juices Almonds, filberts, peanuts, and nuts of all kinds Meat products: Bacon and hams Beef, mutton and pork Meats of all kinds Extract of meat Lard Poultry Tallow Wines, champagne and still Tobacco, leaf, for cigar wrappers All other tobacco, in leaf Wool I 894,879 ) 2,670 302,229 1,256.937 45.899 14,393 108,116 205,775 88 154,866 1,163 7.706,772 1,417,302 8,603,160 18,471,540 I 313,207 I 334 60,445 720,620 5,442 2.155 27,029 41,155 21 15,486 349 5,988,813 1,180,925 5,894,474 5.982,211 Total 75, 544, 2go 28, 789, 791 35.00 30.00 +54-00 29.67 30.10 25.00 24, 39 (*) 20.99 77.58 222.20 4B1.25 122.82 46.10 * 3 and 5 cents per pound. i Average. Of the foregoing articles, those which are not produced in Illinois, or produced in so small quantities that their produc- tion is not material, so far as protective tariffs are concerned, or are so remote from the seaboard as not to be affected in price by protective tariffs, are the following, together with the value of the imports of 1889 and the duty collected thereon: Articles. Value of imports Duty collected of 1889. 1889. 17,678,763 $1,130,692 111,381 30,038 13,607 1,141 1,229,873 I,443,7II 1,372,894 561.479 321,120 132,504 u, 681, 986 3.545,549 7,706,772 5,988,813 10,020,462 7,075,399 18,471,540 5,982,211 $58,508,398 $25,891,537 Barley Barley malt Barley, pearled Rice, cleaned Rice, uncleaned, etc Potatoes , . . . . Grapes, prunes, oranges, lemons, raisins, comfits, nuts, etc Wines and champagne Tobacco Wool Total $58,508,398 THE McKINLEY BILL. 209 According to my estimate, the total value of agricultural products which were imported in 1889, which came in com- petition in any material way with domestic productions was f 7S>544i29o, and the duties collected on these amounted to $28,789,791. But of these there were many articles imported that did not come in competition with articles raised in Illi- nois and States with the same or like climatic and geograph- ical conditions. These articles amounted, as will appear by the accompanying table, in value to $58,608,398, and the duties collected on them in 1889 amounted to $25,891,537. If these are deducted from the whole importations of agri- cultural products of that year which it is claimed foreign products come in competition with, and from the duties col- lected thereon, it will appear that the agricultural products imported into this country in 1889 which came in competition with similar articles raised in Illinois amounted to only $16,935,892 in value and that they paid duties to the amount of only $2,898,254. This was the protection afforded to such farm products as were raised in Illinois by the protective tariff. But as this protection must be enjoyed, if at all, by the whole people of the United States, as this is the sum total of protection on all these products in the whole country, the share of Illinois must be very small indeed, about four-sixty- fifths of the whole amount, but little over $1,000,000. If the farmers of Illinois get anything by reason of protective tariffs this is all the " defensive legislation " I can discover for them in the pending bill. Mr. DOCKERY. Will the gentlemen allow me to ask him a question there ? I did not understand the amount of agricultural imports that come into competition with the agri- cultural products of Illinois and like States. I would like the gentleman to repeat that again. Mr. SPRINGER. $16,935,000, and the duties paid upon them are $2,800,000. Mr. KERR of Iowa. Do you take into account the whis- key you can make out of your corn ? Mr. SPRINGER. We put an internal-revenue tax of 90 cents a gallon on it. Besides we can not import whiskey. No other country can make whiskey out of corn except this, because this is the only country that raises corn in sufficient quantities for that purpose, except perhaps Mexico and .Canada. Mr. DOCKERY. At all events, that is Republican leg- islation. 2IO TARIFF REFORM. Mr. SPRINGER. Certainly; the internal-revenue laws were enacted by the Republican party, as were our war tariffs. And I regret that by the pending bill it is proposed to reduce the internal-revenue taxes on tobacco and cigars to the extent of $10,000,000, while at the same time it is proposed to in- crease the duties on wool and woolen goods, and on many other articles necessary to the comfort, health, and very ex- istence of the people, to the extent of many millions of dollars. The products of Illinois on which the farmers of that State rely for support are corn, wheat, oats, hay, beef, and pork. For 1880 Illinois raised of corn 325,000,000 bushels and of wheat 51,000,000 bushels. The exports of these articles and others, upon which the farmers of Illinois and the Northwest rely for their support, amounts to many million dollars worth every year. WHEN EXPORTS EXCEED IMPORTS THERE IS NO PROTECTION. Mr. Chairman, in all cases where the domestic production of any article exceeds the home demand, and the surplus is exported, the price of home product will be fixed by the price which the exported article will bring in the foreign market. Upon such articles, therefore, there can be no protection afforded to the producer by tariffs on like articles when im- ported into this country. If the duty on corn were |i a bushel and the duty on wheat $5 a bushel, the price of wheat in this country would not be affected in the least by such tax. The prices of wheat and corn and other articles produced in this country which are largely exported is fixed by the foreign market, and no amount of tariff on imported articles would increase the value of such articles in this country a particle. Hence all efforts to deceive the farmers of this country by a tariff on wheat, corn, oats, rye, pork and beef, and such prod- ucts will prove ineffectual when the subject is rightly under- stood. Our exports of wheat for the last fiscal year amounted to 46,414,129 bushels, while the imports were only 1,946 bushels. Yet this bill proposes to increase the duty on wheat from 20 to 25 cents a bushel, as if that would protect the wheat- growers of the country. Our exports of corn amounted to 69,592,929 bushels, while the imports were only 2,388 bushels. These imports, as were the imports of wheat, were for seed,, and the tax on them was a charge on the farmers who thus sought to improve their crops by using foreign seed. In face THE Mckinley bill. 211 of these facts the pending bill proposes to increase the duty on corn from lo to 15 cents a bushel. I am indebted to the honorable gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery] for the following statement and statistics on this subject, "which I have extracted from his very able remarks on this bill on Thursday of this week: The utter fallacy of the Republican theory, which assumes that Western farm products are brought into competition with like foreign products and can therefore be " protected" by a tariff, is further re- vealed in the following summary of our foreign trade for the last fiscal year. These statistics are decisive and conclusive. They show that our exports of corn meal were 312,186 barrels, while our imports were only 396 bushels; our exports of rye, 287,252 bushels, imports only 16 bushels, and the exports and imports of other farm products were as follows: Tallowy Exports, 77,844,555 pounds; imports, only 34,931 pounds. Lard: Exports, 318,242,990 pounds; imports, only 1,703 pounds. Beef, mutton, and pork: Exports, 286,991,121 pounds; imports, but 215,575 pounds. Bacon and hams: Exports, 400,224,646 pounds; im- ports, but 272,130 pounds. Apples, dried: Exports, 22,101,579 pounds; imports, none reported. Apples, green or ripe: Exports, 942,406 barrels; imports, none reported. Wheat flour: Exports, 9,374,803 barrels; imports, only 1,155 barrels. Oats: Exports, 624,226 bushels; imports, but 22,324 bushels. I should now be glad, sir, if some gentleman on the other side would kindly state to the House how protection could or did advan- tage the farmer in the sale of all the items which constituted the more than five hundred and thirty-two millions of agricultural products sent to foreign markets during the last fiscal year. PROTECTION UNEQUAL. A protective tariff on the agricultural products of one State rarely ever protects the products of all other States. For instance, a protective tariff on barley, flax, and hemp, while of importance to the farmers of some of the States, is of but little value to the farmers of Illinois. In that State the bar- ley crop of 1886 was valued at only $509,600. So of tobacco, the crop of which in Illinois in the same year was valued at only $369,488. And as to both crops the production was local, the articles being raised in but few counties, the barley in the extreme north and the tobacco in the south. Rice is not raised in that State at all. Potatoes are so far from the seaboard that a protective tariff on them will avail nothing. The 9,000,000 bushels raised in Illinois in 1886 were valued at only 40 cents a bushel, while those raised in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were worth 60 cents a bushel. Grapes, plums, prunes, figs, oranges, lemons, raisins, com- 212 TARIFF REFORM. fits, and nuts (such as are taxed) are not raised or produced in Illinois, and the duties imposed on them increase their price to the Illinois farmers. Champagne is not manufactured, and still wines are manu- factured in but a limited amount. On wool there may be some protection, but the industry has not flourished since the protective duty was placed on wool in 1867. In 1868 there were 2,736,431 sheep in Illinois; in 1888 there were only 814,177, less than one-third, while the popu- lation of the State has nearly doubled. I propose to show HOW A PROTECTIVE TARIFF ON WOOL PROTECTS THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS. I have heretofore estimated, in some remarks submitted in this House July ig, 1888, that the tariff on wool and woolen goods consumed in this country in 1888 amounted to a tax of $3.20 per capita of the inhabitants of the United States. There were in 1880 about 3,000,000 inhabitants in Illinois. In 1888, it is safe to say that there were 3,600,000 in that State, being an increase of 20 per cent. only. This would make the whole cost to the peple of Illinois in 1888, on ac- count of the tariff on wool and woolen goods, $11,520,000. There were only 814,177 sheep in the State at that time. The average fleece of each amounted to six pounds; the whole number of pounds of wool raised in 1888 was there- fore 4,885,062. This was increased in value, as claimed by protectionists, on account of the tariff, to the extent of 10 cents a pound, or to the amount of $488,506.20. But the whole cost to the people of that State on account of the tax on wool and woolen goods was $11,520,000; from this de- duct amount realized from protection, and the balance of burden will amount to $11,031,494. From this it will be seen that the people of Illinois, in order to derive a benefit to her wool-growers by protection to wool of less than half a million dollars, are required to pay an increased cost for the woolen goods they consume amounting to $11,500,000, or twenty times more loss than profit. SUGAR BOUNTIES. This bill puts raw sugar, and sugar up to what is called No. 16, on the free list, and, ui order to placate the sugar-growers in Louisiana, California, and Kansas, a bounty of 2 cents a pound on the sugar grown in this country is given. This THE Mckinley bill. 213 bounty is to run for fifteen years, and the money is appro- priated for that time to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. The sugar produced in the United States in 1888 amounted to 375.3°4ii97 pounds, according to the statement made in the report of the Ways and Means Committee, on page 14. At 2 cents a pound on this amount the annual appropriation for the sugar bounty would amount to $7,506,083.94. For fifteen years, which is appropriated by the bill, the grand ag- gregate amounts to $112, 591,259.10. But this is the lowest estimate possible. The committee assume that " with proper encouragement," that is, with 2 cents a pound bounty, which the bill provides, " we shall eventually be able to produce all, or nearly all, the sugar required for the consumption of our people, an as- sumption which your committee believes to be sustained by many facts." I quote the very language of the report. The committee believe, with the encouragem.ent, that is, the bounty of 2 cents a pound, which is to be paid on the annual production for fifteen years, whatever that production may be, we shall eventually be able to produce all the sugar re- quired for our consumption. " Eventually " is somewhat indefinite, but it is a safe word to use in this connection. As the learned committee have considered all the circumstances which should be taken into account, I have a right to assume that "eventually" is the time fixed by the bill when the bounty is to cease; that is, at the end of fifteen years. At that time it is doubtless as- sumed we shall produce in this country all the sugar we can consume. If the consumption should not increase with in- creasing population, at the end of fifteen years we would be producing in this country 1,469,997 tons, or, at 2,000 pounds per ton, 2,939,994,000 pounds, which at 2 cents bounty a pound would make the bounty to be paid during that year $58,799,880. Mr. CONGER. We pay that every year now. Mr. SPRINGER. But we pay it into the Treasury. What you propose by this bill is to take it from the Treasury and pay it out for the benefit of special interests, and you call that economy. If the highest bounty in any one year out of the fifteen is $58,000,000 and the lowest is $7,500,000, and the lower sum gradually increases from year to year, as is contemplated by the increased production of sugar under this encouragement. 2 14 TARIFF REFORM. what would be the probable amount paid during the entire fifteen years ? This is a problem easy of solution. Add the two sums together, divide by two, and we will have the an- nual average bounty, which I find will be $33,150,481.50. And for the whole fifteen years the grand aggregate of $497,257,222.50. Nearly $500,000,000. Gentlemen were alarmed about the enormous appropria- tion that would be required by the Blair bill, $77,000,000, and, after a discussion of two or three years, that bill was de- feated in the house of its friends; but here is a bill which virtually makes an appropriation of a much larger sum of money than the Blair bill. Mr. GEAR. Will the gentleman permit an interruption? Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir; if it is on this point. Mr. GEAR. Do you not know that the amount of ta-xes levied on the people in the same time would amount to $900,- 000,000 ? Mr. SPRINGER. I know that very well; but that nine hundred millions would all go into the Treasury. Mr. GEAR. And these other millions that you speak of are to be kept in the pockets of the people instead of being paid out in taxes ? Mr. SPRINGER. The people do not need to put money in the Treasury. We have too much there now. But you propose to take the. money from the Treasury and give it to special interests and call that economy. The sugar tax was a revenue tax, with incidental protection. The government gets about $9 out of every ten which the people are required to pay. But on iron and steel the tax is for protection, with incidental revenue. The government gets about $1 out of every ten the people have to pay on account of the tax. But I am digressing. To return to the sugar bounty. The grand aggregate which I stated might be paid out of the Treasury on account of the sugar bounty during the ensuing fifteen years, namely, $497,257,222.50, does not contemplate any increase of population, or any annual increase of consump- tion, or any increase in consumption which would naturally come from a decrease in the price of sugar which is promised so confidently by the committee. The increase of popula- tion alone would increase the bounty at least $858,000 a year, and in the aggregate for the fifteen years about twelve and one-half millions; so that over $500,000,000 in bounties to sugar-growers is pledged and appropriated by this bill. If it falls short of that amount it will not be the fault of the gov- THE Mckinley bill. 215 ernment. That sum is appropriated by this bill if the pro- duction of sugar will reach the promised amount. It is all appropriated as soon as the certificates from the sugar-growers are presented at the Treasury, and if they do not get this money it is their fault. Congress, when it passes this bill, will have done its part. I ask my friends from Iowa and my friends from Illinois whether they are going to favor an appropriation of $500,000,000 to make sugar-growing prof- itable in this country when nothing is given to corn, nothing to wheat, nothing to any product that is raised in the North- west. Mr. GEAR. Is the gentleman in favor of keeping up the high duty that was provided for in the Mills bill, over 60 per cent. Mr. SPRINGER. That went into the Treasury. Mr. GEAR. Answer the question specifically. Mr. SPRINGER. I have answered it. The tax on sugar of over 60 per cent, was enacted by a Republican Congress and maintained by the Republican party from the beginning. The Mills bill left the duty substantially where it was, bat the money that would have been collected under the Mills bill would have gone into the Treasury. Mr. GEAR. And the Democratic party were in favor of maintaining that high tariff on sugar. Mr. SPRINGER. The Republicans in this House, with but very few exceptions, were then in favor of maintaining that tax. But we will meet you on the sugar-bounty ques- tion when we get into the five-minute debate, and you will find it impossible to offer any good reason for reducing the tariff on sugar and at the same time giving a bounty to the sugar-growers, to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. So much for the sugar bounty. SILK BOUNTY. There is another bounty provided by the bill. It is $1 per pound on raw silk and 7 cents a pound on fresh cocoons, " produced in the United States by silk-worms of the species scientifically known as Bombyxmori," whatever that may be. The bounty is to run for ten years (a slight discrimination against the worm-growers) and the Secretary of Agriculture is to superintend the cocoon business Mr. McMILLIN. The Bombyx mori business. Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; I beg pardon. The Bombyx mori business [Laughter] and certify to the 2l6 TARIFF REFORM. Secretary of the Treasury the bounty to be paid to the raw silk and sills-worm producer, whoever he may be. Farmers will be informed by printed circulars issued by the Department of Agriculture, under the sign-manual of the Secretary, that the days of agricultural depression are num- bered, that farmers may now drop corn and wheat raising, which seem to be unprofitable industries at this time, and turn their attention to raising silk-worms, of the species scientifically known as Bombyx mori. When they hear this, the farmers of the country may be expected "to shout for joy." [Laughter.] But this bounty is not to cost very much to begin with, only $3,000 for the first year. But when farmers get used to the business, get educated up to the full length and breadth and height and depth of the Bombyx mori business, the bounties will increase. The possibilities are as follows: There were 5,329,646 pounds of reeled or raw silk imported last year and 93,537 pounds of cocoons, and 20,000 pounds of the latter were produced in this country. If we should so far encourage the production in this country as to supply the present demands of the silk manufacturers the bounty would amount to $5,336,646 a year. It is assumed by the authors of this bill that that amount would willingly be paid annually by the farmers, working- men, and other consumers of the country if by that means the rich could buy their silk goods at a price that much less than they otherwise could do. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX. I deny the power of Congress to levy and collect taxes for any other purpose than that of maintaining the government of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided in the Topeka bond case that government aid to private industries was not warranted by the Constitution. I have here the opinion of the court by Mr. Justice Miller in that case, in which it was distinctly held that there was no power in a State or in the General Government to tax the people for the purpose of aiding a manufacturing establish- ment or other private industry. The people of the city of Topeka had issued bonds to the amount of $40,000 and had given them to a manufacturing establishment in order to establish manufactures at that place. Those bonds went into the market and interest was paid on them for eight or ten years, when a tax-payer enjoined their collection and the THE McKINLEY BILL. 217 Supreme Court finally held that the bonds were void. And so it will be with the bounty on silk-worms and on sugar; the Supreme Court will in the end hold that there.is no power in Congress to appropriate money taken from the people by taxation and give it to any particular man or set of men for the encouragement of their private business. In this case Judge Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, said: Of all powers conferred on the government that of taxation is most liable to abuse. This power can as readily be employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there are no implied limitations of the use for which the power may be exercised. To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of lavf and is called taxa- tion. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative forms. Noris it taxation. Beyond a cavil there can be no lawful taxation which is not laid for public purposes. Judge Cooley, in discussing this question, declares that — Constitutionally a tax can have no other basis than the raising of revenue for public purposes, and whatever governmental exaction has not this basis is tyrannical and unlawful. A tax on imports, there- fore, the purpose of which is not to raise revenue, but to discourage and indirectly prohibit some particular import for the benefit of some home manufacturer, may well be questioned as being merely color- able, and therefore not warranted by constitutional principles. The supreme court of Iowa has held: No authority or even dictum can be found which asserts that there can be any legitimate taxation where the money to be raised does not go into the public treasury. And the court further declares — That the uniform weight of judicial authority is that taxes are to be imposed for the use of the people, and not for the special benefit of individuals. These authorities, for which I am indebted to the honor- able gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stewart], seem to be conclusive upon this point. See also Supreme Court Reports of Maine (58 Maine, page 590); also Sharpless vs. Mayor, 21 Pennsylvania, page 167; Hanson vs. Vernon, 27 Iowa, page 28. The sugar and silk bounties which are to be raised by taxes upon the people, and paid to private individuals in or- 2l8 TARIFF REFORM. der to make their private business profitable, will be declared by the Supreme Court " none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation." NO RELIEF FOR FARMERS. I have sought in vain, Mr. Chairman, to find any substan- tial relief in this bill for the farmers of the great State of Illinois which I have the honor in part to represent. That State will never sanction a system of bounties to sus- tain depressed agricultural industries, unless the products of Illinois should share equally in such bounties. Mr. Chairman, will gentlemen who represent agricultural constituencies dare to go before their constituents and tell them that they voted a bounty to sugar-growers, to be paid during a period of fifteen years out of the Treasury of the United States, of 2 cents a pound, which may aggregate $500, 000,000, but not one cent to the farmers they represent on this floor ? If they do, it is my opinion that the seats they now occupy will in the next Congress be filled by Democrats. But I must do this bill justice. It does propose to give the Illinois farmer some protection on CABBAGE AND BROOM-CORN. Broom-corn, heretofore on the free list, is to be taxed by the pending bill $8 per ton, but as the reports of the Bureau of Statistics show that none was imported last year, when on the free list, it is safe to infer that none will be imported un- der a tax of $8 per ton. [Laughter.] Cabbages are now taxed 10 per cent, ad valorem. But there were no imports last year. But for fear some one might bring in some of that useful food, a tax of 3 cents a head is imposed by the McKinley bill. Plants, trees, and shrubs, heretofore free, are to be taxed 20 per cent, for the benefit of a few nurserymen in the East- ern States. And garden seeds, heretofore taxed only 20 per cent., are by this bill to be taxed 40 per cent, ad valorem. All this is at the expense of the farmers of the country. THE FREE LIST. But that part of the bill which received the especial com- mendation of its author, in his opening remarks on Wednes- day last, was the free list. Let us examine this list: THE Mckinley bill. 219 Books and pamphlets printed exclusively in language other than English. If the books are printed in English, so that we can read them, we must pay, but if they are printed in French, or He- brew, or Chinese, or Sanskrit, they can come in free. [Laugh- ter.] Books and music, in raised letters, printed exclusively for the blind. Books for blind men, who can not see them, are to come in free, but books for people who can see to read them must pay a duty. " Bristles raw.',' Now, what is a bristle? It is the product of a hog's back; and by this bill you put a heavy tax on wool, which grows on a sheep's back, but hog's bristles are put on the free list. [Laughter.] That, I suppose is on the assump- tion that it is for the benefit of the farmers of the West. Are you going to put our fat, sleek Berkshire hogs in competition with the " razor-backs " of Mexico ? Germany and France have excluded the hams and bacon of the American hog, and now our own country proposes to put his bristles on the free list. Dandelion roots, raw, dried, or unground: acorns, beeswax. What a relief it will be to the farmers of the country to be able to procure cheap dandelion roots ! Thanks to the Re- publican party they will soon be on the free list, and within the reach of the humblest citizen ! Acorns, too, are to be free, being the " raw material " out of which hogs are made, whose bristles are on the free list; it became necessary to put acorns on the free list also. Acorns are admitted free, I presume, for another purpose, that is to be used for adulterating coffee. You propose to allow food adulterants to come in free. The workingman must drink adulterated coffee, and eat adulterated food. They can not afford the genuine article after this bill passes. Mr. BOOTHMAN. Did not the Mills bill provide for admitting acorns free of duty ? Mr. SPRINGER. I presume so. It ought to have done so. I am not complaining. I am only showing how much you do by this bill for the benefit of the farmers and working- men of the country. Floor-matting manufactured from round or split straw, including what is generally known as Chinese matting. 220 TARIFF REFORM. As this is a Chinese bill, you are going to let the Chinese mats in free. [Laughter.] Jute, jute-butts, manila, sisal grass. Mr. HANSBROUGH. Do we raise sisal grass ? Mr. SPRINGER. We do not, but it comes in competition with flax and hemp which we do raise, and I have the state- ment of the Secretary of Agriculture that if you will only put a duty on this article and on jute and these other fibers they can be raised here successfully. Gentlemen ought to read these agricultural reports, and see how many things you can produce in this country that you never dreamed of. [Laugh- ter.] Degras and other grease — I don't know what " degras " is, but it is evidently some- thing greasy, something to grease the wheels of the manu- facturing establishments. This bill is full of grease for the manufacturers. [Laughter.] Mr. FARQUHAR. I would like to state that degras is put on the free list to shut out an article which the Mills bill put on the free list, and which was an imitation and a fraud. Mr. SPRINGER. The Mills bill again ! " Still harping on my daughter ! " Hair, human, raw, uncleaned, and not drawn. I do not know what hair " not drawn " is; but some of my bald-headed friends have evidently had theirs drawn. [Laugh- ter.] As long as it is on your head it is on the free list. It is " not drawn." But once it is " drawn," it is taxed. Hemp,.rope, bulbs, bulbous roots, not edible. " Not edible." If they were good to eat you would have to pay duty on them. Sugar up to and including No. i6 Dutch standard. Tar and pitch of wood. Tinsel wire, lame or lahn — Whatever that may be it is henceforth free. Tobacco stems. There is good deal of protection in that ! Sulphur ore, etc. THE McKINLEY BILL. 221 Sulphur ought to be free. We will need " fire and brim- stone " to properly punish the authors of this bill. Turpentine, spirits of. That may be required also; it should be free. Briar root, or briar wood, unmanufactured. I suppose this is to make pipes out of for poor men ! Here is some relief for the laboring men of the country ! I have found it at last ! They can get free raw material for briar- wood pipes ! [Laughter.] Mr. CARKE of Alabama. That competes with the cob pipes. [Laughter.] Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, that comes in competition with our cobs. But we must make some sacrifices for the benefit of the consumers of the country. Paintings in oils and water colors, and statuary. This is very important. The rich men can have their pic- tures free; but the workingmen, the masses of the people, get nothing under this bill. They are to be taxed from 40 to 100 per cent, on all the necessaries of life. So much for the free list, which gentlemen on the other side of the House have commended so highly. ALL THE RELIEF POSSIBLE, In the report of the majority of the Ways and Means Com- mittee on the pending bill, they claim to have "given months of investigation to the existing condition of agriculture and matters connected therewith." And after these months of labor the committee, "with the single motive to lift it to the highest level of profitable employment," are of the opinion "that they offer in the bill presented — the McKinley bill — all the relief which tariff legislation can give it " (page 16). I quite agree with the committee in this statement. But that relief amounts to nothing. The burden which accom- panies it is weighting the farmers down under a load of debt that is ^. ."shing out their very existence. After twenty-five years of the practical operation of pro- tective tariff in this country the Committee on Ways and Means are compelled to admit "there is wide-spread de- pression in this industry to-day." This fact, the committee state, can not be doubted. 222 TARIFF REFORM. It would be folly to doubt it. The agricultural report of Illinois for 1889 shows that the cost of producing the corn crop in that State for last year was $68,000,000 and that the value of the crop on the farms was only $58,000,000. This indicates a loss of $10,000,000 to the farmers of one State on the crop of one cereal in one year. Where is the home mar- ket to which they may go for a remunerative price and where is the protective-tariff law that will save them from this loss ? FARM MORTGAGES IN ILLINOIS. I am indebted to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dock- eryJ for the following statement: The official report of the Illinois bureau of labor statistics for 1888, on page 36, gives the following grim exhibit of the mortgaged in- debtedness of 102 counties: Whole number of mortgages. Cash total. Property encum- bered. Lands 92,777 142,750 74,740 $147,320,054 246,704,827 22,354,187 *8,o82,7g4 t237,336 Lots Chattels Total . 310,267 $416,379,068 Mr. Chairman, we further learn from the same official record that in the year 1887 alone there were filed 25,334 new farm mortgages, aggregating $37,040,770 and covering 2,178,532 acres of land. We have here, then, the startling revelation that, of the immense farm- mortgage indebtedness for the whole State of $147,320,054 upon 8,082,794 acres, very nearly one-fourth of the amount was contracted within the year 1887, and yet this is far from an exceptional disclos- ure as concerning our great agricultural domain. The report of the bureau of labor of the State of Illinois for 1882 shows that the cost of living to the skilled laboring men of that State exceeds the average wages received; in other words, that workingmen can not earn a fair living. If protective tariffs have, after a trial of a quarter of a cen- tury, brought these mountains of mortgages and this "wide- spread depression " to agriculture and have failed to secure remunerative wages to labor, it seems to me that the proper *Acres. fLots. THE Mckinley bill. 223 remedy would be to change the system. But the committee think otherwise. They propose to impose heavier taxes, and supplement them with bounties and other special privileges which will further depress agriculture and continue to rob the consumers of the country for the benefit of protected and favored classes. But we are told by gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber that duties on imported products are not A TAX ON THE CONSUMER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] in a speech in this House April 6, 1882, said: These examples, and more too, which I might present, demon- strate that protective duties are not a tax upon the consumer, but universally cheapen the price of consumption to the people. Contrast this language with that used by the same gentle- man on page 14 of the report of the Ways and Means Com- mittee: So large a proportion of our sugar is imported that the home pro- duction of sugar does not materially affect the price, and the duty is therefore a tax, which is added to the price not only of the imported, but of the domestic product, which is not true of duties imposed on articles produced or made here substantially to the extent of our wants. In 1889 the duties collected on imported sugar and molasses amounted to $55,975,610. Add to this the increase of price of domes- tic sugar arising from the duty, and it is clear that the duty on sugar and molasses made the cost of the sugar and molasses consumed by the people of this country at least $64,000,000, or about $1 for each man, woman, and child in the United States more than it would have been if no such duties had been levied and the domestic product had remained the same. I fully agree with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] in this last definition of a protective tariff. It is a tax, and the tax is added to the price of the com- modity and paid by the consumer in all cases where the do- mestic production is not equal to the domestic demand and foreign products must come in to supply the deficit. The price at which the foreign article plus the duty can be sold will determine the price of the domestic product. Apply this principle to the great schedules covered by this bill, and what will be the result? I have not had time to make a careful estimate on all the schedules; but when the amount is approximately ascertained the figures will be appall- 224 TARIFF REFORM. ing. The amount heretofore and now imposed on the con- sumers of the country on account of the tax on sugar is admitted by the majority report of the Committee on Ways and Means to be $64,000,000 a year. I have estimated, in remarks heretofore submitted, that the increased cost to the consumers of this country of woolen goods now being paid annually on account of the tariff on wool and woolens amounts to at least $3 per capita of the whole population, this burden would therefore amount to $195,000,000 a year, assuming the population at this time to be 65,000,000. It is not unreasonable to assume that the increased price of other articles in the schedules, on account of the tariff, will swell the grand aggregate of annual tribute to favored industries to the amount of $500,000,000. It is this continued and enormous drain upon the resources of the farmers of the West and South, more than any other cause or than all other causes put together, that has pro- duced the wide-spread depression which now e.xists and which has burdened their farms with mortgages too heavy to be borne. Already I see the evidence of awakening on this subject. The delusion of a protective tariff is being exposed. The inadequacy of the home market is made apparent by present conditions, which furnish great- object lessons that children in a kindergarten could see and understand. Light has illu- mined the dark places and intelligent discussion and practical experience have demonstrated that protection builds up and fosters monopoly, creates millionaires of the few and robs the many for their benefit; and that there are no redeeming features in it. In the election of the next House of Representatives we propose to meet our opponents before the people on this issue, and I predict with confidence the result. We will elect a majority of at least 50 members to this House, and in 1892 a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. [Ap- plause on the Democratic side.] DRAWBACKS ON RAW MATERIAL. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] called the at- tention of the House to section 24 of his bill, in reference to drawbacks on imported merchandise, and said the reduction of the amount retained by the government from 10 per cent, to only I per cent, would enable the manufacturers of the country practically to have the benefit of free raw material, THE Mckinley bill. 225 or within i per cent, of it. He contended that with this ad- vantage raw material of every kind could be imported, con- verted into a finished product, and then exported. The duty- paid on the raw material on such exports would then be re- funded within I per cent. I asked at the time if this would apply to wool. He said it would, that it would apply to everything. But will any one tell me how the imported wool in a finished piece of cloth can be traced and identified so as to permit a drawback to the amount of the duties paid on its importation ? It ts imported in the grease ; it is then washed, then scoured. It has shrunk by these processes from 33 to 60 per cent. It is then put into the mill, carded, spun, and woven. It loses at least 25 per cent, in these processes, and when it has reached the finished product thus reduced in quantity it is found to be mixed with native wool, with shoddy and other adul- terants. How is anybody to determine what amount of drawback is to be allowed ? It would be impossible, or, at least, ut- terly impracticable. As of wool, so of nearly all other articles which are known as raw material. How is iron-ore to be traced into a pocket-knife or a chain ? Can an Amer- ican tobacconist import Havana tobacco and Sumatra wrap- pers, manufacture them into cigars, ship them to Canada, and get a drawback of all the duties, save i per cent.? If so, the Canadian will be able to smoke a pure Havana cigar while our own people will have to smoke clay pipes. If there were any virtue in the drawback provisioH, if it would really accomplish what the gentleman claims for it, its highest virtue should condemn it in the estimation of every American citizen. It will no doubt prove successful in some cases, but the effect would simply be to enable our manu- facturers to sell their goods to foreigners at from 25 to 50 per cent, cheaper than they could afford to sell them to our own people, for when selling to the foreigner the manufac- turer would get a portion of his price from the United States Treasury and could sell to his foreign customer for that much less. This opens up a new principle of political economy in this country, namely, the paying of subsidies to foreigners to induce them to buy our manufactured products. We must not buy anything from foreigners that we can possibly pro- duce ourselves — so say our friends on the other side of the House — but if foreigners will only buy our products we will 226 TARIFF REFORM. SO arrange it by our tariff laws and drawbacks that on every purchase they make the government will pay out of its Treasury a portion of the purchase money. " A Daniel come to judgment." A new doctrine is to be ingrafted in the Republican plat- forms of the future, namely: "Tax Americans that foreigners may have cheap goods." I now understand fully what the Committee on Ways and Means meant by the following lan- guage in their report : We have not been so much concerned about the prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage a system of home production. Home production it seems which will secure low prices to foreigners. The price of the articles we poor American citi- zens consume does not concern these honorable gentlemen. That is a matter too narrow and selfish for them. They are only concerned as to how foreigners can get our goods at 25 to 50 per cent, less than Americans can purchase them for. If there is anything our Republican friends despise more than another it is that which is cheap, and if cheap they as- sume that it is also nasty. Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. That is true every time. Mr. SPRINGER. My friend from Massachusetts admits the assumption that cheap things are to be despised and that they are nasty. Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. Will you allow me a question at this point ? Mr. SPRINGER. No, not now. I prefer not to be inter- rupted. Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. All right; I should think you would not want to. Mr. SPRINGER. I dislike to take up too much time. My friend from Massachusetts concedes that he and his party do dislike things that are cheap. Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman give me a chance to say why ? Mr. SPRINGER. You can say why when I am through. Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. Just one minute. Mr. SPRINGER. They assume that cheap goods are at the same time nasty: and we have the phrase "cheap and nasty " hurled at us. Mr.- WALKER of Massachusetts. When the cheap THE Mckinley bill. 227 goods are steeped in the blood of our fellow-men .they are nasty. Mr. SPRINGER. I will show you how they are " steeped in the blood of our fellow-men." The cheap goods that are to be produced in this country are to be given to the de- spised foreigner. My friend from Massachusetts is doubt- less a humanitarian; but he would give to the poor English- man, the poor German, the poor Frenchman, " cheap and nasty " goods while he would save high-priced goods for the aristocrats of this country! [Laughter.] Mr. WALKER of Massachusetts. Clean and honest goods. Mr. SPRINGER. If the gentleman wants to find out how some of the goods made in this country are produced and the prices paid for their production, let him go into the factories of Philadelphia and New York and Chicago; he will there find sewing women and sewing men working at wages which are below the standard of those paid in Europe, making the "cheap and nasty" goods, as he would call them. [Applause.] CANADIAN TRADE. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKinley], in his re- marks on Wednesday of this week, deplored the fact that so many articles of merchandise were imported into this coun- try from Canada and insisted that all such articles should be produced in this country. He overlooked the fact, or re- garded it of no importance, that Canada buys more of this country than we purchase of her. I commend to the chairman of the Ways and Means Com- mittee the remarks of his distinguished colleague [Mr. But- terworth] before that committee during this session of Con- gress. His colleague is the author of a bill to provide full reciprocity between the United States and the Dominion of Canada — that is, perfect free trade between the two countries. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth] produced at that time statistics of our trade with Canada which I re- gret made no impression upon his colleague or upon the ma- jority of the Committee on Ways and Means. I will summarize some of these statistics. During the year 1887 Canada purchased from the United States goods worth $55,879,192. The gentleman [Mr. But- terworth] said: In the years of 1883, 1884, and 1885, Canada purchased more from 228 TARIFF REFORM. us than all the other countries and islands on the Western Hemi- sphere, and during the existence of the reciprocity treaty, from 1855 to i856, she bought from us more than she sold to us by the large sum of 859,136,256; and from the year 1850 to 1889, inclusive, a period of forty years, there have been only seven years in which the balance of trade has been against us with that country. In thirty- three years it has been in our favor. Canada is the only country on the Western Hemisphere which buys more'from us than they sell to us, and in the aggregate, during 1887, the balance against us in all the above-named countries and islands, outside of Canada and including the Hawaiian Islands, amounted to $112,684,635. During the period between 1850 and 1889 Canada pur- chased from us goods to the amount of $1,405,752,215, while we purchased from her $1,153,634,303, or an excess of our exports to that country over our imports from it of $252, 117,- 912. The period of Canadian reciprocity, which the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee referred to with seeming regret, owing to the large amount of articles which were im- ported from Canada into the United States, was one of great profit to this country, if statistics are worth anything. Will any gentleman pretend that we can receive the benefit of the trade of Canada if we refuse admission of Canadian products into this country ? The pending bill has aimed a deadly blow at all trade with Canada hereafter. It will not permit a Canadian product to reach our soil if a prohibitory tariff can prevent it. Thus is the Chinese wall being gradually erected around our country. Mr. DOCKERY. Will the gentleman allow me to sub- mit at this point a statement in the line of his argument? During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, we bought agricultural products of Canada to the value of $17,341,576, while for the same period we sold to Canada agricultural products to the value of $21,582,836, making a difference in favor of the United States on the interchange of our agri- cultural products of $4,241,260. I am indebted to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth] for these facts. Mr. SPRINGER. I am much obliged to the honorable gentleman for this interruption. The statement only goes to show that this bill proceeds upon the wrong principle when it endeavors to shut out all these products of Canada. The Canadian trade is beneficial to us; and I will show you why. FREE TRADE AMONG THE STATES. It is universally admitted that the perfect free trade which THE Mckinley bill. 229 exists and has existed from the beginning between the States of this Union has been of incalculable benefit to all the States and to all the country. If any one should suggest that this perfect freedom of trade should be abridged or in any wise obstructed he would be regarded as an enemy to his country. The Supreme Court has but recently decided that the transportation of liquors in original packages from one State to another can not be interfered with by State laws, even under the pretext or claim of the exercise of police powers. _ There is perfect free trade between all the States and Ter- ritories and the District of Columbia. And no one fact has contributed more to our growth and prosperity than this. It has neutralized in a great degree the baneful effects of high or prohibitory tariffs, which obstruct trade with other coun- tries, and caused us to prosper in spite of such obstructive legislation. Free trade with Canada would have a like bene- ficial effect. There can be no argument to sustain free trade between the States which will not apply with equal force in favor of free trade with Canada. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. For the first time in the history of the country a bill has been reported from the Ways and Means Committee which has for its object, not the raising of revenue to support the government, but "to discourage the use in this country of foreign goods and products," "to decrease importations," " to check those supplies from abroad which can be profit- ably produced at home." This object is boldly avowed by the committee in their report. It is assumed by the authors and supporters of this bill that foreign-made goods are hurtful to our people, and their importation should be prohibited as far as possible. 'I'his leads to the consideration of the articles which are imported into this country from foreign countries. The total value of exports of domestic products for the year ending June 30, 1889, was $730,282,488. In exchange for these ex- ports, which were the products of the toil and sweat of our own farmers and workingmen, certain other articles produced abroad were imported. In no other way could we get com- pensation for the goods we had produced and for which there was no adequate or remunerative market at home. There was no "home market" for these articles valued at $730, 000,000. 230 TARIFF REFORM. We could not sell for gold. Trade would be impossible on that basis. All trade is by barter, the exchanging of the products of one country for those of another. The small balances only are adjusted by the use of coin or the precious metals. Let us examine the list of imported articles for last year and see whether their importation ought to be checked. The annual report of the chief of the Bureau of Statistics in regard to imported merchandise for the year ending June 30, 1889, contains the following classification of our imports for that year. It will be found on page 19 of that report: The value of imported merchandise entered for consumption in the United States, with the amount of duty collected thereon added, for the year ending June 30, 1889, has been as follows: Classes. Values. S2s Duty collected. Total value and duty. (A) Articles of food and animals (B) Articles in a crude condition which enter into the various proc- esses of domes- tic industry (C) Articles whol- ly or partially m an u f actured, for use as mater- ials in the manu- factures and mechanic arts. . . (D) Articles man- ufactured, ready for consumption (E) Articles of voluntary use, luxuries, etc. . . . Dollars. 240,666,693 172,134.716 84,354,509 147,596,641 96,678,839 32.45 23.22 11.38 19.91 13.04 Dollars. 66,568,932 15,363,625 22,195,095 68,683,765 45,890,357 30.44 7.02 10.15 31.40 20.99 Dollars. 307,235,625 187,498,341 106,549,604 216,280,406 142,569,196 Total 741,431,398 100.00 218,701,774 100.00 960,133,172 This table does not show the cost of the imports landed in our ports. There are not included in the values of articles the cost of coverings, commissions, etc., excluded from the dutiable value by the act of March 3, 1883, nor freight charges from the couiitry of importation and undervaluations, the aggregate amount of which can not be estimated with any approximation to accuracy. THE Mckinley bill. 231 According to the census of 1880 the value of the domestic products of our manufacturing establishments amounted to the enormous sum of $5,369,667,706.* For the year 1888 the exports of domestic manufactures amounted to $183,- 000,000. This included all articles except the products of agriculture, so that we exported far more of manufactured articles than we imported. I fail to see wherein we were in- jured by the exchange. But I desire to call attention to the fact that of the arti- cles imported last year there were raw materials of the value of $172,000,000, andarticlespartially manufactured to be used in manufactures and mechanic arts of the value of $84,000,- 000. These articles, aggregating in value $256,000,000, more than one-third of our imports, were imported by manu- facturers, and their manufacture into finished products gave employment to thousands of our mechanics and workingmen, who could not have found remunerative employment unless such importations had been permitted. I desire again to call attention to our exports. During last year they were valued at $730,000,000. Assuming that each laborer created articles worth $400, the creation of the arti- cles exported would have given employment to 1,825,000 per- sons. These would represent over nine millions of our pop- ulation who were employed during last year in the production of articles which were purchased and paid for by foreigners. The articles admitted free of duty amounted to $256,000,- 000. Such articles have been adjudged by protectionists as not hurtful to our people, and hence are admitted free. They do not come in competition as a rule with any articles pro- duced in this country. Articles of food and animals valued at $119,000,000 and articles in crude condition, or raw materials, to the value of $110,000,000 were admitted free of duty. Articles manufac- tured ready for consumption to the value of $9,800,000 were also admitted free of duty. Such articles subject to duties amounted to only $137,775,840. Of these there were im- ported ready for consumption iron and steel manufactures to the value of only $9,552,000, of glass and glassware to the value of only $7,750,000. The imports of such articles are not of sufficient magnitude to seriously interfere with the home market. * This is the gross amount furnished by the Census Bureau, but from this sum should be deducted the materials used, in order to show the net values created. — -W. M. S. 232 TARIFF REFORM. When so large a percentage of our people are dependent upon foreigners for employment and support it seems strange that the Representatives of the people in Congress should formulate and pass an act, such as the bill now pending, with the avowed object of preventing or checking importations, through and by means of which alone can remuneration be received for the articles made in this country, which must be exported to find a market. UNRESTRICTED COMMERCE. Those countries which have placed the fewest restrictions upon commerce have the largest amount of foreign trade. Wherever legislation has been framed to check imports, as proposed in the pending bill, commerce has languished. Wherever imports are checked, exports fall off in proportion. Holland is a free-trade country. No efforts are made by that country to check imports. Its commerce is therefore large compared with its area and population. Its area is only 12,000 square miles, about the size of the State of Maryland; its population is only 4,336,000; yet its foreign commerce during 1888 amounted to $954,759,600, more than half as great as that of the United States with her 60,000,000 people, and larger than that of Russia, which has an area of 8,000,- 000 square miles and a population of over a hundred millions. Great Britain has an area of only 121,000 square miles, less than that of the Territory of New Mexico, a population of only 35,000,000, but a foreign commerce of over $3, 000,000,- 000 annually, and her citizens own more than half the ships of the world. And little Switzerland, another country which does not try " to check importations," having a population of less than 3,000,000, and an area of only 16,000 square miles, less than half the size of the State of Indiana, has a foreign commerce valued at $353,125,000 annually, which is greater than the foreign commerce of China, which has an area of 4,500,000 square miles, and a population of 400,000,000, sup- posed to be half the population of the globe. China checks importation by legislation like that in the McKinley bill. Hence her -foreign commerce amounts to only $267,616,000 annually. Shall we as legislators for the United States emulate the example furnished by England, Holland, and Switzerland in respect to iiade, and thus en- large our foreign commerce, or shall we follow the example of Russia and China, and exclude imports and thus make ex- THE McKINLEY BILL. 233 ports and all foreign commerce impossible, or at least so un- profitable that but few can engage in it ? Let us turn from the policy which the pending bill proposes of checking imports, and thus making exports impossible, and move in the opposite direction — move towards commer- cial freedom. [Applause.] Then may we reasonably antic- ipate in the near future a larger market and better prices for the products of our farms, our factories, and our mills, and a greater demand and better wages for American labor. [Long-continued applause on the Democratic side.] SPEECH AT PHILADELPHIA, June 3, 1890. \From the Philadelphia Record.\ MERCHANTS AND BUSINESS MEN RECORD THEIR PROTESTS AGAINST THE McKINLEY BILL. Philadelphia's representative business nnen filled the Walnut Street Theatre to overflowing yesterday afternoon to record their earnest protest against the passage of the McKinley Tariff bill. The stage, parquet and parquet circle were crowded with merchants and manufacturers who were drawn together in a common cause, capital to the extent of many millions of dollars being represented there. The first gallery was likewise crowded, and the lobbies and aisles con- tained many persons who were unable to find seats. It was not in- tended at first to open the top gallery, but when the place became so greatly overcrowded it had to be thrown open to relieve the pressure down-stairs. AN EARNEST, THOUGHTFUL AUDIENCE. The hour set for the meeting was 4 o'clock, but long before that time every seat down-stairs was occupied. While the people were gathering, and before the arrival of the speakers, a band of music en- tertained them with favorite airs. Notwithstanding the oppressive atmosphere in the theatre it was gratifying alike to the distinguished speakers and the gentlemen who had interested themselves in arrang- ing for the demonstration to see the great audience remain to the end, paying rapt attention to every word uttered in condemnation of the McKinley measure. PROMINENT MEN PRESENT. On the whole the affair proved to be one of the most important demonstrations by the business men of Philadelphia in behalf of Tar- iff Reform ever held in this city. * * * * »• * * Shortly after 4 o'clock the speakers of the day entered upon the stage with Mr. William M. Singerly at their head. They included Congressman W. C. P. Breckinridge of Kentucky; William M. 234 TARIFF REFORM. Springer of Illinois; William McAdoo of New Jersey, and William D. Bynum of Indiana. ******* The visitors were accompanied by Colonel A. K. McClure, of the Times, and William M. Ayres, President of the Philadelphia Tariff Reform Club. Their entrance was greeted with applause, which con- tinued long after the gentlemen had taken their seats. WHY THE MEETING WAS CALLED. Advancing to the front of the stage Mr. Singerly said: There is no place in the United States which needs relief from tax- ation to the extent that the workingmen of Philadelphia do. It was expected that Governor Pattison would preside at this meeting. He was unexpectedly called away at half-past 2 o'clock this afternoon, and had to leave the city. I have the honor of presenting to you as President of this meeting, and I wish you to give him a royal wel- come, the Hon. A. K. McClure. A PRACTICAL BUSINESS MEETING. Then Mr. McClure said: Fellow citizens — I will not occupy much of your time, as you hear from me on this question every day. I would simply say, in the introduction of this meeting, that this is not in any sense a partisan gathering; it is purely a practical business meeting of business men to consider the questions which directly af- fect themselves; and I am glad to see in the list of Vice-Presidents a number of names of those who voted the Republican ticket at the last election, and who doubtless would vote it again if they could thereby obtain just and equal taxes to our industries. I shall, therefore, at once bring before you the speakers of the occasion, and will now in- iroduce Congressman Springer of Illinois. MR. SPRINGER TELLS HOW THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY IS AFFECTED. Mr. Springer said: In i860, prior to the commencement of the war, wools costing 20 cents per pound, or less, were on the free list, and all other wools paid "a duty of only 24 per cent, ad valorem. During the war there was a slight increase in the wool tariff. In 1865 a purely revenue tariff was imposed on wool, and there were several slight changes in the wool tariff prior to 1867. In March of that year Congress, responding to the demands of the wool -growers, placed a high protective tariff on wool, with compensatory duties for the protection of the wool manufacturers. The passage of this act marks an im- portant era in our country's economic history. The wool- growers were happy, and felicitated themselves upon the success which had attended their efforts. At that time there were but few sheep raised in the States west of the Missis- sippi and Missouri rivers — about five millions all told. There were, however, in February, 1868, in the States east THE Mckinley bill. 235 of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, the States which had secured through their representatives in Congress the Protec- tive Tariff act of 1867, over 37,000,000 sheep. It was to promote wool-growing in these States that the act of 1867 was passed. But while there has been an increase of sheep in the Western States — on the ranches — there has been a con- tinued and disastrous decrease in the number of sheep in the States east of those rivers — the sheep raised on the farms of the country. In 1870, according to the census of that year, the decrease had been so rapid that there were only 23,000,- 000 sheep as against 37,000,000 in 1868. In 1880 there were only 21,000,000, and in 1883 the number had increased to 23,000,000. But in 1888 the number in the States named had fallen to 18,000,000. In the whole country there were in 1868 nearly 40,000,000, while in 1888 there were only 44,000,000. The increase hed been in the States west of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. In the States east of those rivers the decrease had been one-half. These were the States that demanded a high protective tariff on wool in order to encourage wool-growing therein. Ohio, the State that seems to take the lead in de- manding high tariff on wool, had 6,700,000 sheep in 1868 and only 4,000,000 in 1888. Twenty years of protection has resulted in Ohio in a reduction of 40 per cent, in the num- ber of sheep in the State. In the meantime the population of the State has increased at least 40 per cent. If it had not been for the protective tariff on wool Ohio to-day would have 9,000,000 sheep, and the many woolen factories that have failed and gone out of the business would now be in a flourishing condition. Pennsylvania had 3,422,000 sheep in 1868 and only 984,- 000 in 1888, a loss of about 70 per cent. New Jersey suf- fered in about the same proportion. Hence it appears that a high protective tariff on wool has not encouraged or stim- ulated wool-growing in the States whose representatives secured the legislation, and whose votes and influence in Congress now sustain such legislation. The woolen manufacturers have not been entirely happy during this era of high protective tariff on wool and woolen goods. The wool-growers and wool manufacturers have been in a continued combination on this subject. They have jomt conferences, and agree jointly upon the amount of protection that each interest shall have. The wool tariff of 1867 was the joint work of these two 236 TARIFF REFORM. interests. The act of 1883 was a compromise in which each interest yielded some of its supposed advantage. The wool- growers claimed to have made the greater sacrifices. The duty on first and second class wools, prior to the act of March 3, 1883, was 10 cents a pound and 11 per cent, ad valorem on all wools valued at less than 30 cents a pound, and valued above 30 cents a pound the duty was 12 cents a pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. By the act of 1883 the specific duties were retained and the ad valorem duties were repealed. The reduction was therefore only 11 and 10 per centum, accord- ing to the value. The reduction on wool of the third class was only J4 cent a pound on the cheaper grades and i cent a pound on the higher grades. The equivalent ad valorem rates on wools of the first and second class were left at from 30 to 80 per centum And on wools of the third class — carpet wools — the rates, by the act of 1883, were equivalent to a protection of from 20 to 40 per centum. It has been frequently stated that the slight reduction on raw wool by the act of 1883 pro- duced disastrous results to the wool-growers of the country. This claim is not well founded. The domestic wool supplied all the home market that it was possible to supply. Only enough foreign wool came in to mix with the domestic, in order to produce fabrics required by the trade. The princi- pal imports were of third class, or carpet wools, which are not produced in this country, and for that reason, if for no other, ought to be on the free list. THE ACT OF 1 883 ACCEPTED. The National Association of Wool Manufacturers met in 1884 — in the fall of that year, eighteen months after the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, and declared that "the wool manufacturers of the United States were prepared to ' accept the present tariff on wool and woolens, notwithstand- ing its reductions, as a wise and proper adjustment of the duties, until a practical experience of the working of this tariff shall have demonstrated how it may be amended." They further declared as follows : That the legislation of March 3, 1883, pledged the national faith that for a period, considerable enough to test the working of that tariff, there should be no tariff agitation, and that the industries should have repose. That legislation was not the pledge of a party, but of the nation. It was a treaty with the national industries, and, like a treaty with a foreign power, should be respected, even by those who do not approve it. THE Mckinley bill. 237 In October, 1885, the National Association of Wool Manu- facturers met in Boston, and proceeded to formulate its opinions on the tariff and tariff legislation. Secretary Man- ning had issued a printed circular, addressed to the proprie- tors of manufacturing establishments and others, asking for their views as to the proposed revision of the tariff. The National Association of Wool Manufacturers made this cir- cular the subject of an elaborate communication of the Sec- retary of the Treasury, in which they reviewed the legislation of the past, and quoted from their own resolutions of 1884, comparing the Tariff act of 1883 to a treaty, to which I have already called attention, and among other things, stated: The existing tariff, although its passage was hailed with joyful congratulations by the business communities as a Jina^ sef/Um^ni oi tariff agitation, has hitherto largely failed of its anticipated benefits through doubts as to its permanency. Let it have the test which it is entitled to, and which it has not yet received- — security from threat- ened repeal ! The exclamation point, you will observe, is in the text of the manifesto of the wool manufacturers. They desire to emphasize this statement as much as possible. It was " re- pose " they wanted in 1885. The wool manufacturers further expressed their seiitiments to the Secretary of the Treasury as follows : The country cannot have prosperity until it settles down upon a fixed economical policy. No general revision of the tariff can be made under more favorable circumstances, with fuller information and expressions of opinion from all productive interests and both schools of economical doctrine, or with more unity on the part of the great political parties than the revision of 1883. Another revision involves the certain evil of continued tariff agita- tion and business disturbance, and a postponement of the repose needed for recovering from an industrial depression unequaled since 1857. Let the glad assurance be given that the powerful influence of the Administration shall be wielded for the suppression of tariff agi- tation, for the better enforcement and not the repeal of the existing system — This last clause is emphasized by the wool manufacturers with italics — And the country, as we believe, will rebound from its depression as it did when the adoption of the Constitution pledged the nation and all future administrators of its laws to the defense of its in- dustries. This portion of their response to Secretary Manning is concluded thus : 238 TARIFF REFORM. By remonstrating with all the earnestness which they are capable of expressing against disturbing the business of the country in the dawn of its revival by another tariff revision. This was the position of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers In 1885. In 1889, four years after these earnest commendations of the Tariff act of 1883, and protests against its repeal or modi- fication, this same National Association of Wool Manufac- turers again met in Boston to consider the condition of the wool manufacturers and to advise Congress as to what the woolen interests demand. "A prominent and experienced wool manufacturer, who prefers that his name should not be used," publishes in the Bullcii?i of the National Association, which contains the proceedings of the Association's meet- ings, an address on the relations " which should exist between the manufacturers and wool-growers, and between the tariff upon the products of each," in which occurs the following statement : Since 1883 nearly one-tlyrd of the woolen machinery of this country has been idle, and the other two-thirds has been run with little or no profit, and during this period the number of sheep has been con- stantly decreasing. Commenting upon this condition of the wool industries of your own city, the Philadelphia Times of a recent date con- tained this important item of information: Nearly seventy failures of woolen-mills and dealers have occur- red in this city and vicinity since the election of 1S88, when the tariff question was proclaimed as settled, and each failure told the same story, viz., that the cost of raw materials drove our woolen industries into bankruptcy." This condition of the woolen industries could not escape the notice of the National Association of Wool Manufac- turers. At their twenty-fifth annual meeting at Boston on October 2, 1889, resolutions were unanimously adopted, ex- pressive of the sense of the association. The preamble is as follows: Whereas it is the sense of the people that a revision of the tariff is necessary at the approaching session of Congress; and whereas it is demonstrated by six years' experience under the existing tariff that the prosperity and development of the woolen manufacture of the United States require important modifications in the wool and woolen schedule; Therefore the association, among other things, resolved: That after struggling for six years under legislation which thus THE Mckinley bill. 239 discriminates against them the wool manufacturers of the United States aeviand — That is the word they use, they demand " of Congress a revision of the tariff in which there shall in every instance be placed upon the manufactured product the full amount of the specific duty necessary to compensate whatever rates of duty public policy may require to be imposed upon the raw material. Resolved, That apart from the specific duties, which are not pro- tective to the manufacturer, but simply compensatory, being neces- sitated by the duties upon the raw material, the woolen industry is entitled, in addition thereto, to the highest degree of protection, etc. It is here distinctly affirmed that the tariff on wool is a tax, and that it increases the price of the raw material to the amount of the tax, and that the manufacturer must pay this increased price for the wool he uses. And, being thus com- pelled to pay this additional price, he must be compensated, or reimbursed to the full amount he is thus compelled to pay; that is, he must be allowed to charge it up to the con- sumer, who must ultimately bear the burden. What is this additional compensation that the wool manu- facturer demands ? Mr. William Whitman, the President of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives at Washington during the past winter and made known his demands and those of the National Associa- tion. He said: The principle of adjustment is this: It requires 3^ pounds of foreign wool in the grease to make i pound of yarn; therefore the compensating duty on yarn should be the duty imposed on wool multiplied by 3}^. Upon the cloth it requires 4 pounds of wool to make i pound of finished cloth ; therefore the compensating or specific duty to be imposed upon the cloth should be the same as the wool duty multiplied by 4. On clothing the specific duty or compensating duty should be the duty upon the wool multiplied by 4^. Mr. Whitman then proceeded to inform the committee as to the amount of duty required in order to protect the home manufacturer against the cheap labor used by the foreign manufacturer, which must be in addition to that already re- ferred to. The- rates he asked the committee to impose for this purpose were as follows : Upon yarn, 40 per cent.; upon goods, 50 per cent.; upon cloth- ing, 60 per cent. The Committee on Ways and Means then proceeded to 240 TARIFF REFORM. construct the McKinley bill on the lines marked out by Mr. Whitman so far as wool manufacturers are concerned. Mr. Whitman considerately suggested that Congress might fix the duty on raw wool as public policy might dictate — that is, as the wool-growers might demand. They were not modest in their demands by any means. Upon the whole importations of first and second-class wools during the year 1889 the increased duty proposed by the McKinley bill is from the equivalent of 48.18 per cent, ad valorem to 57.24 per cent, ad valorem, or about 18 per cent. This is at least 8 per cent, higher duty on wools of the first and second class than that in force prior to the act of March 3, 1883, which tax proved so disastrous to wool- growers and to all concerned. On third-class wools — the carpet wools, which are not grown in this country — the increase proposed is from 2 % cents per pound to 32 per cent, ad valorem, or from 24.60 per cent, ad valorem to 32 per cent., if valued at 13 cents a pound or under. If valued over that the duties are increased by the McKinley bill from 5 cents a pound on this class of wool to 50 per cent, ad valorem, or from 30.45 ad valorem to 50 per cent, ad valorem, an increase of nearly 60 per cent, over present rates. The increase on third-class wools over present rates is nearly 49 per cent, ad valorem on the imports of 1889. Add to these enormous increases the increased duties de- manded on woolen manufactures, and some idea can be formed of the probable effect such increases will have upon the business of the country, and especially upon the con- sumers of the country, who are principally interested. The increase proposed by the McKinley bill on woolen and worsted cloths, knit goods, etc., is from 67.71 to 103.32 per cent, ad valorem. The increase on blankets, wool hats, flannels, etc., is from 69.70 to 110.84 per cent, ad valorem. The increase on women's and children's dress goods is from 64 to 88.37 per cent, ad valorem, and on other classes of such goods not otherwise specified the duties imposed reach, on the average, as high as 110.33 percent. The duties on manufactures of wool by the McKinley bill are increased from the equivalent of 67.15 per cent, ad valorem under the present law to the equivalent of 91.76 per cent, ad valorem — or an increase of over 36 per cent. Camel's hair, which comes in free under the existing law, THE McKINLEY BILL. 24I is transferred to the dutiable list and taxed 12 cents a pound. This is not to protect or encourage camel-raising in this country, but to prevent our people from using camel's hair, and compel them to use wool. Shoddy, which by existing law is taxed at 10 cents a pound, is, by the McKinley bill, to be taxed 30 cents a pound. This is an increase of 200 per cent, in the duty. During the current year of 1888 the woolen manufacturers of the United States used 52,000,000 pounds of shoddy. The probabilities are that during the past year 100,000,000 pounds of shoddy were used in the United States. The high tax on wool has compelled our woolen manufacturers to use larger amounts of shoddy for mixing with pure wool. The McKinley bill is framed substantially in accordance with the demands of the wool-growers and the wool manu- facturers. Neither wool growing nor wool manufacturing has pros- pered under the influence of high protective tariffs. Since the imposition of the high protective duties by the act of 1867 there have been many seasons of depression, hard times and even disasters. In 1874 a committee of the New York Wool Trade made a report to the committee of the Chamber of Commerce of New York on the revision of the tariff, in which it was stated That our woolen interest is depressed and suffering, and that in reality it has never reached that degree of stability and security which would be commensurate with its magnitude and importance; that the amount of capital invested in it and that the indomitable energy which has so far preserved it from serious decline are facts too well known to require any proof at our hands. This report then proceeded to explain some of the diffi- culties which beset the wool interests of the country. It pointed out wherein the tariff of 1867 failed to accomplish the object for which it was established, as follows; These facts show most conclusively that the object ostensibly aimed at by the tariff of 1867, namely, the protection and encourage- ment of the wool-growers, has most signally failed. The wool- grower must be blind, indeed, if by this time he has not learned the lesson that he cannot prosper as long as the woolen interest does not flourish. Why should he not also understand that our industry can- not permanently flourish until it is relieved of the present heavy bur- den of obstructive tariff legislation? By helping the manufacturer he would certainly help himself, and secure a better reward for his labor and investment than he could ever expect to derive from the illusive protection of any tariff. 242 TARIFF REFORM. The conclusion reached by this report is as follows: Facts, indeed, as well as sound reasoning, call loudly for the abolition of all duties on wool. In the light of past experience it is clear that neither the wool-grower nor any other special interest ought to plead any injury as likely to result in our country from a policy that has had the most encouraging effect in all other parts of the civilized world. No perfectly safe and solid ground will be reached until wool takes its permanent place on the free list, and this must be the goal of the manufacturer, as well as of the wool-grower — in fact, of the whole people. The foregoing report was published in 1874. In 1878 the leading manufacturers of woolen goods in the United States united in a petition to Congress in favor of a revision of the tariff on woolen goods, in which they requested that the duties on all wools may be largely reduced, if not wholly re- moved; that wools not produced in this country be put on the free list, and that the duties on woolens may be fixed at a moderate rate, corresponding with the scale adopted in other manufactures.- They presented to Congress in their petition that for several years past their industry had " suffered great and general depression; " also that " many failures have occurred, many mills have stopped, and many others continue to run without adequate remuneration to their owners." They say: We believe that one great cause for this widespread depression is to be found in the present high rates of duty on wool. And again: High cost of our fabrics has limited consumption and entirely prevented exportation, while low-cost foreign goods have forced their way into our markets through both legitimate and illegitimate channels. After pointing out the facts that the shrinkage of values since 1867 had impaired the ability of consumers to pay the high prices contemplated by the tariff; that the number of those who can afford to purchase at a given price is lessened; that the wool-growers had not realized the advantages from the act of 1867 which they expected; that the depressed con- dition of woolen industry had given the wool-growers a poor market; that the production of fine wools has absolutely de- clined; that the manufacturers of woolen goods must be left free to select their raw materials with reference to the goods they wish to make, the petitioners conclude by expressing their deliberate conviction, after ten years experiment, that the tariff of 1867 has not promoted the interests of the wool-manufacturers, has THE Mckinley bill. 243 not promoted the interests of the wool-growers, and has been a great burden upon all the consuming classes, in return for which it has yielded no adequate revenue to the government. This petition is dated at Boston, January 17, 1878, and is signed by over 100 of tlie leading woolen manufacturing es- tablishments in the United States. The effect of the tariff act of 1867 on woolen manufactures is better illustrated by the census. Compare the statistics of 1870 with those of 1880. WOOLEN MANUFACTORIES. 1870 AND 1880. Census reports show the following facts in respect to woolen manufactures in the United States for the above de- cades: 1870. 1880. Establishments 2,891 1,990 Capital invested $98,824,531 $96,095,564 Hands 80,053 86,504 Spindles 1,845,496 1,756,740 Wages $26,877,675 $25,836,392 Material $96,432,601 $100,845,611 Product $155,405,358 $160,606,721 Comment on these facts is unnecessary. The facts tell the whole story. The failure of the tariff legislation of 1867 so far as wool and woolen manufactures are concerned led to the act of March 3, 1883. I have already shown from the highest authority that that act utterly failed to bring the desired prosperity to the wool- en interests of the country. The same influences that dic- tated the wool legislation of 1867 and of 1883 are now de- manding that the tariff shall be again amended in accordance with their view — that there should be an immense increase in the duties on raw wool and woolen manufactures over those imposed by the act of 1867. Those high taxes of woolen goods overlook one important fact, or, at least, disregard it altogether. It is this: The in- creased duties proposed by the McKinley bill will increase the price of woolen goods at least 25 per cent. The increas- ed price will immediately reduce consumption, and no one can predict the extent of this decrease. Many people will wear their old clothes until they are out at the elbows and knees. The consequence will be overproduction, closing of mills and the throwing of thousands of persons out of em- ployment. 244 TARIFF REFORM. In view of the disastrous consequences which have fol- lowed the unfortunate legislation of 1867 and 1883, so far as wool and woolen manufactures are concerned — legislation which was dictated, in the main, by the National Wool- Growers' Association and the National Association of Wool Manufacturers — I respectfully suggest that those associa- tions should now "cease to tinker with the tariff." They have been boldest in their testimony as to the disasters which have resulted, and they have been the first to demand that "the national faith " which was pledged in 1883, and the alleged "treaty with the national industries " which was con- tained in the legislation of that year, shall be broken and violated, because the legislation turns out disastrously to the interests which invoked it. Let these gentlemen now " step down and out." They have utterly failed. They have shown themselves utterly incompetent to deal with this great interest. The remedy is not to increase the duties, but to lower them on manufactured products, and to put raw wool on the free list. In the language of the report to the Chamber of Com- merce of New York in 1874, to which I have already called attention, "facts as well as sound reasoning call loudly for the abolition of all duties on wool." Let me here inform the wool manufacturers that there will never be that " repose " which they deem so essential to the prosperity of their business until this question is settled on the principles of justice to the consumers of the country. You might just as well have hoped to settle the slavery ques- tion in this country by restricting its limits to the States in which it existed. There could have been no " repose " short of entire abolition, and there can be no "repose" on the wool tariff until wool is free ! There is no city in the Union which is more interested in free wool than is the city of Philadelphia. According to the census of 1880 there were 847,000 inhabi- tants in this city at that time, and there were 185,000 persons engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries. Her population in 1890 will doubtless exceed a million. Phila- delphia was the first city in the Union in the manufacture of brick and tile; of drugs and chemicals; in dyeing and finish- ing textile fabrics; in manufacturing mixed textiles; in ship- building, and in the manufacture of all kinds of woolen goods. She was second in importance in many other branches of in- dustry. THE Mckinley bill. 245 The industries of this great city which are virtually inter- ested in free wool represented 458 establishments; had in- vested $35,000,000 of capital, and had an output valued at $65,000,000, according to the census of 1880. The carpet industry alone required 170 establishments; woolen and worsted goods over 100 establishments, and mixed textiles and hosiery and knit goods required nearly 100 establish- ments each. Give these industries free wool, and an era of prosperity will ensue which will surpass the most sanguine expectations of any Revenue Reformer in the land. Let the present Congress, instead of increasing the duties on wool, put wool on the free list, and at the close of this century, ten years hence, it will be found that every industry m your city using wool as the chief raw material will have doubled the number of its establishments, doubled its output, and given employment to twice the number of persons, with better wages and steadier work than ever before realized. This prediction is warranted by the experience of the past, by the ef- fect of free material upon other industries, an'd by the experi- ence of the other great manufacturing countries of the world. In Germany, France, England, and other countries where woolen manufactures flourish there is free wool. Without free wool no country can successfully compete with others in woolen manufactures. No industries can pay the duties on raw materials imposed by the McKinley bill and flourish. If I were a Protectionist I would favor free wool, free hides, and other free raw materials, with revenue duties only on manufactured products, in order to give increased employment and better wages to labor; in order to enable our manufac- turers to compete in foreign markets with their foreign rivals,' and in order to enable our own people to enjoy the net results and highest skill of the labor of other countries. Free raw material and a revenue tariff on manufactured articles would give a permanence to the protective system which nothing else will do. But if the policy of taxing raw materials and excluding the manufactures of other countries is persisted in, the pendulum will swing to the other extreme, and perfect free trade will be the inevitable result. Pass the McKinley bill, and ten years will not elapse until half the woolen establishments of Philadelphia will be driven to the wall; their employes will be compelled to seek other places for employment, and grass will grow in the streets now busy with trade and commerce. After bankruptcy has done its perfect work, and after the 246 TARIFF REFORM. workingman can no longer be deceived with promises, or alarmed by the fear of " competition with the pauper labor of Europe," there will be a revolution in public sentiment that will hurl from power the party that is responsible for tax- ing raw material until manufacturing is ruined But why wait until "destruction wasteth at noonday ? " Why should we rush on blindly to the condition which came upon England prior to the repeal of the Corn laws — a condi- tion brought about by too much protection ? Let us avert the threatened danger by wise legislation. Let us remove the cause of depression in woolen manufactures by abolishing the high tariffs which have produced it. Hap- pily the remedy is in the hands of the people. In the election of the next Congress let us make "free wool and free raw materials " for our manufacturers the prominent issue, and success will crown our efforts. Give us 75 or 100 majority in the House of Representatives elected on this issue, and we can force an unwilling Senate and Executive to yield to the popular demand, and give the country free wool and a revenue tariff on woolen goods. A greater boon could scarcely be given the country. It would mark the dawn of a new era in our country's greatness and prosperity, and bring countless blessings upon the people in the shape of better clothes, better carpets, better beds, bet- ter health, and better houses in which to live. TARIFF REFORM MATTER. [prepared under the auspices of the reform club.] September, 1890. WHAT IS the matter WITH THE FARMERS ? The great depression found in New Yorli State and the ex- planation of it. Why the home market fails to make the farmer prosperous. I HAVE been talking to the farmers this week in regard to the effect that the tariff has upon them, and I will endeavor to point out some things which came under my observation. I found they were very attentive to their business, and I have been greatly surprised to find so much agricultural depres- sion in the rural districts. The values of the farms have de- preciated within the last five, ten, or fifteen years one-half on the average, sometimes much more. Numerous instances were pointed out to me showing that farms sold under mort- gage brought only one-third and even one-fourth of their value some years ago. Farms are heavily mortgaged as a rule, and I was informed by a gentleman in Broome County, N. Y., that of the farm mortgages foreclosed there were not five per cent, of them that sold for enough to pay the debt, in other words, the mortgagee had to take the farm for less than the amount of the mortgage. It is very important that the farmers should understand the cause of this depression. The leading Republicans are try- ing to discover some plausible reason outside of the effect of the protective tariff. Senator Warner Miller said a few days ago in a speech at Oswego that overproduction was the cause of agricultural depression. Nothing could be further from the truth or more absurd, and every farmer knows that there is no overproduction of his product. The rea- son is simply this: The farmers of the United States can produce more of the products of the farms than can be con- sumed in this country. The surplus must be sold abroad. The price at which the surplus is sold abroad fixes the price of the home product. When a farmer sells his products, whether he sells to his next-door neighbor, to the elevator 247 248 TARIFF REFORM. man, to the commission merchant, or whether he ships it to New Yorlf, he sells at the price fixed in New York, less the cost of carrying it there and commission, and the New York market is fixed by the Liverpool market, which is the cheap- est free trade market in the world. There the products of the farmers of this country come in direct competition with the products of Russia, Germany, France, Italy, India, and all the countries of the world, and in competition with all the pauper labor of the world. How is it when he comes to buy what he needs to support his family and keep his farm going ? He must buy in this home market, this protective market, the dearest market in the world. If he should take his goods abroad in person, and should sell them in England, or France, or Germany and invest the proceeds in such articles as he needs on his farm and in his household affairs, when he reached New York he would be required to pay, on an average, $50 tariff on every $100 worth of goods he bought abroad. This, then, reduces the purchasing power of the products of his farm one-half. If he does not buy abroad and approaches the American manufacturer of goods, the manufacture of which is pro- tected by a tariff, he finds this American manufacturer charging him the foreign price with the tariff added. So that in every event, whether he uses the home product or the foreign product, in buying them he finds the purchasing power of his own products only one-half what it would other- wise be were it not for the tariff. Now this process will not destroy in a night — it does not come upon the farmer like a cyclone, and wipe him out of existence in a few minutes; but it is like the dropping of water upon a stone — it is gradually wearing him out all the time. Notwithstanding the great fertility of his land, the application of improved machinery and the use of fertilizers, notwithstanding his extraordinary industry and frugality, every day he is confronted with the inexorable fact that the products which he has to sell are lessened one-half in pur- chasing power by reason of the tariff. This gradual deple- tion has had its inevitable effect. After twenty-five years of protective tariff, maintained principally by the votes of farm- ers, he finds that his situation is getting more desperate, his toil less remunerative, his farm depreciating continually in value, his indebtedness becoming greater. What consolation is it to him to reflect that a few favored individuals have be- come millionaires ? Some of them have accumulated for- TARIFF REFORM MATTER. 249 tunes of twenty, thirty, forty and fifty million dollars in one lifetime. None of this is for him; he is getting poorer every year. If protection insures the prosperity of the farmer, why is it that agriculture is languishing and groaning under the burden of tariff taxes ? Surely the tariff is nothing to the benefit of the farmers of the country. Why should they, therefore, cling to the delusion longer ? Why should they support the party that maintains this robbery, that fosters these great monopolies and trusts, that makes millionaires of the few and paupers of the toiling millions? What farmers need in this country is to be permitted to purchase in the same market in which they are compelled to sell. When this privilege is accorded them, and the purchas- ing power of their produce is increased 50 per cent., they will begin to emerge from the depression which is now bear- ing so heavily upon them. If they will turn at once from the error of their ways something may be saved from the wreck of their fortunes, but if they persist in their partisan blind- ness, if they continue to vote for the party which keeps up this spoliation of agriculture, they must prepare for the inev- itable result. Their farms will soon pass into the hands of capitalists and be consolidated into great baronial estates; private parks and hunting-grounds will be constructed; and the present occupants, gathering up the debris which they may find scattered about, must seek new homes in the far West, or move to the cities and seek employment in factories, or roam the streets. The alternative is inevitable. Will they choose this fall between a policy which oppresses them and one which will deliver them ? TARIFF REFORM MATTER. [prepared under the auspices of the reform club.] September, 1890. ABOUT reciprocity. Blaine's position a distinct advance, but there is no reason for not making Reciprocity wider still. Congressman William M. Springer of Illinois, who has been speaking on the tariff question on behalf of the Reform Club at various county fairs in New York State, when in New York City the other day granted to a member of the club an interview on the Reciprocity question. I have just found time (said Mr. Springer), to read Mr. Blaine's recent speech on the subject of Reciprocity with the Spanish-American States. It goes to show what effect is pro- duced upon the mind of the average protectionist when his pet theories begin to be exploded by the inevitable logic of events. The protective question in this country has reached the point at which its various advocates are compelled either to advance in the direction of absolute exclusion and the " Chinese wall," or to admit, much to their chagrin, that free trade with some countries is actually desirable. Mr. Blaine has perched for some years upon the protective fence, and is now compelled to get down on one side or the other. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Reed, and others younger and less experienced in public affairs, who obtained their idea of pro- tection from Horace Greeley and the doctrinaires of the so- called " American system," have got down on the other side. They succeeded in getting into the Chicago platform [of 1888] a declaration in favor of raising duties so as to restrict im- portations. This means, of course, to restrict trade of all kinds, except as to articles which cannot be produced in this country, since there can be no trade unless exportation fol- lows importation in nearly corresponding degree, for foreign trade is an interchange of products between the people of different countries. Mr. Blaine, it seems, believes that we ought to have some 250 TARIFF REFORM MATTER. 25 1 trade with some countries, and he points out the countries with which such trade would be desirable, and others with which trade would be detrimental. But here Mr. Blaine is confronted with one of the most cherished tenets of protec- tion, and one of which he has not yet learned the fallacy and supreme absurdity. I refer to the protectionist theory of the balance of trade. Mr. Blaine says that during the last year our trade with Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Canada, and the Sandwich Islands was as follows: Exports from the United States to these countries, $658,000,000; imports from these countries to the United States, $529,000,000. From this he argues a balance of $129,000,000 in our favor — equal, as he says, .to so much gold among our people. If trade is the exchange of products these figures might suggest that we had sent out to those countries $658,000,000 worth of our goods, and they had sent to us $529,000,000 of theirs, and that therefore they had got the better of us in the bargain to the extent of $129,000,000. Did it ever occur to Mr. Blaine that if a cy- clone had struck the fleets — flying the British flag, I am sorry to admit — that bore these goods from abroad, and had sent to the bottom $100,000,000 worth of the cargoes that started, that we should have been better off by $100,000,000 worth of goods thus sunk in the sea ? Certainly his argu- ments seem to lead to these conclusions. Turning from Europe, Asia, and Africa Mr. Blaine looks to the south of us, to countries whose people are chiefly agriculturists, our rivals in the markets of the world where our agricultural products are sold. Mr. Blaine imagines that he sees in Cuba, Brazil, and South America generally the most profitable field for the development of our trade on the plan of reciprocity. For instance, he states that in 1889 we lost more than $40,000,000 in our trade with Cuba. Here is the way he figures it out. Cuba sent us that year $52,000,- 000 worth of her products, chiefly sugar, and we sent her in exchange only $11,000,000 worth of our products. This, says Mr. Blaine, shows a direct loss to us of $41,000,000. Mr. Blaine seems to think that we really paid Cuba for $52,- 000,000 worth of sugar with $11,000,000 worth of our prod- ucts; and curiously enough he seems to suppose that we lost $41,000,000 by the transaction. The same argument holds good as to Brazil and Mexico, to which he refers. I am surprised that a man of Mr. Blaine's intelligence should evince so little acquaintance with the course of trade. 252 TARIFF REFORM. The facts are, in practical business, that during 1889 $52,- 000,000 worth of Cuban products, principally sugar, were brought into this country, and in paying for it we could send to Cuba at a profit only $11,000,000 worth of our goods. For the balance the Cuban merchants were paid not in gold, but in a check on a New York bank, and the deposit was drawn on to pay for American farm products, cotton, breadstuffs, provisions, and other articles that are grown in this country and can be sold at a profit in Europe, there being little or no market for them in Cuba. The cargo of these products went to some European port, and was there exchanged for manufactured goods of that country, such as cotton fabrics, clothing, dry goods generally, and other articles suited to the consumption of Cuba. Vessels conveyed these goods to Cuba, and thus the exchange was complete. In short it was thus: The Cuban merchant sold us sugar, and took in exchange cotton, provisions and breadstuffs of American growth. He took them to Europe, and there ex- changed them for European products suitable to Cuba, and these he took to Cuba, where they were consumed by the same people that produced the sugar sold to us in the first instance. Perhaps Mr. Blaine will contend that it would have been better for our country had the Cuban bought commodi- ties here and taken them direct to Cuba without going around by Europe, but the effect upon this country would be pre- cisely the same, except in so far as the cost of transporta- tion, which must be borne by the producer, is less to Cuba than to Europe. But it is not the Cuban's fault that he did not take back a cargo of our manufactured goods. The tariff so increases the cost of materials, raw or partly raw, entering into our manufactures that the product becomes unsalable at a profit outside of the United States. Thus the Cuban and South American who grow at home most of their breadstuffs are obliged to seek a market in Europe for most of our products taken in exchange for sugar sent to us. This is the effect of our tariff. Mr. Blaine may get reciprocity with all South America, and I hope he will. It would have some beneficial effects. But until our tariff is so reduced, especially on materials en- tering into manufactures, as to enable us to compete in Cuba and South America with European manufactured products his reciprocity will remain beautiful in theory, but of com- paratively little utility in its practical workings. Our trade TARIFF REFORM MATTER. 253 with Cuba and South America can be protected by the re- duction of our tariff to a strictly revenue basis and the plac- ing on the free list of all materials raw, or partly manufac- tured, that are essential to the manufacture of goods salable at a profit to countries south of us. Now, however, that Mr. Blaine has endeavored to en- lighten the unenlightened intellects of his fellow Protection- ists by teaching them that some kinds of trade with other countries are mutually beneficial I hope that in his next speech he will explain further why it is that free trade with South America and Cuba is desirable, while at the same time free trade with Canada would be injurious; and when he has crossed the Canadian line and embraced that country within his theory of reciprocity he must explain why it is that free trade is desirable with all the countries of the American conti- nent, but baneful when you cross salt water. If the salt hath lost its savor wherewith shall his theory be salted ? SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCTOBER 20, 1890. \_From the Detroit Free Press, Oct. 21, i8go.] Thousands of Democrats at the rink last night. — A brilliant open- ing of the fall campaign.— A masterly handling of the tariff law by Congressman Springer. The great campaign event of the season, the initial rally of the Democrats of Michigan, found its consummation at the Detroit rink last night. The weather had been lowering all daylong, with frequent bursts of rain. Yet the Democrats of Detroit and vicinity turned out en masse to hear the recognized leaders and orators of their party. Never has the Detroit Rink seen a larger or more demonstrative audience. To say that the speakers* were applauded to the echo would be but a trite expression of a fact. It would be more in keep- ing with the course of events to say that the enthusiastic reception of the orators of the evening was unbounded. ******* Chairman Campau, of the Democratic State Central Committee, introduced Honorable W. C. Maybury as Chairman of the meeting. Mr. Maybury, having returned thanks, introduced Honorable E. B. Winans, candidate for Governor, who spoke briefly. At the conclusion of the remarks of Judge Winans, the chairman introduced Congressman Wm. M. Springer in the following words: "Ladies and Gentlemen: — The session of Congress that justclosed was marked by two very significant events: First, the passage of the most iniquitous tax bill that ever was imposed on a free people [applause] ; and, second, the usurpation of power on the part of the majority, and a denial of the rights of the minority, such as this country never saw before, and I trust to God will never see again. [Applause.] The minority, while obliged by force of numbers to retire, retired not with their colors trailing, but with them at the mast-head, and they had leaders in their ranks gallant enough to protest against usurpation and tyranny. We have with us to-night one of the leaders of the minority in that battle, a man who taught Mr. Reed that there was a limit to tyrannical power. [Applause.] I had the pleasure of being present in the House when a distinguished member from Indiana was censured for demanding his rights upon the floor, censured by order of the majority, by the Speaker of the House. The distinguished gentleman, whom we have with us, at once placed himself at the head of the minority and walked to the front and insisted upon dividing the great honor of that censure. [Applause.] That man is William M. Springer. I have great pleas- *Judge Winans, Hon. J. Sterling Morton of Nebraska, and Hon. J. Logan Chipman, M. C, of Detroit, were the after-speakers at this meeting. 254 SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 255 ure in presenting to you Co,ngressman William M. Springer of Illinois." [Applause.] Congressman Springer was greeted with long-continued applause. [After referring briefly to the arbitrary acts of the House of Rep- resentatives in unseating Democratic members, and stating the pro- visions of the Force bill, Mr. Springer proceeded as follows:] The companion of this bill was the McKinley tariff — the McKinley iniquity, I believe it is called there [pointing to a streamer] ; that is a very good word to apply to it. [Laughter and applause.] These bills went to the Senate together, almost, but it was discovered that the Senate of the United States was still a deliberative body, that the Senators had retained the right to talk and to debate all public measures, and they found that it was impossible to pass both of these prior to the elec- tion, and they were to choose between them, and they took Barabbas. [Laughter.] They took the tariff bill, and con- cluded to pass that before the election, because there was money in that, there was business in that, and they could not postpone the time when it should take effect. They laid aside the election bill until after this election, to take it up as soon as Congress assembles, but they have passed the McKinley bill, and to that I desire to call your attention. The party in power were evidently of the opinion when the two bills were started in the House that it was necessary to pass both of them. They anticipated what has taken place already; that there would be a great uprising of the people against this bill as soon as it went into effect, and they were disposed at this November election to repudiate it, and they desired to have the election bill on hand. But they failed' in that, and we are to have another fair election, I hope, in this country, and when that is through it will be unanimous, almost an overwhelming repudiation of the Mc- Kinley bill and of the other bill also. [Applause.] Our Republican friends tell us they have given us free sugar by this bill, and upon this they are going before the people of the country, assuring them that the Republican party has done something to relieve them of a public burden and ask their approval on that ground. I notice that Mr. McKinley, in one of his speeches in this district a few days ago, stated indirectly, but with evident meaning, with no other meaning possible, that the McKinley bill was framed so as to impose the burdens of our government upon for- eigners; that the consumer did not pay the tax; that the tariff 256 TARIFF REFORM. brought everything down that is operated upon. Well, if the importers were paying the tax on sugar, why didn't he let them pay it? If Cubans and South Americans were paying the sugar tax, they did not object. Let them pay it to the amount of $55,000 a year. There was no demand on the part of the Cubans that they should be relieved of paying this burden to the United States. But we are assured by Mr. McKinley himself that the tariff on sugar did raise the price of sugar in this country, that it was a burden upon the Amer- ican people, and therefore they have put sugar below the 16 Dutch standard upon the free list. Now, this 16 Dutch standard does not have any relation to the German vote. [Applause.] Let there be no confusion on that point, but It was simply the distinction given by the government of Holland as to the fineness of sugar. That standard will allow sugar to come in; pale brown sugar we used to have in this country before the war. It will be called the democratic sugar, the poor man's sugar, because we will have to use that sugar upon our tables. The monopolist can have the white sugar hereafter or after this law takes effect. There will be a distinction between sugar for the people. But it is stated in this bill that the free sugar clause is not to take effect un- til the first day of April next. I did not understand, judge [addressing Judge Winans], why it was they fixed the first day of April, but I have got it through my head at last. That is April Fool's Day. [Applause.] They have undertaken by this bill to make the people believe they are going to have free sugar when they do not get free sugar, as you will see before I get through, and very appropriately they fixed the first day of April when it should take effect. Between this and the ist of April the sugar trust will be able to work off upon the people the high taxed sugar then on hand, so that you will have to pay for the taxed sugar by that time ; they will be ready to bring in the untaxed, and let me call your attention to Mr. McKinley's reason for this as he has stated it. He said on the report to the McKinley bill, which he submitted on the i6th of April, when that bill was reported to the House of Representatives, so large a proportion of our sugar is imported that the home production of sugar does not materially affect the price, and the duty is therefore a tax, which is added to the price not only of the imported but of the domestic products, which is not true of duties on articles of which we produce all we consume. I am very glad that Mr, McKinley, in an unguarded moment, allowed SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 257 a modicum of truth to drop from his lips. Here it is, the old Democratic doctrine that the tariff on sugar was a tax, and that it was not only a tax upon the sugar imported but upon the domestic product, and that it was borne by the con- sumer of sugar. The reason of that was that we do not make enough of the article in this country to supply our wants. Now you will always know when a tariff is a tax. If we do not produce enough of the article to supply our wants, it becomes a tax not only upon the foreign article but upon the domestic article, which is raised in price to meet the price of the foreign article which has paid the tax. [Applause.] Apply this rule to woolen goods, to cutlery, to glassware, to all the schedules nearly of the tariff bill, and you will find that it is a tax to be borne by the consumer, not only on the imported article but on the articles that are raised in this country. But Air. McKinley says, very appropriately, that this is not so upon articles raised substantially to the extent of our wants. It is not so, says Mr. McKinley, upon wheat; but they put 25 cents a bushel of tariff on wheat, and he knew, if he knew anything at all about it — and he did, because he is one of the best posted men in the country — that thirty bushels out of every one hundred of the wheat we raise in this country go abroad and find a market across the ocean; and therefore, if you put $1 a pound on wheat it could not raise the price of wheat in this country. [Applause.] So it is of corn, of oats, of hay, and nearly all of our agri- cultural products. We raise more than we can sell in this country and the surplus must go abroad, and the price which the surplus receives abroad fixes the price of the home product. But Mr. McKinley further states: In 1889 the duties collected on imported sugar and molasses amounted to $55,000,000. Add to those the in- crease of price on domestic sugar arising from duty and it is clear that the duties on sugar and molasses made the cost of the sugar and molasses consumed by the people of this coun- try at least $64,000,000. Now, remember that $64,000,000, or about $1 for each man, woman and child in the United States. More than it would have been if no such duties had been levied, and the domestic product had remained the same." Now, you know exactly what the tariff on sugar cost you. It is $1 on a baby even. Each man, woman and child had 258 TARIFF REFORM. to pay $1 on account of the tariff on sugar, and he pro- ceeds to take it off and aslcs the American people to give the credit to the party for that. Then he proceeds to argue that it would be cheaper to give the sugar producer a bounty, in- stead of the protection that is received by a tariff of 2 cents a pound upon the imported sugar, and then this bill allows, as it finally passed in the conference committee, i^ of a cent on one grade of sugar and on another 2 cents a pound, which is to be given hereafter for fifteen years, as a bounty on sugar produced in this country. Mr. McKinley indulges the hope and assumes that eventually, which I suppose is at the end of fifteen years, during which this bounty is to run — in a few years, some of them say, this bounty will so encourage its production in this country that we will produce all the sugar we can consume. If that is so, at the end of fifteen years we will be paying to the sugar manufacturers of Louis- iana, Kansas and California $64,000,000 in bounty on the sugar that will then be produced, so that where is the relief from free sugar if at the end of fifteen years we pay as much bounty as v/e now pay in tariff ? [Applause.] The first year, he says, will be $7,500,000. Let that rise like the steps of a ladder until fifteen years have been reached, when it amounts to $64,000,000, and you can have some idea of the enormous amount of bounty that has been appropriated for in this bill. For fifteen years, and the appropriation can not be stopped without the consent of both Houses of Congress and the approval of the President, or the passage of the bill over his veto, for the fifteen years the bounty will amount to at least $800,000,000 to the sugar growers. You will have to pay some of that bounty here. For the first year the bounty for the City of Detroit, your share of it, because it is paid out of the Treasury of the United States, where your money is, will amount to at least $20,000 a year, and $30,000 for the County of Wayne. You are starting in, therefore, upon a new sys- tem of bounty paying. I do not believe there is any warrant in the Constitution of the United States for the payment of bounties of this kind, or any other kind for encouraging private enterprises. The States, even, have not the right to do so. If I had time I would read from a decision of the Su- preme Court of the State of Michigan, and I ask the lawyers here to look to it and give it to the press to print. The opin- ion in the case was pronounced by judge Cooley — the People vs. Salem (20 Mich., 452). In that case the Supreme Court of Michigan held that there was no authority in the State of SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 259 Michigan to give bounties to manufacturing or otlier enter- prises. But the most important authority on this subject is that of the late lamented Justice Miller. I presume our Republican friends will not deny he was an eminent jurist, at least all of their papers are now filled with eulogies upon him, in which his abilities are extolled to the skies, and rightfully too. Mr. Justice Miller, in deciding the case of the loan association against Topeka, reported in 20 Wallace, 655, held that "to lay with one hand the power of the government on the prop- erty of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon fa- vored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation." [Applause.] In this case the City of Topeka had issued bonds to the amount of $100,000 and given them to a manufacturing establishment to encourage manufacture. These bonds had gone into the hands of innocent holders, and interest had been paid on them for four or five years, when a taxpayer enjoined the pay- ment of interest and perpetually enjoined the payment of the principal of the bonds, and that was done by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, pro- nounced in the case by Justice Miller. In the face of this authority the Republican majority in Congress, in order to get the votes of the Kansas Senators and Representatives and the California Senators and Representatives for the McKin- ley bill, put into it a provision granting a bounty on sugar for fifteen years to come. I believe the Supreme Court will declare this bounty void, but if that body should dodge behind the rule that it is a political question and say that the Congress alone may deter- mine it, and if it has become the policy of this country to pay bounties to private enterprises, then you will find that other industries will demand their share. Why, if they could give bounties for sugar, why didn't they give a bounty on wheat in the State of Michigan and the other States of the Union where wheat is very frequently unprofitable as an in- dustry? Why not give it in cash instead of that fraudulent bounty, the deceptive protective tariff of 25 cents a bushel, which protects nothing? Hereafter, if this bounty system, therefore, is to be the law of the land, the farmers will take theirs in cash when they call on the boards of trade — spot cash, with no foolishness about it. [Applause.] So much, therefore, for free sugar and this bounty; but you will find 26o TARIFF REFORM. in the third section of the tariff bill that a string has been tied to the free-clause provision of the bill, and the other end of the string has been put in the hands of President Harrison, and he is authorized on the first day of January, 1892, to pull back this provision and reimpose the tax upon sugar. Upon what conditions may he do this ? Upon the conditions of which he is to be the sole judge. There was no reason, no pretext, for this violation of the Constitution in the effort to confer legislative powers upon the President, unless it was in their distrust of the people of the United States. They evidently feared that the McKinley bill would not be popular with the people, and that the next House of Representatives, which will be in session on the first day of January, 1892, would not be in favor of reimposing a tax upon sugar and tea and coffee and hides, as provided in this so-called reciprocity proceeding. Therefore they gave this power to reimpose taxes upon these articles to the President of the United States, and upon that day he may put a tariff upon sugar and tea of 10 cents a pound, coffee 3 cents a pound, hides i y^ cents, imposing taxes upon them and put- ting upon the free list, which will yield a revenue, as on the last year's importations, of at least $52,000,000 a year. And what are the conditions or circumstances that are to guide him in this matter ? If he shall be satisfied, the law says, that the country exporting these articles has placed upon our agricultural or other products any imposts or restrictions which the President may deem reciprocally unequal and un- reasonable, he is to have the power, as often as he sees fit, to reimpose these taxes. But I desire to call your attention to the facts that the reimposing of the sugar tax is not the pres- ent tax, or the late tax on sugar, but it is a provision gotten up in the interest of the sugar trust, and the sixteen standard has been lowered to the thirteen, as standard for the lower tax on sugar. It will be seen that sugar under the thirteen standard is taxed only seven-tenths on a pound, 70 cents on the 100 pounds, while sugars above that are taxed from i^ cents to 2 cents a pound. Therefore, all the sugar that comes in under the tax that Mr. Harrison will impose must go through the refiners, must go into the hands of the sugar trust, before a pound of it can come onto the tables of the people. [Applause.] This will enable the trust, therefore, to control the sugar. They believe, and they count it just, that the enormous appropriations of the last session, and those of the next session of Congress, would create a deficit SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 261 by that time that they could only meet by reimposing the tax on tea, and the tax on coffee, and the tax on hides, and the tax on sugar, and that authority to reimpose these taxes so as to avoid the deficit with which they are threatened has been given to the President of the United States, and that when that has been done, the trust will have accumulated for nine months sugar without paying any tax, and will have a stock on hand that will run them for the next six or eight months, and then sell it as if it had paid a tax into the treas- ury of the United States. There is also in the refining, under this new clause, a net profit to the sugar trust of the sugar refiners of at least half a cent a pound upon the three billion consumed in this coun- try, which will yield them at least $15,000,000 a year over and above a reasonable profit upon the expense required in refining the sugar. So that this provision is in the interest of the sugar trust and the sugar refineries, and is intended to be reimposed, or they would not put it in this bill — in- tended to be reimposed on the first day of January, 1892. They need it for two purposes: First, to avoid a deficit which will then threaten them, and, second, to receive as a consid- eration from the sugar trust a sufficient amount of funds to renominate President Harrison and re-elect him in 1892. So much, therefore, for free sugar. It is very appropriate that they put it in force on the first day of April, as I suggested before. Take up the other provisions of this bill, and I must be very brief because we are to be followed by a gentleman who has studied this subject for a great many years, from the State of Nebraska, and with whom you are all well acquainted. I have been amused at the attempted explanation at the re- ductions in this bill. They point to the chemical schedule and tell us how much reduction has been made there, and I see it is a quarter of a cent, and half a cent on glue, vitriol and camphor and chloroform. Well, they ought to put chloroform on the free list, but they reduced it a little so as to get, I suppose, the people under the influence of it that they might not know — when they were robbing. [Applause and laughter.] I find that there is a boasted reduction here of the tariff on beams and girders used for bridges and in these large houses; it is thirty-five one-hundredths of one cent a pound. Now, I will not undertake to say how much that is, but you get your bookkeeper that has some leisure and put him to work upon 262 TARIFF REFORM. it to see how it is, just as a matter of curiosity. The above rates are, however, prohibitory, and you will find that in all the reductions in this bill, when they are made upon the articles the people use, those redactions are in vulgar frac- tions, but when they come to make an increase it is expressed in the old-fashioned multiplication table. They proceed then to increase the tariff all along the line on the other articles. The next schedule reached is woolen goods, and they have raised the tariff on woolens 33 per cent, all along the line; i4>^ on the goods coming in and not less than 60 on the woolen goods made in this country, they will be mcreased an additional burden of at least $75,000,000 on the most neces- sary of all articles consumed by the people. Why, we can get along without sugar. I only use a teaspoonful every twenty-four hours. Some people use more. I have heard of people who put it in their whiskey. I do not require it for anythincr but coffee. But I cannot get along without woolen goods You could not inhabit the State of Michigan with out woolen goods. The health and comfort of this people and the very inhabiting of this region depends upon a liberal supply of woolen goods, and the consumption m this country last year amounted to $350,000,000 worth at wholesale prices. This IS the place where the people can be reached from the cradle to the grave in every family in the land. Woolen goods are absolutely necessary, and they have seized upon these and heaped your burdens up at least $75,000,000 m the Mc- Kinlev bill. In the schedule on iron there is an increase of at least $10,000,000 on the imported article, besides an in- crease on the articles produced in this country. And one of the articles in that bill is an increase on tin plates from i cent a pound, as the law was before, to 2.2 cents tr pound. Last year the imports of tm plate amounted to £1 000 000. The tax of i cent per pound brought into the Treasur'y of the United States $7,000,000. But the Nationa T n-platl Association came to Washington and said to us that I cent a pound would not protect the manufacturers of t m plate L this country, and that they desired to have . -ised o 2.2 cents per pound, and they would have a newmfan industry to be protected by the government of the United S at^s^ ??" gress dropped into the proposition at once, and J^ t^e McKm lev bill the taxes rise two and two-tenths, to take place the s^ day of Jdly, nine months from this time before that infan is to b^briug^ht into this world. The plain English of this hat the government of the United States is to take out of SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 263 its treasury, or keep from going into it, $7,500,000 that now is received, and authorized them also to tax the American people to the extent of $8,500,000 more on the price of tin that they consume, making a bounty to the tin plate associ- ation of $16,000,000 a year in order that we may have our tin plate made under the Stars and Stripes, so that here- after they will make, as they tell us, enough tin plate to sup- ply this country; nothing will come in from abroad in taxes into the people's treasury, but the tin will cost $16,000,000 a year more than it would cost if tin were on the free list where the Mills bill put it and where it ought to be. [Ap- plause.] The pretext of this is that it will give employment to 15,- 000 more persons in this country. Well, the people that are here already are reasonably well employed when there is a fair chance for work; but the effect of it will be to turn out of employment in Wales the 15,000 people that are there making this tin plate and sending it over here; and as the passage from Wales to New York is only about $12 a head, the whole outfit will be brought over to Pittsburg and the Stars and Stripes will be raised over the Welshmen. [Derisive applause.] They will be making your tin plate here, and the Tin-plate Association will be filching from the people $16,- 000,000 a year for the privilege that you have of paying it. [Applause.] But that is not all. England last year took from the United States $366,000,000 of the products of our farms. We only took of her manufactured articles and such products as she could send, $166,000,000. England took all of our products that she could pay for with her products, and the proposition in the McKinley bill as to tin plates is to take away $21,- 000,000 of the market of the farmers of this country for their products that they have had heretofore and to turn $21,000,- 000 worth of produce back upon you to depress the price of all that you raise in this country. So that the farmer is robbed at both ends of the line, by having the $21,000,000 of the foreign market destroyed, and the price of the tin that he consumes raised in common with the price to all the peo- ple, to the extent of $16,000,000 in addition. [Applause.] By the cotton schedule there is an increase of over $2,- 000,000 in this bill on the articles imported ; on the linen schedule over $5,000,000, and on the iron schedule, as I stated before, $10,000,000; and on the whole of this bill, or articles outside of tea and coffee, that is, on the dutiable 264 TARIFF REFORM. articles — articles still on the dutiable list — there is an increase of tariff impositions of $64,000,000 a year. This is all that is claimed for the reduction on sugar by the friends of the bill ; but it does not cover what is called the protection of the manufacturers in this country, which they will receive in the increased cost of all these articles that are raised by virtue of the tariff on the foreign product, as in the case of sugar under the rule laid down by Mr. Mc- Kinley as to that article. That increase upon domestic articles which the people of this country will pay will be an entirely new burden imposed upon them by this bill, from which there is no escape what- ever. That increase will amount to at least $100,000,000 a year, so that, with free sugar counted in, the increased bur- den to the American people by virtue of the McKinley bill is not less than $100,000,000 a year. And we were already paying, as I supposed, enough to satisfy these monopolists and trusts; but it seems that we were not. They demand more and I presume they will get it, and it depends upon the American people as to how long this state of affairs shall continue. If they do their duty in this election, and in the election of the next House of Representatives will send a majority of Democrats, you will find a weakening along the line and they will be compelled to give up some of these outrageous proceedings of impositions upon the American people. [Applause.] The Mclvinley bill is intended to foster trusts. It is the very parent of combinations for the purpose of raising prices upon the people. Go to your merchants in your own city and ask them to show you the letters they are receiving every day from the persons with whom they deal, warning you that the prices are going up upon all the necessaries of life. It is a fact; it is no longer a theory that we have to talk about before the American people. You are now confronted with a condition in reference to it. [Applause.] That condition is higher prices for all necessaries of life, and no increase whatever in wages or salaries of any kind. [Applause.] I have yet to hear of the manufacturing establishment that has raised its wages on account of the increase in the duties on the articles they are making. The duties on woolen goods have been increased, as I said before, ^^ per cent. Has any manufacturer of woolen goods raised the wages of the men or the women in his factory one iota on account of this bill ? [Cries of *• No, no,"] Has any person employing labor in SPEECH OF DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 265 any of these protected industries proposed in a single instance to raise tlie wages of tlie men employed ? Nowhere, anywhere in this land has such a suggestion been made, but I have read that a trust has been formed in car- pets by which, on the ist day of November, 40 per cent, of the production is to be destroyed and an agreement entered into by the manufacturers of carpets, as a result of the 33 per cent, increase in this bill, that they will stop production of carpets, and forty men out of every hundred that are en- gaged in the making of carpets in the city of Philadelphia are, on the ist day of November, in the face of an approaching winter, to be turned out of employment in order that the trust may sell the 60 per cent, which they make for what they would have sold the 100 per cent, if they had made it. Thus they give employment to labor. Thus they rob the workingmen of the country. Since President Harrison was elected, in anticipation of the passage of some such measure as the McKinley bill, there have been organized in this coun- try some forty or fifty or 100 combinations of persons for the purpose of taking advantage of a bill of this kind, by reduc- ing production and raising the price of the necessaries of life. I have not time to explain these, but I will give you the names of a few of them and you will recognize them. They are quite familiar in some parts of the country. The first I see on the list is the twine trust. Have you heard of that ? We wanted it on the free list. The people wanted it on the free list, but we were told by those who wanted to keep it on the taxable list that a tax on twine would bring down the price of twine, and they wanted to put the price higher. But the farmers have learned something about twine, namely, that the higher the tax was the higher the price was, so they demanded that twine should be on the free list, but they did not get it. They got a reduction, which is said to be important, and when you get a reduction on twine I wish you would drop me a note to Springfield, 111. [Laughter.] It always amuses me when I hear my Republi- can friends tell me about a tariff bringing down the price of everything on which it operates, telling the people how much it has brought down steel rails, and a few things that they mention, calicoes, for instance,' and all those things, that it brings the price down, and they turn around to the farmer and say we are going to do something for you, we are going to raise the tariff on agricultural products. What for ? To bring them up. [Laughter.] So that this tariff of theirs will 266 TARIFF REFORM. bring down the prices of manufactured articles, and when you put it on agricultural products it brings them up. It is a convenient tariff just before election. That provision ought to have been put in force on the ist day of April, with the sugar tax. [Laughter.] Then there was the sugar trust, the barbed wire trust, the wire nail trust, and the wire rod trust, and the tin plate trust, and the borax trust, and the rubber boot and shoe trust, and the coffin trust. Under this bill they have raised the price of tombstones from 20 to 40 per cent. [Laughter.] They have raised the tax on the linen on the shroud, so that a man cannot afford to die. [Laughter.] And if he should forget some day and shuffle off this mortal coil, his wife will be charged 40 per cent for erecting a monument to his memory. I remember, when my friend Caruth was coming to this part of the bill, he thanked God that there was something left that was not taxed. He said, " I see in this bill everything is taxed from the cradle to the grave, but beyond the grave I find that salvation is on the free list. [Applause ] Thank God salvation is free, but it is the only free thing I know of except the conditionally free sugar, which is not so very free after all." I was very much interested, in view of these enormous combinations that had been made, with the closing remarks upon this bilt, of Senator Sherman of Ohio. In the Senate Mr. Sherman expressed the hope that manufacturers would avoid those trusts that gave popular discontent, and that on the contrary they would invite fair competition and give to the people the benefit of such competition and of cheaper production. If they did not do so he would be as ready to vote for the repeal of the law as he now was to vote for its passage. If this bill was to give such opportunities for these combinations and trusts why did they vote for it at all ? It seems to me that the very fact that these combinations can be made under this law was a sufficient reason for voting it down instead of voting it up. But Senator Sherman indulges the hope. What a hope it is ! He hopes that these trusts will not take advantage of all the law allows them. [Laughter.] You might as well hope that a hungry lion would not make a breakfast off the fat lamb if he got an opportunity to do so. He hopes that these gentlemen will not do as he says they can do, and then threatens them that, if they do dare to form these trusts, which he knew they had already formed, at the next session he would introduce a bill to repeal the Mc- Kinley bill which made these trusts possible. As soon as SPEECH AT DETROIT, OCT. 20, 189O. 267 that statement was reported in the House and the bill was taken over there, on its final passage, Mr. Peters of Kansas wanted to head off this Ohio Senator who had gone too far in promises (in fact our Republican friends are always promis- ing what they are going to do for the dear people) Mr. Peters said he was going to introduce a bill to make it a penitentiary offense for any Congressman to introduce a bill to repeal or modify the McKinley bill for the next ten years. So that it seems they have not only got this law in the statute book, but they are going to make it a criminal offense for any Con- gressman to get rid of it. Brother Chipman, I am afraid you and I will get into the penitentiary yet if this law is passed. [Laughter.] As far as I am concerned the penitentiary will not terrify me from introducing a bill to repeal or materially modify this act, and I shall repeat it on every occasion in which it is proper for a Representative to do so. [Cheers.] They tell us that the tariff question is now settled and that we must not talk about it any more. I tell them that it is not settled. We were told in 1820 that the slavery question was settled. We were told in 1850 that it had been settled, settled forever, but it was not settled. In 1865 it was settled by its entire extinction, and I tell those who favor this tariff that it will never be settled in this country until it is settled upon the fundamental principle of equality of burdens among the American people, [Tremendous applause.] ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 1891.* PROTECTION DOES NOT PROTECT FARMERS. SPEECH AT SPENCER, IOWA, Friday, September 18, 1891. After some preliminary remarks of a local character, Mr. Springer said: At no time during the past thirty years has the Democratic party been in complete control of both branches of Congress and the Presidency. During six congresses there was a Dem- ocratic majority in the House of Representatives and during one Congress, in the Senate, and during one Presidential term of four years the President was a Democrat. But at no time could the Democratic party enact new legislation or re- peal that which was old without the consent of a Republican Senate or President. The Republican party is therefore re- sponsible for the legislation of the country since 1861. That some of the legislation during this time has been wholesome, none deny; that much of it has beeii vicious, unjust and op- pressive, many of us assert and believe. The most important legislation during this period is that which relates to taxation. To the legislation upon this sub- ject I ask your attention. Soon after the war began it became necessary to raise a large revenue. Taxes of all kinds were imposed. Taxes upon incomes, upon occupations of all kinds, upon bank checks, upon conveyances and successions, upon domestic manufactures and productions and upon goods imported from foreign countries. Soon after the war was over Congress repealed most of these taxes, especially those bearing heavily upon the wealthy and those most able to pay. The income *Mr. Springer delivered eleven speeches in Iowa during this cam- paign, one in each Congressional district. His speech at Spencer is given in full. It had been carefully prepared, and is one of his best productions. It was published in supplement form in all the Demo- cratic papers of the State during the campaign. It points out the most objectionable features of the McKinley bill and exposes the utter failure of protection so far as agriculture is concerned. 268 ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 269 tax, taxes upon bank deposits, succession taxes and stamp duties, and all internal taxes, except those on liquors and tobacco, have all been repealed. But the taxes which bear heaviest upon labor and the agricultural interests have been generally retained and greatly increased from time to time. The last Congress passed what is known as the McKinley bill, which further increased the taxes which bear heaviest upon the great mass of the people. Immediately after the passage of the McKinley bill the people at the polls admin- istered a severe rebuke to its authors, in the election of mem- bers of the Fifty-second Congress. A majority of 158 members were elected in opposition to that measure. Its friends now insist that its provisions were not understood; that they were misrepresented, and after a year's experience ask a rehearing and a new trial. In Iowa, Ohio, New York and a few other States important State elections will be held in November next, which will turn largely upon the merits of the tariff legislation of the last Congress. But the great con- test upon this question will occur in 1892, when another Con- gress and a president are to be elected, and the question of tariff reform must then be fought to a finish. It is impor- tant, however, that in Iowa and other State elections this fall, there should be no step backward. Let the friends of tariff reform move steadily forward, subordinating all other ques- tions to this overshadowing issue. AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION. Notwithstanding the fact that the tariff legislation of the Republican party was enacted, as is claimed, largely in the interest of agriculture, yet it is conceded that there has been great depression in this industry. The report of the Ways and Means Committee on the McKinley bill referred to the great depression then existing in agricultural industries, and attributed it to " a most damaging foreign competition in our home market." So far as the people of the South and West are concerned there has been no competition from abroad with their products, damaging or otherwise. The great ex- port product of the South is cotton — with that there has been no competition from abroad. The West exports cattle, pro- visions and breadstuffs, and with those there is no damaging foreign competition, nor can there be in the very nature of things. But the McKinley bill, so far as it relates to agri- cultural products, assumes that such products as the farmers of Iowa and the West raise must be protected from foreign 270 TARIFF REFORM. competition of like products in our home market, and in order to remedy this, the bill proceeds to raise the tariffs on wheat, corn, pork, cattle, horses, hay and farm products generally. If there is any direct benefit, then, in the recent legislation of Congress for farmers it must be looked for in the increase of the tariff on wheat from 20 to 25 cents a bushel; on corn from 10 to 15 cents a bushel; on hay from $2 to $4 per ton; on hogs from 20 per cent, ad valorem to $1.50 per head; on hams from 2 to 5 cents a pound; on beef, mutton and pork from I to 2 cents a pound; on barley from 10 to 30 cents a bushel; on horses and mules valued under $150 from 20 per cent, ad valorem to $30 per head; on potatoes from 15 to 25 cents a bushel ; on eggs from the free list to 5 cents a dozen, and on some other articles of little importance to the farmers of Iowa. If the farmers of this State and the West can dis- cover in these changes in the tariff laws any relief or benefit to them, they are easily satisfied or greatly deceived. It is possible that some farmers may derive benefit from the tariff on barley, but their number is few compared with the great number of farmers in the country, and the amount of benefit small. The very fact of imposing duties on agricultural products ought to be met with condemnation by protection- ists who desire to aid agriculture; for protectionists continu- ally assert that the placing of protective tariffs on an article stimulates its production and thus reduces its price. The very doctrine of McKinley and his followers, when applied to agriculture, condemns itself. If tariffs bring down the price of all articles upon which they operate, as protectionists claim, why impose them upon agricultural products ? They are already too low for profitable production. RECIPROCITY. It would not be just to the authors and defenders of the McKinley bill to omit reference to the provisions in relation to reciprocity, which, it is claimed, "have opened wide to us in other lands commercial gates, hitherto barred," to the prod- ucts of our farms and factories. These "wide gates," so called, are in the direction, so far, of Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil. The friends of Mr. Blaine claim that he is entitled to letters patent on these new gates. In one particular only is he entitled to priority of discovery in this matter. His idea of reciprocity seems to be that it is only desirable when con- fined to those countries where Spanish or Portuguese is spoken, or, geographically speaking, to countries south of the United ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I 271 States. But most people will conclude that if reciprocity is desirable with Spanish-speaking states, it will also be desirable with other governments, and especially with countries where we have, or can have large trade and commerce. Commercial treaties have recently been concluded with Brazil and with Spain, by which certain products of the United States are to be admitted into Brazil, and into Cuba and Porto Rico, at either reduced rates or free of duty. By these treaties it is fondly hoped we may get a market for a few more barrels of flour and a few more pounds of pork. But the increased trade will be very little, if any, and the effect on the general com- merce of the country will not be perceptible. The theory is beautiful, but the practice will be of little utility to this coun- try. What are the facts ? The whole population of Cuba and Porto Rico is less than 4,000,000, and the great majority of the people are ex-slaves, the poorest kind of poorly paid labor. Cuba purchased only $12,500,000 worth of our products in 1890, and Porto Rico not one-fourth as much. Brazil pur- chased during the same year about $11,000,000 worth of the products of the United States. During the same year we purchased from Cuba products valued at $53,000,000; from Porto Rico $4,000,000, and from Brazil $59,000,000. Com- pare the trade of these countries with that of Canada, Great Britain and Ireland, Germany, and France. With these countries our trade in 1890 was as follows: Countries. Imports into U. S. Exports from U S. Canada , $ 39,000,000 $ 40,000,000 Great Britain and Ireland 157,000,000 386,000,000 Germany 98,000,000 85,000,000 France 77,000,000 50,000,000 Totals $371,000,000 1561,000,000 The aggregate trade of these countries amounted to over $900,000,000 in 1890. In 1891, the present year, it will prob- ably reach $1,000,000,000. These countries also take of our productions $190,000,000 more than we purchase from them. Great Britain and Ireland alone purchase nearly $230,000,000 worth of our products more than we do of theirs, and the ag- gregate of the trade with England is over $540,000,000 a year. Why not have reciprocity with these and other coun- tries where the trade is already enormous, and where immense benefits are to be obtained by fostering and facilitating com- mercial exchanges ? The Democratic party is in favor of reciprocity. Not the narrow and worthless article which is 272 TARIFF REFORM. confined to countries where labor is degraded and poorest paid, and where the least amount of business is practicable or possible; but a reciprocity with the great governments and peoples of the world, where there are wealth, ability to pay, vast numbers of consumers, and where the greatest profits and advantages are offered to all concerned. In short, we favor reciprocity which will secure reciprocal benefits. PORK PRODUCTS. The exclusion of the pork products of the United States by Germany and France, in retaliation for the exclusion of Ger- man and French manufactures from this country by our tariff legislation, has already destroyed more of the foreign markets for American produce than can be gained by a thousand years of Mr. Blaine's reciprocity scheme with the South American states. In 1881 our exports of hog products amount- ed to $104,000,000. In 1889 they were reduced to $66,000,- 000. The decrease since 1881, compared with the exports of that year, will show how the foreign market for pork products has been closed to American farmers, due entirely to the tariff policy of this country. We ought to have not only maintained the exports of 1881, but should largely have in- creased them, by reason of the general increase of our for- eign trade due to natural causes. But instead of this, we have lost every year since 1881 in our exports of pork prod- ucts. The decrease from i88i to 1882 was over $21,000,- 000; between 1881 and 1883 over $33,000,000, and so on for each year, showing a loss of our foreign market for hog prod- ucts during the past ten years of over $336,000,000. And this loss continues from year to year, and there was not a section or a line in the McKinley bill to reclaim this market. On the contrary, we largely increased the duties on many French and German products, and thus " flung defiance in their face." Why was not a section put in the McKinley act to the effect that certain manufactured products of those countries could be admitted free or at reduced rates if those countries would again admit our pork products? This would have been reciprocity that would have resulted in reciprocal benefits to all concerned But this policy would have inter- fered with the profits of some of the favored industries and pet monopolies of this country — with some protected manu- facturers," from whom "the fat" is fried every four years for the purpose of raising a corruption fund with which to ensure the election of protectionist congresses and presidents. These ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 273 favored individuals must not be offended. The farmers may lose a market for their pork products, in which they could dispose of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of their prod- ucts, but there must be no interference with the trusts and protected monopolists. It is well known that the high duties upon pork and its ex- clusion by Germany and France was upon the pretext that our pork was diseased. This was only a pretext. The real ground of the movement against this product was for the purpose of protecting the home industry in Germany and France of raising pork. However, the attack upon our great staple on the ground of its diseased quality discredited it in otner countries than Germany and France, and much of the loss of our exports was in other European countries on this account. But this fact does not relieve the situation from the fact that the attack, the high duties and the exclusion would not have been made if our country had not so highly taxed the importation of so many products of Germany and France. The loss of our market was not the only loss sustained by American farmers. The refusal of other countries to pur- chase the usual amount of our pork products overstocked, as it were, the home market and depressed the prices of the whole product. This depression was at once felt. As soon as France, for instance, excluded our pork products, the pork market in the United States was greatly excited, and a de- cline ensued, which has not been recovered up to this time. The loss on this account to the producers of pork cannot be estimated. The decline of r cent a pound on the whole product would amount to many millions of dollars. The average annual price of mess pork per barrel in New York for the year 1882 was $19.79; fo"^ 1883 it was $16.59; ^"d for the succeeding years, down to 1889, as far as I have received the reports, the decline was to $16.48, $11.58, $10.63, f^S) $15.10, $12.57^^. There was a similar decline in the price of bacon and hams. The average price in New York for 1883 was II. 2 cents per pound. For 1884 it was 10.2 cents. For 1886 it was only 7.5 and in 1889 it was 8.6. All other pork prod- ucts declined in a like proportion. In 1883, 627,000,000 pounds of pork products sold for $70,000,000, or 11.2 cents a pound. In 1886, 791,000,000 pounds, or 164,000,000 more pounds, sold for only $57,000,000, or $13,000,000 less. How much the producers of pork lost by these depressions of the home market it is impossible to estimate. But the depart- 2/4 TARIFF REFORM. ment of agriculture furnishes some indication of this in its annual reports for 1890. In 1883 there were 43,000,000 swine in the United States and they were valued at $291,951,000, or a little over $6.75 per head. In 1884 there were 44,000,- 000 hogs which were valued at only $246,000,000. If they had been worth as much per head as in 1883, they would have been worth $52,000,000 more. In 1885 there were 45,000,000 head, valued at $226,000,- 000. If they had been worth as much per head as in 1883 they would have been worth $304,000,000, or $78,000,000 more. In 1886 the decline amounted to $114,000,000; in 1887 the loss was $101,000,000; in 1888 it was $77,200,000; in 1889 it was $48,000,000, and in 1890 it was $104,900,000. The aggregate of these shrinkages in values of live hogs for seven years is $575,000,000 (see U. S. statistical abstract, 1889, page 296). I am not responsible for these figures. They are furnished by the agricultural department. I do not claim that the producers of pork products in the United States, by reason of the high duties on pork in many Eu- ropean countries and its exclusion in France and Germany have actually lost in cash $336,000,000; or that they have actually lost $575,000,000 by the depression in prices of live hogs since the retaliatory legislation of Germany and France. But I do claim that such legislation has reduced the foreign demand for our pork products and depressed the prices of the entire home product to an enormous extent. Just how much the loss has been it is impossible to estimate. But that it runs up into the hundreds of millions of dollars there can be no doubt. One fact is clearly demonstrated that by reason of our protective tariff, enacted to satisfy the greed of monopolists and favored classes, the farmers of the country are compelled to raise more pounds of pork products and to sell them for less money. It is poor consolation to farmers to be told that it is the "home market" which is thus secured to them. They would doubtless prefer that wider "commercial gates" were opened to them, through which they might secure the largest remu- neration for the smallest quantities of their products. We can not estimate the damage done to our foreign trade by our tariff laws in the loss of markets for other products of our farms. All trade between different countries is a matter of barter. All other things being equal, the trade between countries would always balance. In other words we can only sell to other countries to the extent that we buy of them. If ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 275 we refuse to buy the products of other countries they must refuse to buy of us. Those who take a superficial view of the case may suggest that we buy of Cuba $53,000,000 worth a year and that Cuba buys only $12,000,000 from us. That is all true. But this difference is made up in our dealings with other countries. England buys $230,000,000 a year more than we buy from her. But this fact is easily accounted for. Much of our South American purchases are paid for by sending products of the United States to Europe and selling them there, and then paying for the goods by exchange on London. We owe England many millions a year also for carrying our freight on the high seas, and for interest on American securities. If all these things were taken into ac- count, and imports and exports were valued by a uniform standard, our trade statistics would substantially balance with other countries. Our tariff laws have placed such high duties upon many manufactured products of other countries as to practically exclude such products from our country. Every dollar's worth of foreign manufactures which our tariff laws keep out of this country, closes a foreign market for an equal amount of the products of our farms. GERMANY OPENS THE GATE. Two or three weeks ago Germany revoked her edict of ex- clusion of American pork, but retained her tariff on its im- portation, amounting to 2% cents a pound. Republican newspapers are claiming this action on the part of Germany as a great triumph of Mr. Blaine's foreign policy. This is a mistake. It simply means that Germany is undergoing the same change of sentiment on the tariff question that was shown in this country by the election of representatives in Congress a year ago. That country has discovered, that pro- hibitory tariffs and decrees are as injurious to its own citizens as they are to the countries whose products are thus excluded. The people of Germany are demanding cheaper meat, cheaper bread and freer trade. The new emperor is a grandson of Queen Victoria, and has imbibed the principles of English political economists. He has already negotiated a com- mercial treaty, or treaty of reciprocity with Austria-Hungary, and similar treaties are in contemplation with other conti- nental countries of Europe. Let us hope that France will follow Germany's example and at once admit our pork prod- ucts. Such action would result in restoring to our farmers the market for their product, from which they have been ex- 276 TARIFF REFORM. eluded for so many years, and with such disastrous results. The Republican party is entitled to no credit for removing the embargo on American pork in Germany. The people of Germany, who have been outraged for so many years by be- ing compelled to pay two or three prices for their meats, have demanded the repeal of the obnoxious measure. The de- mand for cheaper necessaries of life and freer trade was heeded by the government, and the people on both sides of the ocean have been greatly benefited by the change. The high protection policies of Bismarck and McKinley have re- ceived a signal rebuke from the people of Germany and the United States. Both countries are realizing the insufifi.ciency of the home market, and are reaching out towards the mark- ets of the world. MARKETS ON THIS SIDE OF THE OCEAN ONLY. While Mr. Blaine and his especial admirers are lauding the policy of reciprocity with Cuba, Porto Rico, and Brazil, and are searching for a new market for another pound of pork or barrel of flour where they are least likely to find it^ Mr. McKinley is holding aloft in Ohio the policy of the Chinese wall of exclusion. He addressed an audience of farmers on the 1 8th of August last, in Richland County, on which occa- sion he pointed out the advantages to be derived from a home market, and showed how nice it was to have a factory adjoining the farm. He said "the farmers wanted to raise the bread to sell to factory hands." He then submitted to his audience this question, and got the answer desired. I quote from a report of his speech as published in one of his partisan organs: " Would the farmers of Richland County rather have their customers on this side or on the other side of the ocean ? " [A voice, " This side."] "Of course you would." This is the whole creed of the protectionists. Your mar- ket must be on this side of the ocean only. The response Major McKinley received was from one of his misguided partisans. If a Democrat had cared to submit an answer, he would have said: "On both sides." What farmer is there in Iowa who would not rather have the market for his pork prod- ucts on both sides of the ocean than on this side only ? Mr. McKinley's policy would suggest to all the other governments on the other side of the ocean to follow the example of Ger- many and France in restricting the sale of our pork products. If he could have his yiews carried out, all foreign govern- ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 277 ments would prohibit the sale therein — not only of our pork products, but of all our products. We would then have all our customers " on this side of the ocean." Would you rather have it thus, my farmer friends ? Mr. McKinley and protectionists generally answer, "Of course you would." But I trust you will answer for yourselves in November next by your votes, that you prefer to have your customers on both sides of the ocean. Then you must vote for the re- election of Gov. Boies in Iowa and Gov. Campbell in Ohio, and for Democratic candidates wherever elections are held. MARKET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN. Protectionists tell us continually that the object of our protective tariff is to secure to our people the home market. Their policy has been in operation for thirty years, yet the surplus of our products, which must be imported, are con- tinually increasing. In 1865 our total exports of domestic merchandise, including gold and silver, amounted to only $332,700,000. In 1891 they were $971,000,000. The in- crease was $647,000,000. In 1865 the exports were only %<).T,T, per capita. In 1891 they were $15.26. The popula- tion increased only 82 per cent. The exports increased over 200 per cent. The increase /(?r capita was 63 per cent. Our exports are the products-of the United States which cannot find purchasers in the home market. After twenty- six years of effort, since the close of the war, to furnish the people of the United States with a home market, the policy of protec- tion has utterly failed in its object. The statistics show that the home market is becoming less able every year to furnish purchasers for our products. As the years roll on, the sur- plus of our products becomes greater and greater, and the home market weaker and weaker. The home market is utterly unable to furnish consumers for the products of a great country like this. The markets of the world, which include the home market, will alone suffice. About 75 per cent, of our exports are products of our farms. The farmers realize, above all others, the insufficiency of the home market for their produce. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, the exports of the leading products of domestic agriculture from the United States amounted to $588,000,000. The home market was fully supplied, and $588,000,000 of our products could find no purchasers here. These products were compelled to seek " the other side of the ocean" for consumers. Contemplate for a moment the efliects upon the 278 TARIFF REFORM. producers of these products, if they had been confined to the home market; the prices of all the products of the farms would have been reduced enormously. Thousands of dol- lars' worth of the products of your toil would have perished for want of consumers, and other thousands of dollars' worth would have crowded our storehouses and warehouses, with- out purchasers or consumers, and the financial distress of farmers would be increased a hundredfold. If Mr. McKin- ley will take the pains to inform his Ohio followers of all the facts in reference to a home market, and will then re-submit his question to his audience, namely: "Would the farmers of Ohio rather have their customers on this side or on the other side of the ocean ? " no one would be so foolish as to answer, "On this side;" but from every intelligent farmer would come the prompt response, " On both sides." That is the doctrine of the Democratic party. We offer to the farm- ers of the country customers for their products on both sides of the ocean. We offer you the whole world for a market and all mankind for your customers. Turn, then, from the narrow views of McKinley and his followers and accept the doctrines of the Democratic party. They offer you the home market whose patrons number only 62,000,000 people, while we offer you in addition the world's market, whose patrons comprise the thousand million inhabitants of the earth. FREE SUGAR. Much has been claimed by the advocates of the McKinley act on account of the free raw sugar which is secured. In fact the only provisions of the bill which have met with gen- eral approval among Republicans, are those which put some- thing on the free list, or provided for reciprocity, which is not exactly free trade generally, but free trade with certain coun- tries in certain specified articles, or lower tariffs upon some articles with some countries. No Republican newspapers, so far as I have observed, have claimed credit or votes for the party on account of the increased duties on woolen goods, linen goods, and the thousand other articles of necessity to the people. They are silent upon the provisions which in- crease the prices of necessary articles, but decrease the rev- enue to the government by cutting off or checking imports of like articles from abroad. They are loud in their praise of every provision which secures free trade, or looks in that di- rection. This is altogether complimentary to the Democratic party, which favors putting many more articles of prime ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 279 necessity to the people on the free list, and reducing to a strictly revenue basis all other duties. Free sugar has been secured by remitting annually $58,000,000 of revenue which the government heretofore received and at the sacrifice of a great principle by granting a bounty upon the home product of 2 cents a pound. But it is assumed that this encourage- ment to sugar-raising in this country will vastly stimulate the production, until, at the end of the fifteen years, during which the bounty is to be paid, we will produce enough sugar to supply our wants. If so, the bounty will then have to be paid upon the whole amount produced, which, without in- creased consumption by reason of increased population, would amount to over sixty-two millions of dollars for the last year in which the bounty would be paid. The advan- tages of free sugar would then be entirely neutralized,[for the bounty which would be paid out of the treasury would equal the reduction in price secured by free sugar. If it is claimed that at the end of the fifteen years we shall have free sugar and no bounty to pay, I fear we shall never realize this ad- vantage. The bounty grabbers will then be strong enough to perpetuate their policy, if they do not, in the meantime, vastly increase bounties by granting them to other industries and thus pervert and destroy our whole form of government All other industries in the country, if this policy is sustained, will soon be clamoring for their share of the government's bounty, and one class of industries, those which are most unprofitable and undesirable, will be fostered and sustained at public expense. In this view the people have secured free sugar at an enormous sacrifice of money and principle. The bounty upon sugar is no small burden. The Treasury De- partment estimates that the production this year will amount to 500,000,000 pounds, and that, at 2 cents a pound, f 10, 000,- 000 will be required to pay the bounty. If we should dis- tribute this burden /^r capita, the share of Iowa would amount to $305,888 for this year, and as much more hereafter as would be required by the increased production. In the fifteen years, the time for which the bounty is provided, if there should be no increased production, Iowa would pay, on account of the bounty, over $4,500,000. If we are to credit the fond anticipations of the friends of this sugar bounty, at the end of the fifteen years the home production will be equal to the home consumption. In that event we will pay an average annual bounty of $35,000,000, and a grand aggregate of over $500,000,000. Do the people of 28o TARIFF REFORM. Iowa favor this policy of paying bounties ? If so they should continue to vote for the policies and candidates of the Re- publican party. Every one of the Republican representa- tives and senators in Congress, from Iowa, voted for this sugar bounty. Judge Hayes, the only Democratic repre- sentative from Iowa in that Congress, voted against it. But there will be more Democratic representatives from Iowa in the present Congress, a majority of the delegation being Democrats. This indicates that the people of Iowa have al- ready repudiated the McKinley bill, with all its provisions for bounties and subsidies to monopolies. Let the vote this fall be a greater and more emphatic repudiation of that party, than ever given heretofore. FREE SUGAR AND INCREASED TAXATION. When Congress reduced the tariff on the higher grades of sugar, and put all grades below i6 Dutch standard on the free list, thus reducing the public revenues about $58,000,- 000 a year, there was no corresponding reduction in the ex- penses of the government. On the contrary, the appropria- tions of the same Congress were largely in excess of those of previous congresses, and aggregated for the two years ending June 30, 1892, over a billion dollars. Hence it was neces- sary to impose increased tariffs on other articles, not only to make good the loss of the sugar revenue, but to pay the $10,000,000 of bounty on the production of domestic sugar, and the other authorized expenditures. In taking off the sugar tariff, a revenue tax was repealed which afforded only about 10 per cent, of protection to the home producers of sugar. But by the increase of the tariff on other articles, in order to make up for the loss of revenue on sugar, and for the sugar bounty, such rates were imposed as would aiford the largest amount of protection and the least amount of revenue. It is safe to assume that for every dollar the government will get under the new rates the people will be compelled to pay two dollars for protection. Hence, in giv- ing the people free sugar, or cheaper sugar, the government has remitted $58,000,000 of revenue, and granted $10,000,- 000 in bounty; and at the same time other taxes were im- posed upon necessaries of life, such as woolen goods, which must produce a revenue to the government equal to the taxes remitted and the bounty, and which will exact an equal amount in addition for the benefit of the protected monop- olists of the country. Thus free sugar, under Republican ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 281 legislation, has been secured by an increase of tariff taxes for revenue and protection to twice the amount of the benefit received by the people. In other words, the people of the country will be compelled to pay at least $136,000,000 a year for the luxury of free sugar. THE TIN PLATE FRAUD. There was no line or paragraph of the McKinley act which was more objectionable than that which increased the tax on tin plates from i cent to 2.2 cents a pound. There was not a pound of tin plates manufactured in this country at the time, nor is there now any made in sufficient quantities for commercial purposes. The avowed object of the increase of this tax was to beget a new industry in this country. It was conceded that tin plates could not be made in this country as cheaply as in Europe; that a tax of i cent a pound, which was over 34 per centum upon the value of the importations of T889, was insufficient protection to enable its profitable manufacture. It was clearly an unprofitable industry, and one which could not be carried on without imposing a tax of 2.2 cents a pound upon the consumers of tin plates in this country. There were 735,000,000 pounds of tin plates im- ported into the United States during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889. I refer to this year for the reason that the McKinley bill was based upon the business of that year. This was valued at $21,222,000 in Europe. The tax paid on it amounted, at i cent a pound, to $7,357,000, which was paid into the treasury of the United States, and that amount was added to the price of the tin plates, together with the cost of carriage, insurance, and the importers' profits. This did not afford sufficient protection to induce its manufacture in this country. Congress was appealed to foran additional tax of 1.2 cents a pound. If this were imposed, the National Tin-plate Association assured Congress that that amount of tax on the importation of the foreign article, while no tax was imposed on the domestic article, would insure its manufacture in this country. The argument was this: We pay annually $20,- 000,000 to Europe for tin plates. These can be made in this country and thus we will retain the $20,000,000 we send abroad and spend it in our own country. That would build up another great industry in this country and give employ- ment to thousands of our own workingmen, and by increased competition we would soon get our tin plates as cheap, or cheaper than at this time. This argument was quite plausible, 282 TARIFF REFORM. 'but it was only half the truth. The other half of the facts in the case will place the* whole matter in a different light. The government was then receiving the whole amount of this tax. At I cent a pound, as I have just stated, it amounted to $7,357,000, and at 2.2 it would amount to $16,185,000. This amount would be added to the price of the tin plates and would be paid in the end by the consumers of tin in this country, for ^-his is purely a revenue tariff. Hence, in order to have $21,000,000 worth of tin plates manufactured in this country each year instead of abroad the people were to be taxed $16,000,000. But the real burden would be greater than that; for the retail dealers would charge commissions on the taxed value as well as on the real value. This would increase the burden at least 25 per c;nt., which would raise the price to the consumers of tin plate from $2 1,000,000 to over $40,000,- 000 a year. This increase is the price the people are to pay for the purpose of building up and sustaining an unprofitable industry. The McKinley bill, which increases the tax on tin plates to 2.2 cents a pound, is now the law of the land. Jus- tice to Its advocates requires that I should state that they claim that by increased production stimulated by a protec- tion of 2.2 cents a pound against foreign competition, the price would soon be brought down, not to the European price, but to the price then prevailing. The price then prevailing was increased by the tax of i cent a pound, and that was over $7,000,000 a year, which the government received, as there were no tin plates manufactured in this country, all be- ing imported and paying the tax into the public treasury. If all the tin plates we could consume were made in this coun- try, then none would be imported. 'J'he government would not get a cent at the custom houses on tin plates, for none would pass through. The people, however, would pay just as much as ever for the tin plates. Hence the effect would be, conceding the claim of the advocates of the tax, to turn over to the manufacturers of tin plates in this country the $7,ooc,ooo we formerly collected at the custom houses, and allow the manufacturers to collect that amount annually from the consumers of the article. But the tax of 2.2 cents a pound would be imposed upon any foreign article that would approach our custom houses. This would amount to a protection of our $16,000,000 a year, and we are asked to believe that the generous manufacturers of tin plates would not take all that the law allowed them. Mr. McKinley might be willing to trust them, but the people will not. They will ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 1891. 283 take, to the last farthing, all that the law permits them to take. The people must then pay at least f 16,000,000 a year for the luxury of having our tin plates made in this country. But up to this time very little has been made, and let us fondly hope that none will be made in this country while this increased tax remains unrepealed. For if none is made in this country, the government will get the whole amount of the tax burden, namely, $16,000,000 a year, and we are sorely in need of funds at this time to pay the appropriations of the Billion Dollar Congress. Upon every pound made in this country the price to the consumers will be the same, but the government will get nothing. The tax will only go to make more monopolies and more millionaires in this country. Mr. Neidringhaus, a leading Republican politician and a member of the Congress that passed the McKinley bill, virtually con- cedes that he cannot carry on the business of manufacturing tin plates in St. Louis, where he proposes to erect a factory, unless he can import his laborers from Europe, and he is now contending with the Treasury Department for this privi- lege. He will get his foreign laborers, and no American workingman will get a dollar in wages from the manufacture of tin plates in this country. But I do not believe the tax of 2.2 cents a pound with imported labor thrown in will be sufficient to stimulate the industry. The Tin-plate Associa- tion will soon come back to Congress with an additional de- mand. They will ask for 3 cents a pound if another Republi- can Congress and President can be elected in 1892. But there was one provision in connection with this tin plate legislation, which deserves special mention. The McKinley act was approved October 6, 1890, but the increased tax on tin plate did not take effect until July i, 1891. Nearly nine months were allowed in which the importers of tin plate could stock the market with goods paying only i cent a pound, while they could charge the consumers the same price as if the whole tax of 2.2 cents had been paid. There was an immense increase, therefore, in the imports of tin plate during these nine months. I have received from the Bureau of Statistics a statement showing the imports of tin plates for each month during the years ending June 30, 1890 and 1891. This shows a great increase in such imports for every month since Sep- tember, 1890, compared with the corresponding months of the previous year. The aggregate imports of tin plates for 1890 was 680,000,000 pounds, valued at $20,900,000, while the aggregate for 1891 was 1,018,278,000, valued at $35,746,- 284 TARIFF REFORM. 000. This shows an excess of over 338,000,000 pounds, which must be carried over for consumption during the en- suing year, or the year ending June 30, 1892. The impor- tations, therefore, for the current year will, in the ordinary course of business, fall short by that amount. The increased tax did not take effect until July i, 1891; hence the govern- ment will lose 1.2 cents a pound duty upon that excess which was brought in before the increased tax took effect, but which will not be consumed until after that time. This ex- cess will amount to over $4,000,000 upon the wholesale prices, and to at least $1,000,000 more before the goods reach the consumers of the country. The $4,000,000 will inure to the benefit of the importers of tin plates, and a burden of $5,000,000 will be imposed upon the people. But this is not all. It is well known that as soon as the McKinley bill passed, tin plates immediately advanced in price the same as if the increased tax had taken effect at once. The consum- ers of tin plates began to pay the increased burden from the passage of the bill, but the government received the same rate of taxes for nine months thereafter. The increase in the wholesale price of tin plates, which were imported and con- sumed during those nine months, amounted to over $6,000,- 000, and the retail price must have increased the burdens $2,000,000 more. Thus a needless burden of about $13, 000,- 000 has been imposed upon the consumers of tin plates already by reason of putting off for nine months the time for the taking effect of the increased tax. None of this amount went into the Treasury of the United States; none of it went to build up the new industry of manufacturing tin plates in this country; but the whole burden of $13,000,000 inured to the benefit of tin plate jobbers, importers and dealers. To this extent have the people been burdened already, upon the pre- text that it was necessary to establish a new and unprofitable industry in this country. And the new industry is still in the hot-house of artificial incubation, or the throes of unnatural presentation. It would be doing the authors of the McKinley act great injustice to assume that they did not know what would be the effect of their own legislation. They were the wisest tariff experts in the country, and knew well just what they were about. The speculators, who thus gathered into their private coffers the millions of dollars I have indicated, will not prove ungrateful to the political party which has made their gains possible. They will doubtless liberally respond with means to aid in the election of McKinley as Governor of Ohio this ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 285 fall, and the Republican presidential ticket in 1892. Thus protection manages to maintain itself by means of forced contributions levied upon its victims. WHAT PROTECTION COSTS THE PEOPLE. Nine years ago I made a very careful estimate of the amount of incidental taxes annually imposed on the people of the United States in the increased cost of home products, by reason of the tariff on imported articles of like character. This estimate showed that the increased cost of home prod- ucts by reason of the tariff amounted, in the year 1882, to $556,000,000. This was the annual burden at that time of protection to home industries. I do not claim that this was the profits, over and above that which belongs legitimately to manufacturing or other protected enterprises; for much of it was wasted on unprofitable industries. The McKinley act has increased the incidental burden of taxation in many lines of goods, and has reduced such bur- den in but few cases. The tax on sugar was nearly all rev- enue, and went into the Treasury, the protection to home pro- ducers of sugar amounting to less than $5,000,000 as esti- mated at that time. The sugar bounty, which is in lieu of a protective tariff, will amount this year to about twice that amount. The McKinley act increased the tariff on woolen goods from an average of about 67 per cent, to an average of over 91 per cent. The increase on wool was about i cent a pound on the finer grades, usually imported, and on the coarse wools from 5 cents a pound to 50 per cent, ad valorem. It was claimed by the friends of the bill that this increase on wool would increase its price, and secure to wool growers a greater remuneration upon their product. But it has not turned out that way. Wool is 2 or 3 cents a pound cheaper now than at the time the bill passed. But woolen goods have increased largely in price, and will, in all probability, be sold at increased prices until the duties are lowered, or until wool is placed on the free list. There is no change in the tariff that would be fraught with greater or more direct benefit to the people than the placing of wool on the free list. The high taxes on woolen goods are excused and maintained upon the ground that it is necessary to protect wool growing. In- stead of receiving benefit from protective tariffs, wool grow- ing has been injured by such. legislation, and the statistics on the subject prove this beyond controversy. In 1868, when a, 286 TARIFF REFORM. high protective tariff had just been put on wool in order to encourage wool growing, there were 2,591,000 sheep in Iowa. In 1890, after twenty-two years of protection, and after the population of the State had increased more than threefold, the number of sheep had fallen off to 475,000 — a loss of more than a million sheep. The population of the State has increased threefold, the sheep have decreased threefold. The same conditions w«re realized in all the States east and south of Iowa. Hence I assert that the tax on wool has been a positive and irreparable injury to wool growing in the United States. But the tax on woolen goods has been a grievous burden upon the American people. The revenue from this source is small in comparison with the increased prices which consumers must pay for the domestic produc- tions by reason of the tariff on foreign goods. The revenue is about $40,000,000 a year at this time, while the incidental burden which the people must bear amounts, since the pas- sage of the McKinley act, to at least $150,000,000 a year. Of course this is only an estimate. It is impossible to ascer- tain with any degree of accuracy just how much more the people pay for domestic woolen productions on account of the tariff. But I bel'eve $150,000,000 a year is below rather than above the mark. Nor can any accurate estimate be placed upon the increased cost of other domestic productions by reason of protective tariffs on foreign productions of like character. But I am of the opinion that, including woolen goods, the whole increased cost of domestic productions at this time on account of our protective tariffs, cannot be less annually than- $650,000,000. It may, and doubtless does, largely exceed this amount, but I prefer to place the estimate at the lowest amount possible. This burden amounts annual- ly to over %io per capita of the whole population. The share of Iowa would be over $19,000,000 a year. If the people of Iowa derived any corresponding benefit there would be some reason or excuse for the course the representatives of the State in Congress have pursued heretofore. But I deny that Iowa has received any benefit whatever from our protective system. This State has been the victim of the system from the beginning. The $200,000,000 secured by mortgages on your farms and homes are the legitimate fruits of a quarter of a century of protective tariffs in an agricultural state like this. It may be denied that the tariff is responsible for all of this indebtedness; but it cannot be denied that the indebt- ness exists, notwithstanding the tariff. It is perfectly con- ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 287 sistent with the protective policy, and has grown up with it, and under it. Is It not about time to discard this system of taxation and to adopt some other in its stead ? It is impossible to do worse. The probabilities are you will do better. A change is demanded by every consideration of the public weal, by every consideration of individual betterment. MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS IN IOWA. The Census Office has published a special bulletin of Sta- tistics of Farms, Homes, and Mortgages for Alabama and Iowa. I do not know why it was determined to embrace these two States, so remote from each other, in one bulletin, unless It was for the purpose of getting before the public the follow- ing information concerning the State of Alabama: "The in- dustrial development of Alabama is coincident with the great and sudden growth of mortgage indebtedness in that State." We are to infer, I presume, from this gratuitous statement that mortgage indebtedness is an indication of industrial de- velopment. Every effort has been made on the part of the census officials to break the force of the astounding facts which are revealed by these statistics of mortgages and indi- vidual indebtedness in certain States of the Union. Careful inquiry has been made in certain localities to ascertain the objects for which the mortgage indebtedness has been cre- ated. Such objects as " marriage present to daughter," "taxes and to help son-in-law,'' "to buy whiskey," "losses incurred m running a temperance billiard hall," "to help a friend," etc., are carefully set forth in order to show that the indebtedness was due to special causes, rather than to general unprofitableness of agricultural and other pursuits. But the fact remains, after all deductions, explanations and evasions, that there was an existing indebtedness secured by mortgages on real estate in Iowa, on the ist day of January, 1890, of nearly $200,000,000 (or exactly $199,034 956). This amounted to a per capita indebtedness of $104. Three-fourths of this indebtedness was on farming lands. The annual interest on this amount averaged over 7^ per cent., and will aggre- gate $15,000,000. During the ten years from 1880 to 1890 the indebtedness entered of record in the various counties of the State amounted to $431,000,000. More than half of this amount was caused by renewals, for it is evident that the existing indebtedness in 1890 far exceeds the indebtedness of 1880. The number of mortgages entered of record in 1890 288 TARIFF REFORM. was over 53,000, .while those entered in 1880 were only 38,- 000, and the amount of the mortgages entered of record in 1890 was over $50,000,000, while the amount in 1880 was only $28,000,000 — an increase of 75 per cent. The number of acres mortgaged in Iowa during the ten years was 32,000,000, the number of acres in the whole State being only 35,000,000. The number of town lots mortgaged during the same period was nearly 300,000. The number of acres under existing in- debtedness in 1890 is not given. But as the indebtedness secured by mortgages on farming lands placed on record dur- ing the ten years amounted to $324,000,000, and as the exist- ing indebtedness on lands in 1890 was $148,000,000, the probability is that there was a similar reduction in the number of acres relieved from mortgages. This would indicate a re- duction of 57 per cent., or that about 14,000,000 acres are now covered by mortgages in Iowa. But the probability is that the acreage does not diminish in proportion to the in- debtedness, as partial payments are frequently made, while the acreage remains the same. However, it is safe to assume that one-third of the farming lands of Iowa are covered by mortgages. The same conditions exist in other States of the Union. In some the proportions are less; in others greater. But all suffer alike. Congressman Simpson is authority for the statement that the mortgage indebtedness of Kansas, as the census will prove, amounts to $235,000,000, or $165 per capita; and that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York are even worse off than Kansas. But this is not the worst feature of the case. Instead of the indebtedness being reduced from year to year, there is a constant and enormous increase every year, both in the number of acres put under mortgage, and the amounts of money borrowed. There were $21,000,006 more borrowed in Iowa in 1890 than in 1880, and 567,000 more acres put under the ban of mortgage indebtedness last year than there were in 1880, ten years ago. This shows an average increase of indebtedness in this State for each year of over $2,000,000. The census ofi&cials will doubtless regard this great growth of mortgage indebtedness m Iowa as an indication of indus- trial development. But the people of Iowa who owe this in- debtedness, and must pay it, principal and interest, to the last farthing, by their sweat and toil, will regard it as a griev- ous burden, imposed upon them mainly on account of the tariff legislation enacted by Republican congresses. These facts prove conclusively that farming in Iowa is not profitable. ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 289 If Other proof of this fact were required, I would refer to the recent report of Mr. J. R. Sovereign, the labor commissioner of the State. This report shows that in raising corn, the chief product of the State, the cost of production during the ten _vears between 1880 and 1890, if you include a fair price for the labor and interest on the capital invested, exceeded the selling price of the corn to the enormous amount in the ag- gregate of $64,000,000. The cost of production was 60 cents an acre more than the amount received for the corn crop. The average annual loss for ten years was $6,400,000. No wonder the farmers of the State were obliged to increase their mortgage indebtedness $2,000,000 a year during the same period ! Private indebtedness must continue to increase so long as the people are subjected to the present system of taxation. Out of their hard earnings the people of Iowa must pay, every )'-ear, at least $19,000,000 for protection to favored industries; $13,000,000 a year for the support of the general government; $15,000,000 annual interest on m.ortgage indebtedness, to say nothing of chattel mortgages and other private obligations; and five or SIX millions a year for the support of the State, coun- ties, municipalities, and the schools. The great mass of these exactions falls on the farmers of the State. The farmer must follow the plow, year after year, borne down by these griev- ous burdens. He may be likened to the fabled Atlas, upon whose shoulders, it was supposed, the earth itself was sup- ported. PROTECTION AND FARM MORTGAGES. It may be asked. What has protection to do with farm mort- gages .'' My answer is that the chief burden of protection falls upon farmers and the laboring classes. Except in a very few articles, farmers receive no benefit from it whatever. The wag'js of labor are determined by the supply and demand. If laborers are many, and there is little work to do, wages will be low. If laborers are scarce, and there is much to do, labor will be high. Besides this, 500,000 immigrants arrive in this country every year, coming in free, and at once enter- ing into competition with our own people, both as farmers, and as workingmen in the factories. Everything that farm- ers raise, with a few exceptions, is sold at prices fixed in the Liverpool market, the free-trade market of the world. Every- thing they buy is at prices fixed in the protected market of the United States, the dearest market in the world, for the 290 TARIFF REFORM. articles they are obliged to purchase. The surplus, which is exported, determines the price of the whole product. Farm- ers do not get the Liverpool price even. From that price is deducted the cost of carriage to the foreign market, although the article may be sold and consumed in the very vicinity of its production. If a farmer should determine to take his meats and bread- stuffs to the foreign market and there purchase his supplies in the very market in which the price of his produce is fixed, and bring them home, he would be met at the custom houses with the demand for the tariff taxes upon all articles subject to duty. As about half our imports at this time come in free, and the other half are subject to a duty of over 50 per cent., according to their value, he would be compelled to pay $25 at the custom house on every f 100 worth of goods im- ported by him. Thus the purchasing power of the produce of the farm is reduced 25 per cent, to the farmers of the country. How can farming be made profitable for a series of years when subjected to such a grievous burden ? No wonder farms are mortgaged ! No wonder farming lands in all the Eastern and Middle States have vastly decreased in value during the last decade ! The wonder is that farmers have done so well as they have. The wonder is that so many of them, by even severe economy and untiring effort, have kept out of debt or secured a competency for themselves and families. To the richness of our soil, to the great improve- ment in farm machinery and methods, to the indomitable pluck and ceaseless toil of farmers generally, to the health- fulness of our climate and to the unrestricted freedom of trade between all the States of the Union, are to be attributed whatever of success agriculture has achieved in this country. There has been much of happiness and prosperity, and there are many happy homes on the farms throughout the land, but these have been vouchsafed to us, not on account of pro- tection, but in spite of it. PROFITS IN PROTECTED INDUSTRIES. Compare the profits of agricultural pursuits which are not protected and which can not, except in a few cases, be pro- tected, with some of the protected industries of the country. The lumber business in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota received protection on the lumber product of $2 a thousand, which amount was added to the cost of every thousand feet of lumber which farmers and others are obliged to purchase. ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 29I According to a recent census bulletin it appears that the lumber establishments in these States earned for the census year, over and above the cost of material and wages paid, a profit of 14 per cent, in Michigan, of 12 per cent, in Wiscon- sin, and of 18 per cent, in Minnesota. I do not claim that this was the net profit. But it was the profit over and above the cost of materials and the amount paid for wages. There are some other items, such as insurance, bad debts, etc., which should be deducted. But the facts remain, clearly estab- lished, that this protected industry is flourishing, in an un- equal degree, coppared with the unprotected industry of agriculture. PIG IRON. The census office has published a bulletin showing the pro- duction of pig iron for the census year 1890. The profits of the business are not set forth, but it appears that the produc- tion was the largest in the history of the iron industry of this country, amounting to 9,500,000 tons, compared with 3,710,- 000 in 1880, an increase of over 153 per cent. Eight per cent, of the production is in four States. The production of steel increased 290 per cent, in 1890 compared with 1880, and the production of Bessemer steel rails shows remarkable growth, increasing from 700,000 tons m 1880 to 2,000,000 tons in 1890. The production of steel is confined largely to four States, 95 per cent, being made in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and New York. 61 per cent, is confined to Pennsylvania. The iron and steel industry is largely protected, the average being nearly 50 per centum. The people must pay this increased cost on all the iron and steel consumed in the country. The business is evidently in a flourishing condition, seeing that in its various branches it has increased in ten years from 153 to 290 per centum. I can not pursue details further. The thousands of millionaires in the country, who have become wealthy as manufacturers, attest the great profits which protection secures to the favored industries. I concede that protection has greatly stimulated production and enabled a comparatively few persons to ac- cumulate great fortunes. But the farmers are the victims of this system. They are not in it. FARMERS WILL DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS- In view of tariff legislation of the Republican party, which has resulted in building up great monopolies and fostering 292 TARIFF REFORM. favored industries, and which has worked irreparable loss and damage to the agricultural interests of the country, is it any wonder that the farmers should demand some relief, some assistance to their business from the legislation of Con- gress ? They naturally infer that if it is right for Congress to so frame the legislation of the country as to secure pros- perity and remunerative prices in the business of manufac- turing, it is also right that they should enjoy a share of Con- gressional favor. Hence they are endeavoring to make known their dissent from the existing conditions and their de- mands for their own relief. Some have .suggested what is known as the sub-treasury bill ; others the bill authorizing loans of public money to farmers and others on real estate security at a low rate of interest. Many, in fact nearly all, farmers in Iowa, I believe, advocate the free and unlimited coinage of silver. Others propose that the government should own all the railroads and transportation agencies, as well as the telegraph and telephone lines. The discussion of all these questions will result in incalculable benefit to the country, and will result in the adoption of proper measures of relief. The Demo- cratic party insists that the tariff legislation of the last thirty years is mainly responsible for the depression of agriculture, for the building up of great monopolies and for the piling up of immense fortunes in the hands of a few people. Let us, then, all unite in righting this great wrong. EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE. Republican newspapers, public speakers and magazine writers are constantly charging that the Democratic party is a free-trade party, and that free trade, if permitted, would ruin the country. While the Democratic party does not favor free trade to the extent of doing away with our custom houses, and resorting to direct taxation, yet it is in favor of removing all restrictions on trade which are imposed for the purpose of protection, and not for revenue. -411 taxation should be for public purposes, and not for the benefit of a few favored individuals at the expense of the whole com- munity. A tariff for revenue has been, is now, and will con- tinue to be, the policy of the Democratic party, until every law that favors one industry at the expense of another is wiped from our statute books. But it is not my purpose at this time to define the present or future policy of the Demo- cratic party in reference to free trade. I desire, how- ever, to disabuse the public mind as to the calamities that ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 293 might ensue if a policy of free trade should finally be adopt- ed in this country. We can only judge of the effects of such a policy upon our own country by carefully studying the history and conditions of those countries that have establish- ed free trade. More than fifty years ago Great Britain re- pealed her corn laws and other protective statutes and adopt- ed a system of practical free trade, although England col- lects at this time over $100,000,000 by customs duties. But her tariffs are imposed for revenue, and not for protection. After a long reign of the protective system, durmg which the highest rates and the most unreasonable restrictions on trade had been imposed, the laboring classes were brought to the very verge of starvation. Their destitution and squalid poverty were manifested in the great increase of crime, in a low state of morals, and frequently in open riots. Manufac- turing and agriculture were unprofitable, wages were at the lowest ebb, and all progress at a standstill. The conditions demanded heroic remedies. These were administered in the shape of a radical change in the system of taxation, which was mainly responsible. Free trade was established. Our Republican friends would conclude from this that such a change could only be likened to "jumping out of a frying- pan into the fire." But history does not so record it. From that time dates the beginning of England's wonderful and unexampled prosperity. No one can read the essays of Mr. Robert Giffen, the president of the London Statistical Society, without being struck at the wonderful progress that these islands of the sea have realized through a policy of com- mercial freedom. Mr. Giffen sums up the progress made by the working classes (and with these he includes all who work for a living) by showing that their wages have increased from 50 to 100 per cent; that the cost of living has inmany articles materially decreased; that the hours of labor have been re- duced; that pauperism and crime have diminished; that education has been extended; that the number of depositors and the amount of deposits of savings banks have been multi- plied many times over; that every comfort of life has been in- creased; that vealth has become more diffused; and, what is of the greatest importance, that the greater part of the in- crease of wealth has gone to the masses. " The chief effect of the improvement," says Mr. Giffen, " has been to raise enormously in the scale of living the masses of the com- munity." But capital has not languished. It has had its share of the general progress. The people of England to- 294 TARIFF REFORM. day, after fifty years of free trade, own half the ships and carry half the freights of the world. They have filled their own country with great lines of railways, and erected manu- facturing establishments which are enormous in size and complete in appointments. Their cities and marts of trade are the wonder and admiration of the world. Their capital has gone abroad, and has built railroads, canals and other im- provements in every part of the globe. They are even now lit- erally invading our country with their surplus capital, and buy- ing up our flouring mills, breweries, street-car lines, electric- light plants, stock-yards, and almost every enterprise that offers assured profits. But what is creating most alarm is the immense number of acres of our lands falling under foreign ownership. Mr. Giffen estimated the amount of Eng- lish investments abroad in 1882, at $7,500,000,000, and that they were increasing at the rate of over $200,000,000 per year. At that rate English foreign investments cannot fall much short at this time o. $10,000,000,000, an amount equal to the assessed value of the real and personal property of thirty- five States and all the Territories of this Union. What an enormous tribute the rest of the world must annually pay England in the shape of interest alone! This annual tribute cannot be less than $400,000,000. In addition to this the rest of the world owes Great Britain for carrying half their freights, an amount which cannot be ascertained owing to the imperfect condition of such statistics. But the tonnage of her ships aggregates 11,500,000, and $100,000,000 on this account is a low estimate. It is not to be wondered at, then, that England's imports so vastly exceed her exports. It re- quires at least $500,000,000 worth of the products of the rest of the world to pay England annually for the use of her capital and her ships. The foreign trade of Great Britain amounts to $100 a head of her population, while that of the United States amounts to only $27 per capita of our people. I do not refer to these facts for the purpose of drawing invidious comparisons between the condition of the people of Great Britain and those of our own country. But merely for the purpose of allaying your fears in case some Repub- lican newspaper or orator should convince you that the Dem- ocratic party was about to plunge this country into the dark abyss of free trade. If such a direful calamity should, by any chance, befall our beloved country, it is my earnest hope and belief that we should survive the shock. Let us hope, in the light of English history, that, after fifty years of ELECTION IN IOWA, NOVEMBER, 189I. 295 commercial freedom in this country, the condition of the la- boring classes would be vastly improved, their hours of labor lessened, the cost of living decreased, wealth more generally diffused, and every condition of life made better. Our coun- try, let us hope, would emerge from a condition of foreign indebtedness to one of foreign investments. Instead of paying millions every year in the shape of interest on foreign capital for carrying our products in foreign ships, we might fondly hope to see American capital invested in every civil- ized country and American ships on every sea, carrying half the commerce of the world. Instead of Iowa farmers and other citizens of the state owing $200,000,000, secured by mortgage on their farms, their business houses and their homes, they would share in the general prosperity, and have that amount loaned abroad and know how to clip coupons as well as to raise corn and wheat. Do not fear, then, to trust the Democratic party. If we should be as bad as our enemies fear and predict, and bring about perfect free trade, contemplate the condition, of other countries that have adopted this policy, and strive, God help- ing you, to attain some of the blessings that free trade has brought upon them. The Democratic party, in its declared policy, does not go as far as is demanded by many farmers and other friends of labor. But we are certainly moving in the right direction. Lay aside past differences and past political prejudices, and unite at once with the only political party that can give as- surance of bettering the condition of those who earn their bread by the sweat of the brow. Let the discussion for greater relief go on, and in the future the Democratic party will meet every demand of the toiling millions that is found- ed on justice and sustained by an enlightened public senti- ment. The revolution in public sentiment in this country which was indicated by the elections a year ago will not go backward. Every recurring election will show that it is gaining strength and that the sentiment of tariff reform which is behind it is sustained by an overwhelming majority of the American people. To the farmers of Iowa and to toilers everywhere I appeal. Do not longer stand in your own light and oppose your own interests. The policies and legislation of the Republican party have robbed you of un- told millions of your hard-earned wealth, and covered your land with mortgages and chamed you in the bond of private indebtedness, If you have not already determined to cease 296 TARIFF REFORM. voting the Republican ticket, make that resolution now, and when made keep it as sacredly as our forefathers kept their vows when they proclaimed to the world the immortal Decla- ration of Independence. They pledged their lives, their for- tunes and their sacred honor. Happily the contest now be- fore us is to be a peaceful one. Your lives will not be im- periled. Your fortunes in too many instances have already been mortgaged. But every consideration of patriotism de- mands that you should pledge your "sacred honor" to co- operate, henceforth, with that political party which is not re- sponsible for existing wrongs, but proposes to right them, and that offers the greatest assurances of success. That party is, in my judgment, the Democratic party. Come with us, my friends, and we will do you good. SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. October 30, 1891. \From the Boston Globe."] HISTORIC FANEUIL HALL SCENE OF ROUSING RALLY. CON- GRESSMAN SPRINGER MAKES THE TARIFF CLEAR. Democratic enthusiasm bubbled and boiled at the rally in Faneuil Hall last evening, and its historic walls echoed and reechoed the cheers and shouts given with heartiness and vigor by the vast concourse of people there assembled. Long before the hour set for the opening of the meeting the hall was well filled, and as 8 o'clock approached standing room was at a premium. The balcony was reserved for ladies and their escorts, and the large number of the fair sex which congregated there were not at all backward in demonstrating their ap- proval of the speaker's remarks. Hon. Owen A. Galvin presided, and his appearance was greeted with prolonged applause. Gen. John W. Corcoran when introduced was obliged to wait several moments before his voice could be heard, and before he had spoken three words he was interrupted by the giving of three cheers which shook the old structure to its very foundation. Congressman William M. Springer of Illinois was evident- ly well known by reputation to Boston Democrats, for he was accorded a hearty welcome. Gov. Leon Abbett of New Jersey, introduced as the chief magistrate of a good old Democratic State, was also loudly cheered. Congressman Springer was received with applause, on the subsiding of which he said: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen — It affords me great pleasure to speak to the people of Boston in Faneuil Hall. This is the ancient cradle of liberty, where our forefathers taught that taxation without representation was tyranny, and where they protested against unreasonable and unjust exac- 297 298 TARIFF REFORM. tions imposed by the mother-country upon the colonists. [Applause.] The people of Massachusetts in this campaign are asked to offer a similar protest. [Applause.] Grover Cleveland [applause] said that unnecessary taxa- tion was unjust taxation. [Renewed applause.] He never spoke a truer sentence. If there is anything more unjust than the taxation of our general government in this country, as imposed by the McKinley bill, I have yet to learn what it is. The States impose what is known as a direct tax. The assessor goes about and finds out what each individual owns — that is, if he can find it. [Laughter.] He is pre- sumed to find it. It is a little difficult in some instances in great cities like this to find out. There are too many safety vaults in exist- ence. [Laughter.] But it is presumed that the assessor finds what the man is worth. These items are entered upon a book, and the amount of money reqtiired for the support of the State, the county and the city is estimated, and every man pays to sup- port the government of the State, the county and the city ac- cording to the amount of his property. But the general government has adopted an entirely differ- ent system. The government of the United States taxes your necessities, taxes that which you wear, that which you eat, that which you drink and that which you surround your- selves with at your home. It has been said that the State taxes a man according to what he is fortunate enough to own, but that the general government taxes a man according to that of which he un- fortunately is not possessed, but which he must have, in or- der to meet his necessities. [Applause.] In this national system of taxation the government is no respecter of persons. It taxes the millionaires at the same rate that it does the poorest man in your community. Ev- ery man must pay according to what he consumes, and not according to what he possesses; so that a poor man with a large family is taxed much greater in proportion to his ability to pay — and in fact, in many instances, in amount — than is the millionaire. A system of government which so discriminates against the masses of the people is unjust to those who earn their liv- ing by the sweat of their brow. The government ought to SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 299 be administered and a system of taxation imposed with the utmost regard to the interests of the people. How has this system been imposed ? Has it been imposed so as to bear as lightly as possible up- on those who are compelled to bear it ? Or has it been imposed so as to relieve the wealth of the country and impose the burdens of national government up- on those who must purchase what they are obliged to have ? In the system which has been adopted by the general gov- ernment' two courses are pursued. The first is that of internal revenue, or of taxing articles produced in this country. At this time these taxes are con- fined to a very few articles, whiskey being the principal one, and paying 90 cents a gallon. From this the government received last year $75,000,000. We have a tax on tobacco, on cigars, on cigarettes and upon beer, and a small tax on oleomargarine, and from these the government received last year $140,000,000. The other sources of revenue are entirely from taxation upon foreign commodities. Those commodities are taxed as they come into the country — I mean commodities that are produced abroad and brought into the United States. From these the government last year collected $230,000,000. The question has arisen among statesmen and politicians, and also among the people — and it should arise among the people and be discussed there — as to who pays this $230,- 000,000. Our Republican friends tell us that the foreign manufacturer pays it, or that the importer pays it. It is scarcely worth while to consume your time in discuss- ing a matter of this kind. Look over the list of the gentle- men engaged in importing in the city of Boston, and I don't believe you can find one firm engaged in importing goods from abroad who are not American citizens. [Great ap- plause.] It is the custom of these large importing houses in New York, Boston and Chicago to send their agents abroad to buy at the factories the things they desire to bring to this country. The reason that they are compelled to buy at the factories is that the tariff is imposed according to what the goods cost the purchaser in Europe, and consequently the price will be less at the factory than at the seaport, after having paid freights and been handled by one middleman at least [applause]; hence the necessity of buying at the factories in Lyon, in Sheffield, in Birmingham and in Manchester, 300 TARIFF REFORM. These agents buy of the manufacturer and pay for the goods at the place of purchase. Then they pay the freights upon the goods to the seaport, across the ocean, and at your custom house these merchants pay the tariffs, whatever they may be, upon the goods, and also the cost of bringing those goods from the custom house to their own stores, and when the goods have arrived there, they add to the cost in Europe the freights to this country, and the taxes that they have been subjected to; and these become a part of the price of the article, and the consumer pays it all. [Applause.] Any other kind of procedure would ruin and bankrupt the men engaged in it. Under the McKinley bill, the average tax upon the taxable list is $60 upon $100 worth. Will any man tell me how the importer could pay $100 for his goods in Europe and then pay $60 to get them into this country, and then sell them to his customers as though they had only cost him $100 ? [Laughter and applause.] On woolen goods the average rate under the McKinley bill is $91 on the f 100 worth, and these gentlemen who state that the foreigner pays the tax would make you believe that on $100 worth of goods in Europe the purchaser could pay $91 tariff and then sell it to you upon the basis of having cost him only $100. [Laughter and applause.] The proposition is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. If you want to know who pays this tax in the end, ask your own m.erchants, ask the importers of Boston, ask every man in the mercantile business in this city, and he will tell you that whoever may pay the tax in the first instance, it is added to the price of the goods and is paid by the consumer in the end. [Cries of " That's the truth," and applause.] This amount of $230,000,000 received from duties on goods imported into this country was received into the Treasury of the government last year, and it would have been there yet had it not been for the enormous appropriations of the Bil- lion-dollar Congress, which has squandered it all by this time. [Applause.] But the government got it. Somebody paid it. The people are paying that burden — the people who con- sume foreign goods. So much for foreign goods; and I assert without the fear of successful contradiction that in every case of foreign-produced goods coming into this country and paying a tax, that tax, or SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 30I « tariff, or whatever you may choose to call it, is added to the price of these goods, and follows them until they are pur- chased by the man who consumes them. [Great applause.] Not only is the tariff added, but the merchants and import- ers not only charge their commission upon the original cost of the article, but upon the tariff also, so that you not only pay that tariff, but you pay the commission of the importer upon that as well as upon the cost of the goods originally. [Applause.] These goods made abroad that come into this country have been subjected to a tax, and the consumers of them are now bearing it, whoever they may be, all over the country. But there were made in this country during the same time by our domestic manufacturers a larger quantity of goods — many times more, how much I do not know, as the census for 1890 is not out. [Laughter.] At least, it is all in the hands of Commissioner Porter, but he won't let us find it out until after the election. [Laughter.] They are keeping this information back for the present, but when it comes out you will find that the domestic manu- facturers in this country have manufactured between $4,000,- 000,000 and $5,000,000,000 worth of goods during the last year, and that perhaps $2,000,000,000 worth of these domes- tic productions are in some way affected in their prices by reason of the tariff on foreign goods of like quality, there being no tax upon the domestic article, except in the instances I have mentioned. How much are they affected ? In some cases not at all. In other cases, to the extent of the tax upon the foreign article. I will tell you a case in which they are not affected. In fact, they are not affected in all cases where we produce more in this country than we can consume, and the surplus goes abroad, for the price of that surplus is fixed abroad, fixed in Liverpool, and if you put a tariff of $5 a barrel on flour it would not raise the price of flour at all in this coun- try. [Applause.] And so it is with nearly everything that the farmers of the West raise. They cannot be increased in price by putting a tax upon the foreign article, because they go abroad, and there are no importations from foreign countries to affect the price of the goods in this country. Agriculture derives no benefit from the tariff, and can de- rive none, and even if it did, who would pay it .' According to Mr. Lodge and Mr. Allen, and all those dis- 302 TARIFF REFORM. tinguished orators on the stump in behalf of Mr. Allen, the putting of a tariff upon an article brings down its price [laughter and applause]; so that, if it does have any effect upon the farmer's produce, it will be to bring that down in price, as it has salt and steel rails and all those other things. [Laughter and applause.] But perhaps this is one of those nice, good tariffs — a Re- publican tariff — that when it is put on manufactured articles it will bring them down, but when put on agricultural pro- ductions it will carry them away up. [Laughter and ap- plause.] That would be a very accommodating tariff. [Laughter.] But there are cases in which the tariff on an article pro- duced abroad does affect the domestic article, and in all cases where we 4o not produce enough in this country to supply our wants, and goods come from abroad of like quality to make up the deficiency, then the domestic article, not hav- ing paid a tax, is enhanced in value up to sometimes the total price of the foreign goods, with the tax added. I will give you an instance of the latter case, and for fear I might get myself into trouble here — I want to be perfectly guarded in this statement — I will quote from the apostle of protection himself, Mr. McKinley. Mr. McKinley, in speaking to the farmers of Ohio — and it would annoy him very much if he thought the information were going to be given to the manufacturers up here — he talked to the farmers plainly on the wool question, showing that the wool tariff has regulated the price of wool, that it gives the American producer just ii cents more per pound than the same grade of Australian wool brought in London. [Applause.] That is what Mr. McKinley told the Ohio farmers, and he was obliged to tell them that, because he told them a year ago that in one year from then they would get more for their wool. When he came back and asked to be elected governor, wool was only worth 38 cents a pound [laughter], worth three or four cents a pound less than when the McKinley bill passed, so that he was obliged to find some new reason to get out of this difficulty. He went all over the world to find it, and then he said, " I can now tell you why it is. It is because wool has fallen all over the world, and if it hadn't been for the McKinley bill it would have gone down still lower." [Laughter and applause.] SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 303 But still he insisted upon it that they got 11 cents more than they got in Europe for the same kind of wool. Now, for the sake of argument, I am willing to admit that that is true — but it is not true by any means. He is entitled to 11 cents more — the tariff on wool is 11 cents — but he cannot get that for reasons that I could easily explain, if time would permit. But suppose he does get 11 cents more, who pays the farmer that 11 cents ? Who pays that ? No foreigner can pay that, because there is no foreigner around here for that purpose. [Laughter and applause.] That wool is produced here in the United States: it is manufactured into articles here in the United States, so that if the farmer gets that much more for his wool, somebody in the United States has to pay it. [Applause.] Now, there are only 45,000,000 sheep in the United States, and there are 60,000,000 people. I would rather protect the 60,000,000 people than the 45,000,000 sheep. [Great applause.] But the consumers of American wool must pay that m- creased cost of woolen goods, whatever it is, in this country. The consumers of American woolen goods must pay that price. Now, my- friends, it is well known to those engaged in the manufacturing of woolen goods, that it takes four pounds of wool as it comes from the sheep's back to make a pound of woolen cloth, so that in every pound of woolen cloth, if it is all wool, as it ought to be [laughter], in every pound of woolen cloth there would be an added cost in price to the American manufacturer, of 44 cents for the wool, more than the manufacturer in England has to pay for the same wool. And we are told also that the American manufacturer must pay his men 50 per cent, in wages more than the European manufacturer, and then we have the consoling statement that we get our woolen goods cheaper than they do over there after all. [Laughter.] Now, by what particular process of manufacture was it that this tariff of 44 cents a pound was watered or scoured out of the wool between the time that it left the farmer's sheep un- til it got on to your backs ? When did that increased price get out of this wool ? [Laughter.] No, my friends, whatever increased price there is to the manufacturer of woolen goods in this country, that increased price is paid by the consumer of those goods. 304 TARIFF REFORM. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to tell them that the wool grower can be protected and get 1 1 cents a pound more for his wool, or 44 cents to the pound of cloth, and yet you get the cloth cheaper than you would if there were no tariff upon it. [Great applause.] This tariff, therefore, is a tax upon the great body of the American people. Last year there were produced in this country over $300,- 000,000 of domestic woolen goods. We imported from abroad about $56,000,000 on which a duty of $44,000,000 was paid. This makes a wholesale price of woolen goods consumed in this country of over $400,000,000, and before these woolen goods can reach the consumers of the country, at least 25 per cent, is added by the middlemen and merchants, etc., so that we are not paying less than $500,000,000 in this country every year for woolen goods. According to our system of taxing the many for the benefit of the few, the people of the United States are paying not less than $200,000,000 a year in the in- creased cost of woolen goods, both foreign and domestic, in this country. [Applause.] Now, if this tariff does increase the price of wool in this country, doesn't it also increase the price of glass, of cutlery, of crockery, and of the other thousand-and-one things that are on the tax list ? Was it not intended for this purpose, and would not the whole object of this bill be futile if it did not authorize the producer to place a greater price on the article ? [Applause.] They say that the tariff is not a tax. I don't care what you call it. So far as the foreign goods are concerned, it is a tax, because the goverment levies it and gets it, but in re- gard to the domestic goods, we do not claim that it is a tax, but it is an increased price that the consumer must pay by reason of the tax upon the foreign article, and so far as he is concerned it amounts to just the same thing — it taxes him. [Great applause.] But I am informed our friends are claiming great credit for having put sugar on the free list, giving you "22 pounds of sugar for $1." McKinley says that sugar was paying a revenue of $55,- 000,000 a year, and that the bounty on sugar will cost $10,- 000,000, and there is a saving to the people of $45,000,000 by having it put on the free list. As to this bounty, it is a departure from all the principles of our forefathers. But it is claimed that if the producers of SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 305 wool or sugar get so much benefit from a protective tariff, that when you take the protection off you don'c want to leave them in the lurch [laughter,] and this year the amount re- quired for bounty is estimated at $10,000,000. The share of Massachusetts in that amount would be very large — about $300,000 a year — and this in order to encourage sugar growing in Louisiana and California and Vermont. In Louisiana the money will be received by the rich planters. No colored man working in the sunlight and in the fields to produce this sugar cane will get $i benefit from it. They are not looking after the colored man except just before elec- tion. [Laughter and applause.] In California a poor man by the name of Claus Spreckels will get it all. [Laughter.] Now, Claus was not supposed to be an indigent. It was not supposed that it was necessary to pass around the hat for Claus Spreckels, because he is worth five or ten or fifteen million dollars — we don't know exactly how much — but we must be taxed all over the United States for the benefit of Claus Spreckels. [Applause.] Now, making sugar is a business requiring great manipula- tion and power of machinery, I presume. [Laughter.] When I was a boy I used to help in the business, and I could not see anything very complicated in it myself. It then consisted in boring a hole in the trunk of a tree and driving a spile in it, and that was the work which required the greatest skill. [Laughter and applause.] But to make up for this decrease in the duty on sugar, the Republicans in Congress proceeded to impose increased taxes on other things. I am told that they have put these increased taxes on the luxuries of the country. They did in one instance. They put 50 cents a dozen on champagne. [Laughter.] On account of that increased duty the pur- chasers of champagne will probably pay $25 or $30 a year in addition to what they did before. [Laughter.] This is the tax on millionaires. But when they began in earnest to increase taxes they looked over the list to find out what the people needed, and they increased the duties on such articles as blankets. There is a large increase in the duty on blankets. Buttons, too — why, pearl buttons were increased up to 200 and even 600 per cent. That is, the pearl buttons worn by the wealthy people were taxed 200 per cent., while those worn by the masses of the people were taxed about 600 per cent. Among the other articles on which they increased the duty 306 TARIFF REFORM. were carpets, clothing of every kind, and especially ladies' and children's dress clothing, cotton goods, knit goods, linen goods and woolen goods, which were already taxed 6i per cent, were raised to 91 per cent. These are a few of the articles upon which the duty was increased by the McKinley bill, and these are as much necessaries of life as sugar — even more so. [Applause.] Out in Ohio and in the Western States there seems to be quite a contention going on now in regard to tin. That seems to be all the rage. [Applause.] I happened to be at a Republican meeting the other day in Ohio. I had arrived at a town five or six miles from the place at which I was to speak. The Republicans were to have a meeting at this place and their speakers didn't come, and they were compelled to carry on their meeting with a glee club. [Laughter.] Each member of the club had a big tin badge on, as large as a soup plate, and in the centre of the badge was a picture of McKinley. A small boy came up to me and said, " Say, what is that?" I said I didn't know. " Well," said he, " that is a soup dish, and McKinley is in the soup." [Laughter and applause.] But, as I said, the subject of tin seems to be the rage. Now, so far as skill and ability in the manufacture of tin is concerned, we have as much skill and ability in this country as anywhere in the world. [Applause.] That is not the ques- tion. It is a question as to material and as to the cost of production. Now, the Republican speakers argued that we brought $21,000,000 worth of tin from Europe. And "Why not make it here ?" they said; "why not make it here and give employ- ment to 20,000 people ? " I will tell you why. We would have to import the tin in the first place, and have to import the iron, and they are actually waiting until after election to import the laborers into this country to make it a success. [Laughter.] But this is a fact. During the year ending September 30, 1891, the exports from this country amounted to over f 1,000,- 000,000. That is the largest ever reached in one year. Now, what are we to get for those goods ? We can not get coin for them; that would soon exhaust the coin supply of the whole world. We don't want the agricultural products, because they are worth more there than they are here. We must exchange those products for manufactured articles, and in making these exchanges I am perfectly willing to take $21,000,000 in tin plates. [Applause.] SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 307 Suppose wheat is f i a bushel. You ca:n pay for the whole thing with 21,000,000 bushels of wheat; but if you put $16,- 000,000 duty on this tin we have to pay 37,000,000 bushels of wheat in order to buy the same amount of tin for our own use. So it is much more economical to buy the tin abroad and pay for it in wheat and save the $16,000,000 worth of wheat. [Applause.] My distinguished friend, Ex-Speaker Reed, was in this State a few weeks ago, and he was very much concerned for fear raw materials would come into this country free of taxation. He said it would be a very great outrage to allow the manu- facturer to have free trade at the back door and protection in the office, and he commented very severely upon the idea of free raw material. In this respect Mr. Reed differs very materially from the woolen manufacturers of Massachusetts and of the whole country. In 1878 a petition was framed by over one hundred of the leading woolen manufacturers of the United States, stating to Congress their deliberate conviction that, after ten years' experiment, they did not think the tariff of 1867 on wool had promoted the interests of the wool manufacturers of New England, had not promoted the interests of the wool grow- ers, and had been a great burden upon the consuming classes. This was the opinion of the woolen manufacturers in re- gard to a tax on wool. It was no benefitto them, nor to the wool grower, and it was a great burden to the American people. Mr. Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, in 1885 sent a circular to all the wool manufacturers of New England and of the country asking them to give their views in regard to a tariff on wool, and what was their response ? They replied in a very elaborate article, signed by William Whitman, presi- dent of the National Association of Woolen Manufacturers, whom you all know, and by John L. Hayes, the secretary of the association, in which these gentlemen set forth the great inequality and injustice imposed upon the American manu- facturers of woolen goods by reason of the tariff on wool; that they were unable to compete with foreign productions; that all the world admitted wool free of duty except the ' United States. [Applause.] That was the only exception, and why should not wool be put upon the free list here, even if Mr. Reed thinks that it would interfere with the protective system .' 308 TARIFF REFORM. He has the idea" that we can protect everything; that we can protect all classes of people, and that it can be made to bear equally on the American people. Well, suppose we could, and when we got it equal, and so that everyone would pay equal and get equal, who is benefited ? [Applause.] So that an equal protection is an unnecessary protection, because everyone would pay just what he got back himself. [Great applause.] Therefore a tariff is valuable only to the extent that it is unequal, and it can be advocated only to the extent that it is unjust, and bears oppressively upon the American people. The tariff on wool has crippled the American manufacturers in this country more than any other legislation could have done. If you will look at the census of 1870 and 1880 you will find that the wool industry of the United States did not perceptibly advance during the whole ten years, and while, as I said, we cannot get at the census of 1890 until after the election, when we do we will find a wail of distress coming up from the woolen manufacturers all over New England, demanding that wool should be free, in order that they may compete with the woolen goods made in other countries. [Ap- plause.] No greater boon could be conferred upon New England and the whole country than the placing of wool upon the free list. It would immediately stimulate the production of woolen goods in every part of the country. It would give employ- ment to thousands and thousands of laborers, now idle and seeking employment. [Applause.] Now, so far as the McKinley bill is concerned, it is claimed that this bill is in the interest of labor. There has not been a laboring man throughout the whole extent of this country who has had his wages increased; but thousands and thou- sands of them have had their wages reduced, notwithstanding that the cost of living has increased all over the country. Your distinguished candidate. Governor Russell [applause], has produced and had published a list of over 600 articles, all necessities to the people, which have been increased in price to the consumers since the passage of the McKinley bill, and not one man throughout the length and breadth of the land has had any more wages with which to pay this ad- ditional expense. So much, therefore, for the tariff question. I see that my time is passing away, and I must conclude. [Cries of "Go on; go on."] I have been talking to the farmers of Iowa, and so far as SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL. 309 the farmers of Iowa are concerned, you need have no doubt but that that State will give a majority for the Democratic ticket of 5,000 or 10,000. [Applause.] I could not say as to Ohio myself, but I was there three weeks, and I talked with those gentlemen who were best in- formed everywhere I was, and I have not found a Democrat in the last two weeks in that State who was not firmly of the belief that Governor Campbell would be reelected. [Great applause.] The great popular movement for tariff reform that was be- gun over a year ago in November in the election of over 150 majority in the House of Representatives opposed to the McKinley bill is not going backward out West, I can assure you. [Applause.] I hope that it is not going back here. I believe that it is not going backward anywhere, but that it will go on, and that it will carry Massachusetts again this time. [Applause.] This great reform is going to be prosecuted to the end, and next year will come the great contest in which we hope to duplicate the majority already received in the House of Rep- resentatives of 150 in behalf of tariff reform, and also to get a majority in the Senate. [Applause.] When that is accomplished the Democratic party will pro- ceed to legislate in behalf of all the people and the whole country. There will be no classes then, no favored industries, but all will be favored alike. [Applause.] There will be no industries then receiving large bounties from the government to make their business profitable, but the government will administer justice to all alike, and, tak- ing only money enough to economically administer its public affairs, will leave the rest in the pockets of the people, where it belongs. [Great applause.] I desire to thank you for your kind attention. [Tumultuous applause, followed by "three cheers for William M. Springer."] [T^rom the North American Review, February, 1892.*] HOW TO ATTACK THE TARIFF. BY THE HON. WILLIAM M. SPRINGER, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Repre- sentatives. During the first session of the Fiftieth Congress the House of Representatives was Democratic, and the Senate was Re- publican; Mr. Cleveland was President. The first session of that Congress assembled on the first Monday in December, 1887, and adjourned on the 20th day of October, 1888. The presidential election occurred in November thereafter. The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representa- tives of that Congress reported a measure for a general re- vision of the tariff, known as the Mills bill. The general debate on that bill began in the House on the 17th day of April, and occupied twenty-three day-and-evening sessions. In all, 151 speeches were made during the general debate. The debate upon the bill by paragraphs began on the 31st day of May; and twenty-eight days, or 128 hours and 10 minutes, were occupied in the five-minute debate. The vote was taken upon the passage of the bill in the House on the 19th day of July. The bill then went to the Senate, where considerable time was spent in so-called " hearings " by the Finance Committee of that body. The result was inevitable from the beginning; namely, that there was no tariff legislation enacted, and the session of Congress was prolonged until the 20th day of October, as already stated. As the presidential election oc- curred within a few days thereafter, there was no time what- ever for the proper consideration of this measure by the people. Whatever may have been the cause of Democratic defeat at that election, it must be conceded that the introduc- tion and passage through the House of a general bill of tariff revision did not produce the effect which the friends of the measure had earnestly desired, namely, the choice of a Demo- cratic President and a Democratic Congress at the ensuing election, * Copyright, 1892, by Lloyd Bryce. All rights reserved. 310 HOW TO ATTACK THE TARIFF. 31I During the last Congress, which was Republican in both branches, and during which time there was a Republican President, a measure for a general revision of the tariff, known as the McKmley bill, was passed at the first session, and was approved on the day of adjournment, October i, 1890. It is conceded that the time necessary for the preparation and passage through both Houses of Congress of a carefully matured revision of the tariff, required both of the preceding Congresses to consume upon that subject the time which was actually occupied, and which, in both cases, resulted in the prolongation of the session until the 20th, and the first of the month of October, respectively. The Republicans in the last Congress, at its beginning, were undoubtedly of the opinion that the interests of their party required that there should be a general revision of the tariff passed during that session, and fondly hoped that such general revision would bring success to their party at the en- suing Congressional election. They were sadly disappointed. The result of the ensuing election for members of Congress was most disastrous to the party that was responsible for the passage of the McKinley bill; the Democrats and Independ- ents, both opposing that measure, having elected a majority of 158 over those who supported it. However meritorious the Mills bill may have been from a Democratic standpoint, or however meritorious the McKinley bill may have been from a Republican standpoint, it is never- theless true that the time which elapsed between the passage of each bill and the ensuing election was not sufficient to enable the people to become sufficiently familiar with the pro- visions of either measure, and, being in doubt, caution doubt- less suggested the preservation of the status quo. In view of these precedents in tariff legislation, what should be the policy of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives of this Congress ? If both branches of Con- gress and the President were Democratic, there would be grave doubt as to the propriety of attempting a general re- vision of the tariff immediately preceding a Presidential elec- tion. The disastrous results to the Republican party, which immediately followed the passage of the McKinley bill, ought to teach Democrats to avoid the rocks upon which their op- ponents were dashed to pieces. But when we consider the fact that the Senate is Republican, and that there is a Repub- lican President, and that any such measure which might pass 312 TARIFF REFORM. the House would not have the slightest prospect of success, it seems almost self-evident that a general revision of the tariff should not be attempted during this session. As re- cently stated by a distinguished tariff-reform organ in the city of New York, "to propose in the House at this session, on the eve of a national election, a general revision of the tariff, might be magnificent, but it would not be war, such as must be waged for victory. It would in no sense advance the object professed; it would not make the devotion of the party to the principles of industrial and commercial emanci- pation a whit clearer than it is now. It would not make the necessity or advantage of the triumph of those principles any more obvious. It is not at all requisite to inform the country what the Democratic party believes in and is working for. It would simply be a tactical error of the gravest possible kind. It would be to abandon a strong aggressive position for a position of defense that would not be strong. It would instantly invite the concerted opposition of every interest now depending on the favors of the present tariff, and give to the opponents of every item in the bill the combined strength of the opponents of all." These propositions are absolutely un- assailable. While a general revision of the tariff should not be re- ported and passed at this session of Congress, yet it does not follow that nothing should be done on this subject. The Committees of Ways and Means and on Manufactures should proceed at once to a careful investigation of the prac- tical workings of the McKinley bill and of the conditions of our manufacturing industries. This information should be utilized in the preparation of a measure of general relief up- on this subject; but as such measure could not be passed except by a prolongation of the session — even if it were de sirable to pass it at all at the first session — in view of the precedents of the past, sound policy would require that it should not be reported to the House until' the beginning of the next session. Some progress could be made during that session in its consideration, but a definite line of policy to be pursued at that time would depend upon the result of the presidential election. If either branch of the Fifty-third Congress should be Republican — a fact which will be de- termined at that election — it would be futile to attempt to pass a measure of general revision during the remainder of this Congress or during the next Congress. If, however, the Fifty-third Congress should be Democratic, and a Demo- HOW TO ATTACK THE TARIFF. 313 cratic President should be elected, the new Congress might with great propriety be called in extraordinary session on the fourth day of March, 1893, and the work of tariff revision could then be begun in earnest, with a certainty of practical and successful results. Such early revision at the beginning of a presidential term would enable the country to become thoroughly familiar with the great advantages of a genuine revision of the tariff prior to any general election, and the party which was responsible for such revision might confi- dently expect the continued support of a majority of the American people in subsequent elections of Congresses and Presidents. There are several features of the McKinley bill which may be amended or repealed during this session. The Re- publican Senate and the President would hardly taice the re- sponsibility of refusing some of the measures of relief which may be brought forward and passed by the House of Rep- resentatives. The particular measures which should be selected for passage through the House should be deter- mined either by the Committee of Ways and Means or by a caucus of Democratic members. There are several, how- ever, which have already received favorable mention in the press of '.he country, such as placing wool on the free list and repealing the compensatory duty on woolen goods; placing on the free list binding twine, cotton ties, lumber, salt, and raw materials generally. The discussion in this article of particular subjects which should have considera- tion at this time would perhaps be unprofitable; but there is one measure which is of overshadowing importance, and which should receive immediate and favorable consideration. The placing of wool on the free list and a corresponding reduction of the duties on woolen goods are a matter the importance of which cannot be overestimated. The duties on woolen goods were increased by the McKinley bill; from an average of 67.15 per centum to 91.65 per centum. The increase on wool was from 34.32 to 40.66. The duties im- posed on woolen goods are of a twofold character: first, there is a duty per pound or per square yard, which is in- tended to compensate manufacturers for the higher price which they claim they must pay for wool by reason of the tariff; and, second, a duty ad valorem being, as is alleged, imposed to compensate for the higher-priced labor of this country as compared with foreign countries. The duties per pound or per square yard are especially burdensome 314 TARIFF REFORM. upon the cheaper grades of goods worn by the masses of the people. These specific duties frequently amount to over loo per centum of the value, and in some cases to over 200 per centum. If these specific or compensatory duties are repealed, the ad valorem duties only will remain, and these do not exceed in any case 60 per centum, and are frequently as low as 35 per centum; the average, perhaps, would amount to 45 per centum. This is the amount of protection which the friends of the protective system have adjudged is nec- essary to prevent injurious competition from abroad. But if wool is placed upon the free list, and the compensator)' duties upon woolen goods are repealed, the manufacturers of woolen goods will have no reason to complain of their new condi- tions; on the contrary, while the people will get the benefit of a reductiSn of more than one-half of the tariff on woolen goods, manufacturers will have the benefit of cheaper ma- terial and will be enabled to sell their products abroad in competition with the products of other countries. Thus, a larger market will be secured for woolen goods; there will be a greater demand for labor in establishments of this kind; and new industries, it is confidently expected, will spring up in all parts of the country. It is next to impossible to estimate accurately the amount which the consumers of the United States pay annually on account of woolen goods. The amount of such goods made in the woolen mills for the census year 1890 was valued at $344,000,000. This does not include the. output of ready- made clothing establishments for men and women; nor does it include the cost, to consumers, of the work done by tailors and dressmakers; nor the labor bestowed in the manufacture of woolen goods in the families of the country. The amount of woolen goods imported into the United States for the year 1890 was valued at over $56,000,000, and the average duty paid upon these g5ods was 67 per centum — the Mc- Kinley bill not having been passed at the close of that fiscal year. The output of factories and ready-made clothing es- tablishments, and the amount of goods imported, with the tariff added to them, is given at factory or wholesale prices. The amount paid by consumers will undoubtedly be in- creased at least 25 per centum* over such prices. When all these facts are taken into consideration, it will * This estimate is too low. The increase will amount to at least 40 per centum. HOW TO ATTACK THE TARIFF. 315 be seen that the consumers of woolen goods in the United States paid during the census year of 1880, in money and in labor, at least $750,000,000 for the woolen goods actually consumed and purchased. Just how much of this amount is due to the tariff on wool and woolen goods cannot be esti- mated with accuracy, but it is reasonable to assume that not less than $150,000,000 of this cost is due to the tariff on wool and woolen goods. At least half of this amount would be lifted from the shoulders of the people annually by plac- ing wool upon the free list and repealing the compensatory duties on woolen goods. This estimate does not take into consideration the large increase in the tariff on wool and woolen goods made by the McKinley bill. So far as wool is concerned, the McKinley bill has com- pletely failed to accomplish the object which its authors claimed they had in view. In the report which accompanied the bill when it was brought into the House of Representa- tives, it was stated that in every case of increased duty, ex- cept upon tin plate and linen fabrics, " importations would fall off." It was stated to be the aim of the committee to fix the duties upon manufactured goods and farm products so as to discourage the use of like goods and products, and give our producers the benefit of the home market; and also to afford ample protection to the farmers of the country en- gaged in wool growing. The protection on wool, which the bill secured, was claimed to be sufficient, beyond a doubt, to enable the farmers of the United States, at an early day, to supply substantially all the home demand. This was the ar- gument made by the authors of the bill to justify the impo- sition of increased duties upon wool, and, as a compensation for this, increased duties on woolen goods. Time IS a cruel arbiter. It is no respector of persons. It visits upon false theories and false pretences the judgments which they deserve. The statement of the imports of the United States, furnished by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department, shows that the imports of wool for the ten months endmg October 30, 1890 (the McKinley bill took effect October 6, 1890), amounted to 88,000,000 pounds, while the imports for the ten months ending October 30, 1 89 1 — the ten months next after the passage of that bill — were over 119,000,000 pounds, an increase of over 30 per centum. Thus are the theories upon which the McKinley bill was constructed crushed by the irresistible force of facts. But this is not all. The increased duties on woolen goods 3l6 TARIFF REFORM. were, as claimed, made necessary by the increased duties on wool. The manufacturers of woolen goods were satisfied with the old law; but if the duty on wool was to be in- creased, they must be compensated by an increased duty on woolen goods. The increase was made, as stated above. The statistics show thaf for the ten months ending October 30, 1890, the imports of woolen goods were valued at over $49,000,000, while those for the ten months ending October 30, 1891, were valued at only $29,000,000, a decrease of oyer 41 per centum. It also appears that the price of wool has averaged from 2 to 3 cents a pound less since the passage of the McKinley bill than it was when the bill passed. The only beneficiaries of the measure are the manufacturers of woolen goods, and it is doubtful whether they will, in the end, receive substantial benefit therefrom. The wool grow- ers and consumers of woolen goods have not been benefited; on the contrary, they have been greatly injured thereby. Legislators who regard the interests of the people cannot disregard these facts. It is their duty to apply a remedy for existing evils, and to correct the blunders of their predeces- sors. Ever}? consideration of the public weal demands that wool shall be placed on the free list, and that the compensa- tory duties on woolen goods shall be repealed. If the pres- ent Congress does not respond to this demand, it will be derelict in duty. A measure which would bring such immediate and sub- stantial relief will not be regarded M'ith indifference. It would " bring relief to the consumer as well as the manu- facturer and redound to the prosperity of the wage-worker as well as the capitalist." The other measures which may be passed by the House of Representatives during the first session of this Congress, and to which reference has already been made, wdl attract univer- sal attention and be received with great favor. They will remove the most glaring inequalities of our tariff laws, and bring immediate relief to those most entitled to considera- tion. They will be especially aimed at monopolies and other combinations to limit production and oppress labor. It is futile to attempt that which can not be accomplished. A good general will not waste his ammunition and resources in assaults upon an impregnable fortress when there are forces of the enemy encamped upon the open field within convenient reach. The friends of tariff reform should waste no time in endeavoring to secure that which is beyond their reach. HOW TO ATTACK THE TARIFF. 317 Their time can be well employed in attacking the weak and exposed points of their enemy's lines. By pursuing this course there will be no step backward in the cause of genu- ine tariff reform. Everything should be done, and will be done, to bring about a thorough and complete revision of our tariff laws at the earliest time practicable. Such revision should be in the interest of the consumers of the country, but brought about by such .conservative methods as will not embarrass any legitimate industry in the country, or deprive labor of one day's employment or of one cent or its just remu- neration. On the contrary, any revision of the tariff ought to be followed by increased stimulus to industries, increased demand, and better wages for labor; and by lower prices for manufactured articles which are most necessary to the health and comfort of the people. Some objection has been urged to any effort being made by the House of Representatives to secure the passage of separate measures upon the subjects indicated, for the reason that the credit for the beneficent results which would follow would be claimed and shared, perhaps, by the Republican Senate and the Republican President. Such considerations should not have the slightest weight with legislators who de- sire to promote the best interests and welfare of the people. Should Democrats refuse to give sanction and support to only such measures as Republicans will oppose ? If so, only measures of partisan advantage should be supported, while such as would commend themselves to men of all parties should be avoided. Even if the Republicans should be en- titled to equal credit for any measure of reform that might be passed by this Congress, Democrats should not hesitate on that. account to press those measures to a final and suc- cessful issue. But, in view of the fact that the Republican party is thoroughly committed to all the provisions of the McKinley bill, any repeal or modification of its provisions which might originate in the Honse of Representatives and be favorably considered by the Senate and President would be regarded as a Democratic measure, the credit for which would be ac- corded to that party almost exclusively. If, however, any measures which may pass the House should fail in the Sen- ate, or, having passed the Senate, should be vetoed by the President, the labor spent upon them would not be in vain. The National Democratic Convention could make a direct issue upon them before the people at the Presidential elec- 3l8 TARIFF REFORM. tion, and, having failed to pass during fhe first session, they would, in all probability, be successful at the second, after the people had, in effect, demanded their passage in the elec- tion of a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. An issue thus directed to the weakest points of the Mc- Kinleybill would be much easier of comprehension and more conducive to successful, aggressive warfare than one encum- bered by the endless details of a general revision of the tariff requiring defensive arguments and arraying ths whole pro- tected industries of the country upon the weakest points of the measure. The importance of preserving the McKinley bill as a distinctive issue in the Presidential campaign should not be lost sight of. Its general provisions are wholly indefensi- ble; it deprives labor of its just reward, fosters monopolies, and encourages combinations of capital to limit production and control prices. It was enacted in the interest of the fa- vored few and for the oppression of the masses of the people. Opposition to the objectionable features of this measure, coupled with a demand for genuine tariff reform, should be the paramount and overshadowing issue in the presidential contest; and upon that issue the Democratic party is already assured of success not only in the election of a President, but of a Congress Democratic in both branches. ^)u^ cents. You will find that these samples bear out the same argument as is shown by the others. It is raised from 60 to 72 per cent. The one costing 31^ cents is raised from 60 to 93 per cent. A mechanic whose wife can not afford a sealskin garment wants to have the next best thing she can get. Here is an article in which a garment retails for about $15 or $i6. It is a very good imitation of regular seal. The completed garment retails for about $15 or $i5. The cost of that in England is $2.50 a yard, and the present duty 50 per cent. It is proposed to raise that duty to 225 per cent.; an in- crease of 350 per cent. I have been informed that there is only one mill in the country which makes this; and if any industry needs such protection as that it ought to die. In other words, a man or a woman who can only afford to buy a $15 cloak would be compelled to pay a 225 per cent. duty. I beg to call the committee's attention to samples of black mohair serge, marked i and in, and both costing, in England, 10 cents per yard, both made of exactly the same materials, both used for the same purpose, coat linings, and both to-day paying the same rate of duty, which is equal to 78}^ per cent, ad valorem. It is proposed to raise the rates on one of the samples to 102 per cent., while on the other it would be 155 per cent. Third. I also call your attention to samples of astrakhan, which I submitted, covered by section 392. These goods are not made to-day in this country, although their protection is 80 per cent., and it is proposed to increase this just to 100 per cent. This class of goods is used altogether by the laboring man, me- chanic, or farmer; and the same discriminations previously referred to apply here. Hence the present rate of duty should not be in- creased. MR. Warner's testimony. Mr. A. M. Warner made the following statement in regard to the wool schedule: — Another material, from which are made large quantities of covers for stands, tables, pianos, mantels, and other articles for home use, is wool felt. This article is made in Germany at a cost of about 44 cents per yard. The present rate of duty is about 95 per cent.; and by the bill now pending it will be raised to 125 per cent. There are 328 TARIFF REFORM. in this country only three leading makers of wool felt; and very nat- urally they have formed a "combine," and I will say, in passing, that this particular "combine" is the most rank, radical, and rapa- cious "combine" in the whole category of "combines." For five years tiiey have held the price of this article at 95 cents per yard, with so tenacious a grip that houses in New York carrying ten millions of dollars in capital have had to succumb to their power. This article is also used very largely for women's wear; and not a felt skirt has a poor working girl thrown around her form in five years on which she has not had to pay a round sum as a tribute to these protected monop- olists. This "combine" is not only fostered and protected by the present tariff; it is directly created by it, and could not exist for one moment without it: yet the pending bill will raise the rate 30 per cent, higher. THE RATES UNREASONABLY HIGH. Notwithstanding Congress was in full possession of the facts above set forth, showing the enormous rates which the bill then pending imposed upon woolen goods, it pressed the bill to final passage; and these rates, many of which are prohib- itory, and all of which are unreasonably high, are those now embraced in the act of October i, 1890. There can be no good reason for maintaining such high taxes upon articles which are so necessary to the health and comfort of the peo- ple. A peculiar feature of these rates is, that, owing to the high rates per pound and per square yard added to the ad valorem rates, the duties were highest upon the cheaper grades of goods worn by the masses of the people, and lowest upon the high-priced goods worn by those in better circumstances. Upon no principle of taxation, which regards in the slightest degree the element of equality, can such rates be justified upon any articles of necessity, and especially upon articles so universally required by all classes of people as those em- braced in the pending bill. THE THEORY OF COMPOUND DUTIES, The theory upon which the wool schedule in the law of March 2, 1867, was enacted was stated by General Garfield in the report of the Ways and Means Committee in 1880, to be as follows: That, upon the several grades of imported wool, a duty should be imposed sufficient to promote the growth of sheep husbandry in the United States. A specific duty was then imposed on woolen goods, as nearly as possible equal to the wool which entered into their manu- facture. This was not protection hut simply an equivalent duty which placed the woolen manufacture on a free trade level. To this specific duty was then added a duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem oii woolen goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against foreign competition. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 329 The National Association of Wool Manufacturers, in a communication to the Secretary of the Treasury in October, 1885, stated the theory upon which the wool legislation is based as follows: * The wool manufacturer is to be placed in the same position as if he had his wool and other raw material free of duty; and then to re- ceive substantially the same measure of protection accorded to other industries. The method by which this, problem is solved is by the imposition upon woolen cloths and other manufactures of wool of such specific duties as will be sufficient to reimburse the manufact- urer for the amount of duty and other material entering into such manufactures, and the amount paid on account of such duty. The protection to the manufacturer is provided by an ad valorem duty; being, with slight exceptions, fixed in the old and existing tariff as 35 per cent. — these two classes of duty, the specific and ad valorem, constituting that system of compound duties which is held to be the only one that can be effectually defensive of the woolen manufacture, or is consistent with protection to wool. AMOUNT OF WOOL IN FINISHED PRODUCT. This being the theory upon which the specific and ad val- orem duty on woolen goods is imposed, the next problem to solve was as to the amount of raw material that would be re- quired to make a pound of finished goods, the amount of duty paid on the material, and the amount paid on account of the duty. The estimates of the manufacturers, which seem to have been accepted by the law-making power of the government, were that an average of 4 pounds of raw wool is required to produce i pound of finished woolen goods. This estimate was claimed by manufacturers to be too low to cover a large class of goods. Hence, on some classes of goods provided for in the existing law, the relation of raw wool to the finished product is placed at 454 pounds of raw wool to I pound of the finished product. The manufacturers also claimed that, by reason of the duties on drugs, dye- stuffs, and other imported materials, and other charges and expenses in consequence of these duties, which amounted to 10 per cent., this amount should be added to the specific duty to fully reimburse the manufacturer. WOOL GROWERS AND WOOL MANUFACTURERS AGREE. These claims of the manufacturers seem to have been acceded to in framing the existing law. Your committee, however, desire to call attention to the fact that in 1866 this * See Senate Ex. Doc, No 73, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, p. 307, 330 TARIFF REFORM. same National Association of Wool Manufacturers, through their executive committee, addressed a communication to the United States Revenue Commission, in which they set forth their claims to increased protection. In this communication they were joined by the National Wool Growers' Association, the two associations having united in their respective de- mands. The conclusions which these two associations then reached were stated as follows : * In view of the facts above stated, and of the requirements of our manufacturers for an increased supply of American wool, and in order to furnish a stimulus for such supply, and at the same time to " secure equal encouragement and protection to both interests," we recommend as a basis for the readjustment of the revenue laws ap- plicable to wool and woolens the following propositions: (i) A provision to be inserted in the tariff laws requiring all wools now known as Meztizo, Metz, Cape, and Australian wools, to be sub- jected to a duty of not less than ro cents per pound and lo per cent, ad valorem; said provision to be so worded as most effectually to prevent these and similar wools from being admitted at a less rate of duty; the rates of duty on all other wools to remain as they now are, with the exception of wools the growth of Canada, which, in the ab- sence of treaty stipulations, shall be subjected to a duty of ^ cents per pound. (2) All manufactures composed wholly or in part of wool or wors- ted shall be subjected to a duty which shall be equal to 25 per cent, net; that is to say, 25 per cent, after reimbursing the amount paid on account of duties on wool, dye-stuffs, and other imported materials used in such manufactures, and also the amount paid for the internal- revenue tax imposed on manufactures and upon the supplies and material used therefor. This report is signed by the executive committees of the associations and was regarded at the time as expressing the sentiments of all persons engaged in both industries. In a subsequent communication of the executive committee of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers relative to the proposed duties on wool and woolens, addressed to the United States Revenue Commission, May, 1866, the follow- ing statement occurs in explanation of the foregoing pro- visions: The object sought in these bills was to give a sufficient protection to the wool grower, and place the manufacturer in the same position as if he had his wool free of duty. A duty, supposed to be sufficient to protect the wool grower against wool competing with his own, was placed upon such wools; and such a specific duty was placed upon woolen cloths as was supposed to be sufficient to reimburse the manufacturer for the amount of the duty paid on the wools. The ad * See Reports of Commission appointed fnr a Revision of the Revenue System of the United States, i865~'66, pp. 429-430. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 331 valorem duty on the cloths was added, to reimburse to the manufact- urer the expenses of carrying the duty on the wools, the internal taxes, the duties on drugs and other materials used in manufacture, and to furnish the required protection. CONGRESS ACCEDES TO THEIR DEMAND. It will be seen that these reports were submitted to the United States Revenue Commission prior to the passage of the act of March 2, 1867; and by reference to the provisions in that act it will be seen that the recommendations of these two executive committees were adopted by Congress, with the exception that women's and children's dress goods, etc., valued at above 20 cents per square yard were taxed, in ad- dition to the duty of 80 cents per square yard, an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent. ; and ready-made clothing was also taxed 40 per cent.; and webbings, beltings, etc., were taxed 50 per cent, ad valorem in addition to the pound duties. Some qualities of carpets were also taxed 40 and 50 per cent, ad valorem in addition to the pound duties; so that Congress at that time actually gave the wool manufacturers a larger protection than they had demanded. The internal- revenue tax at that time, March 2, 1867, on woolen manu- factures amounted to 10 per cent, ad valorem. This tax was subsequently removed; but no corresponding reduction was made in the import duties on woolen manufactures. Twenty- five per cent, net was all the protection that wool manufact- urers then asked in order to enable them to compete success- fully with their foreign rivals; but it seems in the case of woolen goods, as in all others, the amount of protection re- quired increases from year to year. As the industries get older and better established, more protection is demanded. The act of March 2, 1867, related entirely to the classification of wools, the tax upon raw wool and woolen manufactures; no other articles were covered by that act. THE DUTIES WERE MORE THAN COMPENSATORY. The specific duties imposed upon woolen goods in Schedule K of the act of October i, 1890, were claimed to be merely compensatory; that is to say, to compensate the manufact- urer for the amount of tariff he might be required to pay up- on imported wools, and the increased price of domestic wools by reason of the tariff. The ad valorem rates were intended to cover the difference in wages and other costs of produc- tion in this country and foreign countries. If a careful examination is made of the effect of the specific duties, it 332 TARIFF REFORM. will appear that they are more than compensatory; in fact, that they are highly protective, and in many cases prohibi- tory. The law estimates that it requires 4 pounds, on the aver- age, of wool in the grease to make i pound of finished cloth; and, hence, the pound rate upon a pound of cloth is equal to four times the tariff on a pound of wool in the grease. The pound rate would, therefore, amount to 44 cents per pound of cloth, if the wool were taxed at 11 cents per pound. This rate assumes that all of the component parts of woolen goods are wool; but by reference to the statistics of woolen goods* printed on pp. 966 to 973, inclusive, of Volume II. of the Tenth Census, it will be seen that there were 197,000,000 pounds of foreign and domestic wool in the condition pur- chased, which is, in the grease, and 109,000,000 pounds of scoured wool. It would require 4 pounds of the former to make a pound of cloth, and the scoured wool would lose i pound in 4 in being converted into the cloth. This shows that there were 131,000,000 pounds of wool in the cloth actually made. There were nearly 4,000,000 pounds of yarn used, which should be added to this without any reduction (although there is a loss of about 10 per cent.), which would make 135,000,000 pounds of wool in the cloth actu- ally made. It also appears from the table to which reference is made that the adulterants used, such as camel's hair, mohair, buf- falo hair, hair of other animals, cotton, and shoddy, amounted to 98,000,000 pounds. These adulterants would lose, per- haps, 25 per cent, in being converted into cloth, which shows that there were 73,000,000 pounds of adulterants in the cloth produced. The adulterants and wool combined show a prod- uct of 208,000,000 pounds of cloth, in which there were only 135,000,000 pounds of pure wool. If the tariff on the wool in the grease was estimated at it cents per pound, the protection per pound and square yard on this product would amount to $91,520,000. The goods produced were valued at $160,000,000 ; and, if the ad valorem rate was estimated at 45 per cent, on the average, the ad valorem protection would amount to $72,000,000. This shows that the specific protection was $19,520,000 more on the whole product than the protection ad valorem The combined protection amount- ed to $163,520,000.' The specific rates imposed by law on * This does not include mixed textiles, felts, or carpets. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 333 woolen goods are based upon the assumption that all of the ingredients are wool ; but the fact is that in 208,000,000 pounds of cloth there are only 135,000,000 pounds of wool. There were over 31,000,000 pounds of cotton used, the protection on which was nearly 500 per cent, on the value of the cotton itself. If the specific duties had been based upon the wool actually used in the cloth, the protection on that account would only have amounted to $59,000,000 instead of $91,000,000. It may be claimed that some protection was due to the high price of shoddy, wastes, hair, and other adulterants; but such compensation should not be based up- on the protection of four times the tariff on a pound of wool in the grease. In any event, however, the specific duties now provided by law amount to more than compensation for the tariff on wool. They are highly protective, and even prohibitory, especially on the cheaper grades of woolen goods. RATES IN PENDING BILL. The rates provided for in the bill, the passage of which your committee recommends, are fixed with due regard to the labor, cost of production, and to the necessities of con- sumers. The lowest rates are placed upon goods upon which the least labor has been bestowed and which are consumed by the greatest number of people. HISTORY OF HIGH TARIFFS ON WOOL AND WOOLEN GOODS. The history of the legislation imposing duties on wool and woolen goods is of special interest; and the disastrous results to wool growers, to wool manufacturers, and to consumers which have followed such legislation demand the serious consideration of Congress at this time, in order that the proper remedy may be applied. The act of March 2, 1867, was passed at the instance of a national association of wool growers and a like association of wool manufacturers. It was the first departure in this country from the principle of imposing reasonable revenue duties upon wool and woolen goods, to the policy of high protective tariffs on wool and compensatory and ad valorem duties on woolen goods. EFFECT OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867. In 1866, when the bill was pending in Congress which afterward became the act of March 2, 1867, it was predicted by those who opposed such legislation that the effect would 334 TARIFF REFORM. be to lower the prices of wool and that the result would be disastrous to both wool growers and to manufacturers of woolen goods. Your committee call attention to the report of David A. Wells, then Special Commissioner of the Reve- nue, to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1869, two years after the passage of the act of 1867, which sets forth the dis- astrous results which followed this legislation.* EFFECT ON SHEEP HUSBANDRY. Attention is also called to a statement showing the number of sheep in States east of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers at different periods from 1868 to this time, printed in Ap- pendix B attached to this report; also to a statement showing the number of sheep in the States and Territories west of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers from i860 to 1891, inclusive, published in Appendix C to this report. It will be seen, by reference to those statements, that in February, 1868, there were 37,000,000 sheep in the States east of those rivers, and that these were the States, with the exception of California, in which nearly all the sheep of the country were to be found at that time. The act imposing high duties upon wool was passed March 2, 1867; and the enumeration of sheep in Feb- ruary, 1868, may be regarded as the number on hand at the time of the passage of that bill, or within less than a year thereafter. The States whose representatives were instrumental in securing the legislation of 1867 have not been benefited by that legislation if the encouragement of sheep-raising was the object had in view. Take for instance the State of Ohio. In 1868 there were 6,730,000 sheep in that State; in 1870 the number had fallen to 4,928,000; in 1880 to 4,080,000; in 1883 to 5,050,000; in 1890 there were only 3,943,000 reported; while in 1891 the number was given at 4,061,000. This shows a falling off of more than one-third of the number of sheep in Ohio during the twenty-four years of high protective tariff on wool. During that time the population of Ohio has in- creased from 2,665,260 in 1870 to 3,672,316 in 1890. A similar result was produced in the State of Illinois, which had in 1868 2,736,000 sheep, while in 1891 there were only 771,000 in the State. Similar results took place in all of the other States east of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. * See Report of David A. Wells, Special Commissioner of the Revenue, to the Secretary of the Treasury, December, 1860, pp. XCII.-CV, REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 335 There were 37,685,000 sheep in those States in 1868; and only 18,476,000 in 1891; a falling off of more than one-half during the twenty-four years in which high tariffs on wool have been in force. The population in the meantime in those States has probably doubled. If the number of sheep had kept pace with the increase of population, there would have been in those States at this time at least 75,000,000 sheep. It will be seen by reference to Appendix C that the increase in the number of sheep in the United States has been in States west of those rivers, or in localities where there was a free range upon the public domain. There were in the whole United States in 1868 nearly 39,000,000 sheep, as appears by a note to yVppendix B; at this time there are only 43,000,000, an in- crease of 4,439,000 in twenty-four years, the whole increase being in sheep upon the ranches of the West. The States which secured the legislation, and which it was supposed would be benefited, have lost more than half the number of sheep which they had at the time the act of 1867 was passed. In 1867, the year in which the wool-tariff act was passed, there were only 38,000,000 pounds of wool imported into the United States; which was 19 per cent, only of the wool con- sumed in this country. In 1891 there were 129,000,000 pounds of wool imported; which was 30.8 per cent, of the total consumption of the country. Thus it appears that there is at this time 62 per cent, more of foreign wool consumed in this country, as compared with the whole amount con- sumed, than there was in 1867. The wool growers of 1867 believed that the imposition of high tariffs on wool would se- cure them the control of the home market. The result proves how greatly they were mistaken and how ineffectual the law has been to produce the condition which they desired. PRICES OF WOOL. At the time of the passage of the act of March 2, 1867, wool was worth 62 cents per pound in currency. It has steadily declined from that time to this. The passage of the act of March 3, 1883, which act re- duced slightly the tariff on wool, was followed by a fall in its price; but the lower price reached in 1887 had been reached in 1879, when the tariff was still in force at the high rates fixed in 1867. The depression in prices after the act of 1883 was caused by increased production and by increased im- ports of wool, which followed the passage of the act of March 3, 1883. There was an increased production for the year 336 TARIFF REFORM. 1884 of 10,000,000 pounds, and an increased importation of 8,000,000 pounds, and a total increase of consumption of foreign and domestic wools combined of 20,000,000 pounds. Tiiis increased consumption of wool was by woolen manu- facturers; aud signifies an increased production of woolen goods. In 1885 there was a further increase of production of wool of 8,000,000 pounds. This increased production, following a reduction of the tariff on wool, had the effect to depress prices; but this depression is further explained by a general decline in the price of wool throughout the world. The act of October i, 1890, increased the duty on wool on an aver- age of I cent a pound, with a view to increasing the prices of wool in this country. The result has been, instead of an in- crease in price, a fall of from 2 to 3 cents a pound, as com- pared with the prices which prevailed prior to its passage. The price of wool at this time is one-half what it was at the time of the passage of the act of March 2, 1867. In view of these facts, it can not be said that the high tariffs on wool have benefited the wool growers; on the contrary, after twen- ty-five years of experiment, the result has been a reduction of one-half in the number of sheep in the States east of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and a reduction of one-half in the price of wool. EFFECT ON MANUFACTURERS. Nor have the manufacturers of woolen goods been bene- fited by the imposition of high duties on wool and woolen goods. There have been many seasons of great depression in their business, and many petitions have been sent to Con- gress asking for free wool. The manufacturers of woolen goods are divided in opinion as to whether wool should be placed upon the free list; but all concede the great disad- vantage to which American wool manufacturers are subjected by reason of the tariff on wool. MR. manning's circular. In 1885 Secretary Manning sent out circular letters to manufacturers and merchants, requesting their cooperation in the improvement of the fiscal policy of the United States. The replies received were transmitted to Congress and printed in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 72, first session, Forty-ninth Congress. On pages 299 to 322 of that report will be found sn important communication from the National Asspciatioa REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 337 of Wool Manufacturers. This communication sets forth very clearly and forcibly the disadvantages to which Amen can wool manufacturers are subjected by reason of the taritt on wool. A circular letter, signed by Mr. William Whitman, presi- dent, and John L. Hayes, secretary, in behalf of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, transmitted the commu- nication of the association to the members thereof throughout, the United States and obtained their indorsement. Nearly all of the manufacturers of woolen goods in the United States at that time approved the communication addressed to Secretary Manning. In Mr. Whitman's circular letter, dated Boston, Mass., October 28, 1885, occurs the following state- ment:* THE WOOL TARIFF A POLITICAL NECESSITY. We are aware that there is a difference of opinion among wool manufacturers as to [the] desirableness of a duty upon wool. Waiv- ing that question, as we have in the response to Secretary Manning, and assuming that the continuance of a wool duty for the present is a political necessity, we presume that every intelligent wool manufact- urer in the country will admit that the principle of the existing woolen tariff — a compensatory duty for the raw material and a further protective duty — is the best system that can be devised. This system is now in deadly peril. Nothing can save it but the individual efforts of the manufacturers whose interests are imperiled. We ought to be able to present Congress at least a thousand indi- vidual protests against a change of the existing system. The request contained in this communication was to secure protests from the woolen manufacturers in the United States against any change in the then existing duties on wool and woolen goods; that is, against any change of the provisions on this subject in the act of March 3, 1883. While the communication addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury made no protest against the then existing tariff on wool and woolen goods, yet it will be seen from the circular letter above that the National Association of Wool Manu- facturers assumed " that the continuance of the wool duty for the present is a political necessity." And treating the tariff on wool as a political necessity, not as a measure for revenue, the communication proceeded to set forth the dis- advantages to which American wool manufacturers are sub- jected by reason of the tariff on wool. Special attention is *Same, p. 330. 338 TARIFF REFORM. directed to the following extracts from that communica- tion.* Foreign niamifactttrers' advantages from free wool, — It is necessary for us to enlarge somewhat upon a peculiarity of our manufacture before alluded to — namely: its subjection, upon grounds of public policy, to a high duty on the raw material. The American manufact- urer is engaged in a perpetual struggle with the manufacturers of Europe for the possession of the markets of this country. As before said, the advantages of our competitors are our obstacles. In this strife the European manufacturer possesses the advantage, which would be overwhelming if not counteracted by special legislation, of having the raw material of his manufacture free from duty — no duties on wool existing in Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands; and very slight duties, if any, in other manufacturing nations. Our European competitors are exempt from the direct enhancement by a duty of the cost of wool, thus requiring less capital to supply their mills and no cost of interest on the duty required in carrying their stocks of wool and goods. They are free from the apprehension of changes in the value of wool, such as have taken place in this coun- try in consequence of no less than seventeen changes in the tariff on wools within the memory of living manufacturers. They are exempt from the duties on wool substitutes, so usefully employed to mix with wool in the manufacture of the cheaper and heavier cloths — duties which with us are absolutely prohibitory. They are able, from the lower cost of their raw material, to relieve themselves from overproduction by consigning their surplus stocks at comparatively slight sacrifice to foreign markets, to which their cheapness has already introduced them. They are not compelled, as we are, to dis- criminate in their choice of wool to avoid the effect of the duty; and are able to select their wools in any condition, whether unwashed, washed, or scoured, with reference only to their desirable qualities. Through freedom of importation they have near markets, as at Lon- don, Havre, Antwerp and Berlin, offering vast assortments and a steady supply of all kinds of wool — advantages especially favorable to the small manufacturer. This exemption from all restrictions in the selection of raw material, together with the facilities for supply and the certainty that values will not be disturbed by legislation, is believed to be the chief cause of a characteristic of the European woolen industry, namely, that the manufacturer abroad obtains suc- cess by adhering with steady attention to the special fabrics he has undertaken to make, and in which he has acquired excellence; while diversification of manufactures, so necessary to prevent overproduc- tion, is encouraged by the equal availability of all varieties and con- ditions of raw material. The effect of this policy upon the agricult- ural interests and the labor of the countries which adopt it we are not at present called upon to consider. Domestic manufacturers' disadvantages. — On the other hand, the protection to wool adopted in this country upon grounds of public policy involves disadvantages to the domestic manufacture which would be insuperable if not neutralized by the compensation to be * Same, pp. 304-306. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 339 hereafter referred to. In making a comparison with European manu- facturers it is not sufiicient to consider the rates of duty only, but the expenses attending the importation of wool from the great wool markets of the world, from which the foreign manufacturer is ex- empt, and which constitute an additional protection to the wool grower. PAYING DUTY ON GREASE AND DIRT. This high duty is not the only difiiculty with which our manufact- urers requiring foreign wools have to contend. It is held that com- plete protection to the most important branch of our wool-growing industry, the merino sheep husbandry, requires that washed wools in class I should be subject to double the duty of unwashed wool, and the duty on scoured wool should be three times the amount upon the unwashed wools — an arrangement which compels the importations of class I wools to be in a greasy state, necessitating the transportation charges on from 2% to 3 pounds of grease and dirt in the wool re- quired for a pound of cloth. The effect of the compulsion to buy greasy wool, and pay a heavy specific duty on its impurities, is that the American manufacturer is thereby obliged to give undue prefer- ence to light condition over fineness and the other valuable qualities of wools offering in foreign markets. Our manufacturers, moreover, are obliged by this restriction to concentrate their competition in foreign markets upon the always small proportion of the lightest un- washed wools; while our foreign competitors, having to pay duty neither upon wool nor upon grease and dirt, can buy the heavy wools in the market to much better advantage. DIFFICULTIES INCREASING. To these considerations it should be added that the high specific duty on clothing wools, a duty irrespective of the cost, practically excludes the cheap and abundant clothing wools of South America; and, by freeing them from our competition for their purchase makes them much cheaper than they would otherwise be to the manufact- urers of France, Belgium and Germany, who work them up into cloths and stuffs by the cheapest labor in Europe. Another matter, though comparatively of less importance, should not be omitted. The classification of wools under each class, indis- pensable as it is for the objects aimed at in the wool tariff, is subject to the diiBculty of excluding the doubtful classes of wool, or those on the uncertain line of division between two classes, however desir- able and valuable they may be, the importer being unwilling to incur the risk of such wools being subjected to the duty of the higher class. This is another considerable restriction in our selection of imported wools, and has been a source of serious loss and inconvenience to our importing manufacturers. Necessity for counteracting disadvantages. — It will be seen from the above that we are subjected, in consequence of wool duties deemed necessary for the protection of the domestic wool industry, not only to an enhancement of the cost of our raw material, but to stringent limitations in choosing the best sources of supply for our various wants — disadvantages from which our foreign competitors are wholly exempt, and to which no other branch of domestic industry is sub- jected to any material extent. 340 TARIFF REFORM. Necessily f«r importations of ivool. — It may be said that a remedy for these difficulties is to be found in the exclusive use of the domes- tic wools, which will be abundantly supplied under due protection. To this we reply that neither our own country nor any other in the world does or can produce, to advantage, wools of all kinds and grades. Experience, under high protection of wool in this country for over thirty years has demonstrated that our domestic wool growers find it to their advantage to produce only the staple wools required for the ordinary range of woolen fabrics, and, as these fab- rics will always be in demand, they build up their flocks, a work of time, for the production only of the fleeces which will be profitable for a long series of years. This system, although providing admi- rable raw material for common goods, is incompatible with the variety required for the diversified and highly advanced manufacture which be our aim. The American manufacturer, to compete with the fab- rics of other nations in the endless variety demanded by our times, must have the power of selecting a portion of his raw material from all the world's sources of supply. The sudden and exceptional de- mand for more or new raw material must be supplied by importa- tions HIGH TAXES SHOULD BE REPEALED. In view of the many disadvantages and embarrassments, as above set forth, to which our domestic manufacturers of woolen goods are subjected by reason of the high duties on wool, and in view also of the fact that the imposition of such duties has neither benefited the wool growers, the wool manu- facturers, nor the consumers of the country, Congress should not hesitate to repeal the unnecessary exactions. WOOL MANUFACTURES IN 1880 AND 189O. Attention is called to a preliminary statement of woolen industries for the censuses of 1880 and 1890, furnished your committee by the Superintendent of Census, February 26, 1892, and printed in Appendix N attached to this report. The letters of the special agents in charge of manufactures pre- cede this statement and should be carefully read in order that a proper understanding of these statistics may be had. It must be remembered that this statement embraces all classes of woolen, worsted, and felt goods, wool hats, carpets other than rag, and hosiery and knit goods from both census years. Also, in the returns for 1890, as explained by Special Agent North, is included the shoddy industry among wool manufactures. It will also be seen by a note at the bottom of the preliminary statement, that capital to the value of $6,134,000, controlled by 271 establishments that were idle during the census year, and these idle establishments have been enumerated under the heads of capital invested and REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 34I number of woolen establishments for 1890; also, 94 estab- lishments in 1890 engaged exclusively in the manufacture of shoddy as well as the capital and output. If we deduct the idle establishments (271) and the shoddy establishments (94) which are included for the first time in woolen manufactures, it will be seen that instead of 2,867 establishments in 1890, there were only 2,502 woolen establishments in active opera- tion. This shows a falling off in the number of establish- ments between 1880 and 1890 of 187. The capital invested in 1890 also includes hired property to the value of $17,742,- 000. A careful examination of this preliminary statement will show that woolen establishments have increased in Penn- sylvania, New York, New Jersey and in the New England States, but that, as a rule, there has been a falling off in woolen establishments between 1880 and 1890 in the Southern States and States west of the Alleghany Mountains. From the output of the product of woolen goods for 1890 should be deducted the shoddy produced, valued at $9,000,- 000, in order to compare the product of 1890 with that of 1880. This being done, it will be seen that the increase amounted to only 26.08 per cent., which is but little more than the increase of population. It must also be borne in mind that the census of 1890 has been taken much more thoroughly than that of 1880; and some of this increased product is due to improved methods of taking the census. A fair estimate of the increase in the manufacture of woolen goods will show that the increase just about keeps pace with the increase of population. With an actual decrease to the amount of 174 in woolen establishments, and an output which merely keeps pace with the growth of population in the United States, it can not be claimed that the manufacture of woolen goods has been in a flourishing condition during the last decade. With a high protective tariff on the raw material and compensatory and high ad valorem duties on the finished product, and products limited to the home market, woolen manufacturers can not even hope to increase their produc- tions beyond the annual increase of population. CONSUMERS NOT BENEFITED. Woolen goods, or goods composed in whole or in part of wool, including carpets are articles of universal consumption in this country. Their cost to consumers is very great. It is impossible to estimate accurately how much the people of 342 TARIFF REFORM. the country expend on this account. Such goods are abso- lutely necessary to the health and comfort of the people; and they are entitled to supply their wants in this respect at the lowest possible cost. If the existing law, imposing an average tax of 91 per cent, on such goods when imported, does not increase the price of domestic goods of like char- acter, which do not pay any tax whatever, then the manufact- urer receives no benefit from protective tariffs and should not object to their repeal. If domestic goods are increased in price by reason of duties imposed upon foreign goods of like character, the extent or amount of this increase is the measure or protection which domestic manufacturers receive. Just how much this protection increases the cost of domestic goods to American consumers can not be ascertained with accuracy. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, the importa- tions of woolen goods were valued at $54,000,000, and the duties collected thereon amounted to $37,000,000. These imported articles were sold in competition with domestic goods of like quality; and such domestic goods were increased in price on this account — in some cases to the full amount of the tariff paid on the foreign article. In other cases, the foreign articles being practically excluded, domestic compe- tition fixed the price of the domestic product. According to the census of 1890 the total value of all wool manufact- ures in the United States for the census year was $344,- 000,000. These are the values at the mill exclusive of com- missions and expenses of sales. The increased cost upon this amount caused by converting the materials into garments or articles ready for use would be very great. The con- sumers are compelled to pay whatever taxes are imposed upon woolen goods when imported, as well as whatever in- creased cost may be added to domestic goods by reason of the tariff. As all persons are compelled to use woolen goods, all are compelled to pay the increased cost by reason of the tariff, whatever it may be. This exaction is taken from the many for the benefit of the few. Notwithstanding the high protection accorded manufact- urers of woolen goods, the quality of such goods has de- teriorated from year to year since the discovery of machinery for converting woolen rags into substitutes for wool. Pro- tective tariffs have not protected consumers of wool against the increased use of adulterants in the manufacture of such goods. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 343 SHODDY. The statistics in reference to the manufacture of shoddy appear for the first time in the census reports of i860. On page xxxiv, of volume on manufactures of the census of i860, is a brief statement, giving a definition of the term, and stat- ing the purposes for which the article was used. As stated in this paragraph — It consists of cast-off woolen clothes, rags, stockings, carpets, and all soft woolen and worsted articles, reduced by powerful machinery to their original flocculent state, to be respun and woven, either alone or mixed with new wool, into a variety of fabrics. Hard or superfine cloths, mechanically reduced to filament in the same way, produce what is called mungo, which makes a better class of goods. Shoddy was originally only used for padding; but for some years past has been used for the manufacture of pilot and petersham overcoats, table and piano covers, army cloths, etc.; white shoddy enters into light- colored goods, blankets, etc. ; and the dark-colored into carpets and coarse cloths of all kinds, which are dyed to cover the original colors. Mungo is extensively used in the production of the cheap Yorkshire broadcloths, which, in finish and appearance, when new, are little dis- tinguishable from the best West of England cloths. These shoddy clothes, on account of their cheapness and deceptive appearance, have been very much used in the United States, to the injury of our cloth manufactures. Being in some respects better adapted to produce a close, short nap than American wool, this material has also entered into our domestic manufactures of late years. The machines for re- ducing rags to shoddy are also in use here. The paragraph also stated that shoddy has been used in the manufacture of army and navy cloths and blankets in the United States as it is in England. On page 740 of the same volume there is a statement of the condition of the shoddy manufactures of i860. It is as follows: Number of establishments 30 Capital invested $123,500 Cost of raw material f 227,925 Number of hands employed: Male 141 Female 149 Annual cost of labor $54,124 Annual value of products $402 , 590 This was the condition of this industry in i860. During the late war, shoddy was extensively used in the manufacture of army clothing and blankets, which proved to be of very inferior quality, that the public became greatly prejudiced against its use. 344 TARIFF REFORM. ' THE RENAISSANCE OF WOOL. Since i860, the use of shoddy has become more general in the United States and elsewhere; and it has become a component part of all varieties of woolen goods. The Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manu- facturers (Vol. XXL, p. 340; December, 1891) thus refers to the subject in an editorial article entitled " The Renaissance of Wool:" Shoddy, mungo, and wool extract are three varieties of the same general thing. Their preparation was first discovered in England, where they are more extensively utilized than anywhere else. They are, in a word, remanufactured fibers. The Germans call them kunsi- wolle (art wool), and the French renaissance; and they are literally wool born again. The fiber of wool has a wonderful capacity of en- durance. Once used, it may be and is used again and again, repro- duced, not with all its original virtues, but still with many serviceable qualities. In the same article from which this extract is taken, is given with approval the opinion of a distinguished English expert in such matters, Mr. McLaren, who states that "the man who first brought shoddy into use has conferred an in- calculable benefit on the world, and enabled millions of per- sons to be warmly and cheaply clothed who must otherwise have been shivering with cold." The Bulletin (p. 341) gives its approval of Mr. McLaren's views and explains the process of manufacture of these sub- stitutes for wool: Mr. McLaren's views are practically the same as those of all writ- ers on the manufacture of wool. Of the three varieties of renovated wool, shoddy is undoubtedly the best. It is made chiefly from combed wool, and is the worked- up waste of goods that have not been milled or felted, such as stocli- ings, flannels, blankets, soft merinos, etc. It is also made from hard spinning waste, now generally subjected to treatment, as well as all the looser waste generated in the manufacture of wool, on a machine named the Garnett, after its inventor, an engine of very recent date, the invention of which has been a godsend to manufacturer and con- sumer. In principle, it resembles a carding machine; and it effects a gradual untwisting of the fibers, which preserves as nearly as may be their original length. Mungo is made from hard spun and felted cloth, and generally from any and ail cloths for men's wear, into the fabrica- tion of which no cotton has entered. It is necessarily of very short fiber, by reason of the tension required to pull it apart. It is a saying in the English districts where it is most largely used, that anything can be spun if it is only long enough to have two ends; and it is cer- tainly astonishing what warm and substantial clothing can be made by its judicious use Iti connection with new fibers of wool. REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 345 Wool extract is made from fabrics or wastes which have either cot ton or linen in them. It is manufactured by carbonization. The tissue is steeped in a solution of sulphuric acid or some other destroy- ing agent of vegetable matter, and then heated in an inclosed cham- ber. This drying process leaves the sulphuric acid in a very con- centrated form upon the issue; the effect of which is to reduce the vegetable fiber to cinders or dust, so that it disappears when the material is subjected to a thorough washing. These various substitutes are ground upon machines not greatly different in construction for the several varieties. Old rags are fed upon a picker, with steel teeth, sometimes called the " devil," from the way in which it tears up and maltreats everything it gets hold of. THE GROWTH OF SHODDY INDUSTRY. The statistics of the growth of this new industry will prove of interest. By reference to the volume on industry and wealth, census of 1870, the statistics for the manufacture of shoddy for that year were given, as follows: Number of establishments 56 Hands employed 632 Capital , $81 5 ,950 Wages 198,372 Materials 1,098,603 Products 1,768,592 These figures show that the industry was fairly prosperous during the decade between i860 and 1870. The capital em- ployed was increased 561 per cent.; and there was an in- crease in the value of the product to the amount of 339 per cent. The statistics of shoddy manufacture are given more in detail on page 72 of volume II., on Manufactures, of the census of 1880, where the following table will be found: 346 TARIFF REFORM. ■o- ■^ o 8 8 8 ,X>8 8 as 4J S vO^ to O i>> a^^O ^"^ O,^ H H. | Cfs 1 j< o" oT N^ lA a^ I-^ •>■ 6" lO lO^D 52 > p. °2. T*-Sv-.MO-^roOO»oOMO O^ 1 ro »^ fO i-« tj- I>.y3 ►-" 1 ■^ « W^ i 1 o i o »oH^ Q fON 5 *^iOO vO vd 1- Tj- i^ Tt-cc 00 O f li-i O i>. r^ 3 Sj vo \0 t^ •-' O COOO M 1-* «-« CO CO ) M fO rOiO^OM ) 1^ m •> ^ vo u-^QioOONOOOO'-'OvC) •^OOOtoOQMQTi-OMaN •} rorOON'-Tl-t^OvOO'^ »O00 3 rt-S « c u-)« i-i toroioio^oo t^OO fO f<)iH t-^ NCO-*'«t'-- " WC ji. hK o H 111 00 ro rO^ « M lO CO COVO 1 » c ^ ro i-< 13 C 2«g o . U !» VC 00 « "^ -^ looo lo N vo CO a\ S u a ^ CO"-* O rO'-'-^c^ .= £■ ' f w N E.2 a J S, 3 a «^ « .n c s P^ H iS s'-S 1/ -) rnvo --^lo-^roO roO •-'^ V a ^ CN"- ro !-■ M -:1- ro 0% u^ > _4J > CS vo ro < M 8 88§|88§8§§8§ c4 1/ 1 vDNvOu^Or^-ioN OvO OMO "a vo 00 n vo ^ ro CO lOOO -^ NN ■^ w •-< t3 ^ s . . r* 1 OOMt-''-'OcO'-'t^'-''-''ON "^ w t^ CO •I •sis oise ^ (A d p s C^ S 13 QJ CO a 423 c « >2" t— "3 Tj - o -2 •-• c • S c V. oi^rtcJrt 1 REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 347 It will be seen from the table of materials consumed (in Appendix O) that the wool consumed in wool manufactures in 1890 was 372,873,713 pounds. This was wool in the grease, and should be reduced, according to the legal rate of loss, 66^ per cent. It will thus be seen that in 1890, in the manufacture of woolen goods of every kind in this country, there were used 124,291,238 pounds of pure wool and 154,- 130,890 pounds of shoddy, cotton, and other adulterants (not including camel's hair and mohair), the adulterants ex- ceeding the amount of pure wool, the ratio being 45 parts of pure wool to 55 parts of adulterants. It cannot be said that these adulterants were principally used in the manufacture of carpets and felt goods, for the table above given shows that of the 61,626,261 pounds of shoddy consumed, 51,862,397 pounds were used in the man- ufacture of woolen goods. The statistics of shoddy manufacture for 1890 have not yet been published, but your committee has been furnished the following statement: SHODDY, 1890. States, United States Connecticut Illinois Maine Massachusetts . . . . Michigan New Hampshire. , New Jersey New York Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island No. of SeUof ments. cards. 94 449 7 47 3 12 2 II 23 174 I II 2 10 4 19 6 13 3 43 33 73 10 36 Value of product. *J9,2o8,OII 648,060 182,110 63,670 2,287,455 Idle. 47,807 450,709 618,783 i.377>Soo 2,343.701 1,188,216 * The 94 establishments given above manufacture shoddy, waste, etc., exclusively; but the gross product includes shoddy, waste, etc., made at all other mills as well, which was not the fact in the returns for 1880. From this statement it will appear that the number of establishments has increased from 73 in 1880 to 94 in 1890; 34^ TARIFF REFORM. and the value of the product has increased from $4,900,000 to $9,200,000, the increase being nearly 88 per cent. It appears from Mr. North's table that the shoddy used in manufactures of woolen goods of all descriptions in the census yearof i8go amounted to 61,626,261 pounds. According to the statement furnished your committee by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department, printed in the appendix to this report (Appendix D), there were pro- duced in the United States in the year 1890 276,000,000 pounds of wool. These figures represent the wool in the grease, and in re- ducing it to scoured wool there will be a loss of 66:4 per cent., which shows that the scoured wool produced in that year amounted to only 92,000,000 pounds. Thus it appears that the shoddy consumed in the United States in the census year of 1890 had a cloth-producing power equal to 67 per cent, of all the wool which was produced in the United States for that year; in other words, that the scoured wool produced amounted to 92,000,000 pounds, while the shoddy consumed amounted to 61,626,261 pounds. The whole number of sheep in the United States for the census year 1890 was 44,336,072; the fleeces amounted to 276,000,000 pounds. These fleeces produced 92,000,000 pounds of scoured wool, while the 94 establishments engaged in manufacturing shoddy produced a wool product equal to that of 29,605,168 sheep. PRICES OF WOOL IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND. Your committee requested the Bureau of Statistics to furnish it with a statement showing the prices of wool of the same quality in the United States and Europe, from 1866 to this time. The Bureau of Statistics referred the matter to Mr. S. N. D. North, the secretary of the National Associa- tion of Wool Manufacturers, at Boston, Mass., and the spe- cial agent of the Census Office, in charge of statistics of woolen manufactures. Mr. North procured the statement de- sired from a firm of wool merchants in Boston, which is everywhere recognized as authority in matters of this kind. The letters of Mr. North and the statement referred to are published in the appendix to this report. [See Appendix J.] Mr. North, in transmitting this statement, explains that, in order to institute comparisons between the prices of wool in the United States and in (Ireat Britain, the Ohio medium washed wool has been agreed upon by those in the trade as REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 349 the grade of wool corresponding to the Port Phillip fleece, an Australian wool of substantially the same quality. Mr. North also explains that the Boston prices of the Ohio wool are given in currency from 1866 to 1879, when specie pay- ments were resumed in the United States. The English prices are all in gold. For the purposes of comparison the Boston prices should also be stated in gold. The premium on gold in 1866 was such that a currency dollar was only worth 71 cents; and steadily declined until 1879, when specie payments were resumed. To the table, as given by Mr. North, has been added a column giving the gold values of the American wool from 1866 to 1878, inclusive. It will be seen by reference to this table that the London and Boston prices of these grades of wool varied but little from year to year down to and including 1890. The statistics for 1891 have not yet been furnished. It will appear that there were times when the London prices were greater than those in the United States; but a general average would show little difference between the Boston and London prices. As these prices are based on washed wool, the duty on foreign wools would be 22 cents a pound; and if that amount of duty furnished protection to that extent to the American wool grower, this grade of American wool ought to be worth 22 cents a pound more in the United States than the same grade of wool in London. Instead of this, however, omitting the unusual years of 1871 and 1872, in which the prices were unnaturally affected by wild speculation, we find that the American wool for the remaining twenty-three years averaged a little less in price than the foreign wool. This fact shows that the American wool growers do not receive any increase whatever in the prices of their wool by rea- son of the tariff on foreign wools. This failure of protection to protect the wool grower may be explained by calling at- tention to the conditions of wool manufacture in the United States. Wool manufacturers, as a rule, do not manufacture goods until they receive orders. This precaution is necessary in order to guard against overproduction. The orders indicate the quality of the goods desired by American consumers for the ensuing season. These qualities of goods can be pro- duced only by the admixture of foreign wools with native wools, and by combining with these whatever of cotton, shod- dy, and other adulterants may be used to advantage. The manufacturer, then, first determines the amount of foreign 350 TARIFF REFORM. wool required, the amount of cotton, shoddy, and other adul- terants that may be used to advantage, and the amount of domestic wool which will be required to complete the com- ponent parts of his orders. The domestic wool, therefore, is confined to a limited market. Its only purchasers are Ameri- can manufacturers. They purchase only what they can use to advantage. The remainder is left in the market or in the hands of the producers; and, if there is a large yield, prices must of necessity be depressed. As the American producer of wool can not sell abroad at a profit, he must await the pleasure of the woolen manufac- turers, who are his sole patrons, and take such prices as may be fixed in the home market, which prices will always be de- termined by the demand and supply. A mild winter, for instance, which would cause a falling off of consumption, would tend to depress the prices of woolen goods, and con- sequently the prices of wool. There are many contingencies which affect prices of all kinds, but, as a rule, they are gov- erned by the inexorable law of supply and demand. If there be a large supply of American wool in the American market and a small demand, prices will be low; if there is a small supply and a large demand, prices will be high. A high protective tariff on wool has the direct effect of limiting the demand for American wools, for the reason that under such tariffs neither domestic wools nor domestic manufactures of wool can be exported and sold at a profit; and that amount only of do- mestic wool will be purchased and consumed which will be required to mix with the foreign wool which must be used to produce the required quality and quantity of goods to supply the home market. COMPARATIVE COST OF PRODUCING TEXTILES IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE. Your committee have attached to their report (see Appendix L) an elaborate statement, showing the relative cost of pro- ducing textile fabrics in the United States and in Europe. This statement was furnished your committee by Mr. Carroll D. Wright, the Commissioner of Labor, and is the most re- liable and accurate information of the kind heretofore pub- lished. Mr. Wright, in his letter to your committee accom- panyingthis statement, explains that there are many difficulties in the way of comparing the cost of producing textiles in the United Stains and in Europe. One difficulty is that the same quality of cloth in all respects is not produced in any two dif- REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 35 1 ferent factories, even in the same country; and that, in com- paring the cost of producing textile fabrics in the United States with those in Europe, accuracy as to relative cost of the same fabric here and abroad is impossible. There will always be found to be some difference in the cloths compared, either in the weight, width, number of threads, quality of wool, or some other particular. Keeping these facts in view, a careful study of the data furnished by the Bureau of Labor will show that your committee in fixing the ad valorem rates upon imported woolen goods and carpets, as provided in the accompanying bill, have made ample allowance for the differ- ence in wages and other cost of production in Europe and in the United States. In fact, the protection afforded in this bill to American manufacturers will amount, in all cases, to more than the increased cost of production in this country, as compared with the cost of production of like articles in Eu- rope. FREE SUGAR INCREASES CONSUMPTION. The increased consumption of woolen goods which will re- sult from placing wool on the free list, and reducing the du- ties on such goods, may be approximately ascertained by reference to the increased consumption of sugar, which re- sulted from admitting raw sugar free of duty, and reducing the duties on the refined product. The weekly statistical re- port on the sugar trade, January 7, 1892, of Messrs. Willett & Gray, of the New York Trade Journal, contains the fol- lowing statement on this point: The year iSgi. — Full detailed statements for i8gi are given in the "Statistical," with comparisons for ten years. In 1891, the receipts of sugar were, at .New Yorli, 824,081 tons; Boston, 193,661 tons; Philadelphia, 491,396 tons; Baltimore, 25,849 tons; a total of 1,534,- 987 tons at the four ports. Receipts of foreign sugar at New Orleans, 88,928 tons; San Francisco, 136,534 tons. No sugar was received into the United States through any other ports. Total receipts of foreign sugar in 1891 were 1,760,449 tons, against 1,338,047 tons in 1890. The domestic crop of Louisiana is estimated at 180,000 tons, against 220,- 000 tons last year; the crops of Florida and Texas, at 7,000 tons. The beet-root sugar production in the United States in 1891 was 5,400 tons, and of sorghum sugar 570 tons, and of maple sugar 22,000 tons, and of molasses sugar 31,320 tons. The total production of the United States is 246,290 tons, against 280,000 tons last season. The total con- sumption of sugar in the United States in 1891 was 1,885,994 tons (say 1,619,704 tons foreign, 234,970 tons domestic, 31,320 tons home manufacture from foreign molasses), against 1,522,731 tons in 1890 (say 1,257,292 tons foreign, 212,000 tons domestic, 53,439 tons home manufacture from foreign molasses). The increased consumption of 352 TARIFF REFORM. 1891 over 1890 was 363,263 tons, or 23.86 per cent. , and the consump- tion for each individual (fer capita) 67.46 pounds, against 54. 56 pounds in 1890. The importation of refined sugar in 1891 was 2,772 tons at New York, 1,227 tons at Philadelphia, 1,925 tons at New Orleans, and 833 tons at San Francisco. The export of raw and refined sugar in 1891 was 29,837 tons from the four ports, 4,693 tons from San Francisco, and 212 tons from New Orleans. The extra increase of 18 per cent, in consumption above the usual average yearly increase of 5 percent, is due directly to the free-sugar tariff and the extreme low range of prices ruling during the entire year, with small fluctuations. We do not look for an increase in 1892 much, if any, above the nominal rate of 5 per cent., especially as the range of prices in 1892 will be on a higher level than in 1891. The probabilities are that there vi^ill be a greater per cent, of increase in consumption of woolen goods, if the pending bill should pass, than occurred in the case of sugar. EFFECT ON THE REVENUES. The effect upon the revenues of the government of plac- ing wool on the free list and reducing the duties upon woolen goods can not be stated with accuracy. The importations of wool for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, were valued at $18,051,000, and the duties collected thereon for that year amounted to $5,982,000. The importations of manufactures of wool for the same year were valued at $53,842,000, and the duties collected thereon amounted to $35,373,000. The importations and duties received for the year 1889 are cited for the reason that that year's business was unaffected by the pendency or passage of the act of October i, 1890. (See Appendix G.) The value of wools imported into the United States for the six months ending December 31, 1889, was $7,239,000; the total number of pounds imported during that period was 51,650,000. For the corresponding period, end- ing December 31, 1891, the quantities of wool imported amounted to 65,000,000 pounds, and the value was $8,162,- 000, being an increase of importations of 13,680,000 pounds and an increase in value of the imports amounting to $923, 645. (See Appendix F.) It will thus Jse seen that the act of October i, 1890, instead of checking the importation of wool, has permitted an increase in importations for the first six months of the present fiscal year of over 13,000,000 pounds, as compared with the corre- sponding months of the year 1889. As no revenues will be derived from raw wool in case the bill reported by your com- mittee is passed, it is safe to assume that there will be a loss REDUCED DUTIES ON WOOLEN GOODS. 353 to revenue on this account to the extent of nearly $6,000,000 per year. The value of manufactures of wool innported for the six months ending December 31, 1889, was $27,710,000. The value of such goods imported during the six months ending December 31, 1891, was $19,000,000, showing a de- crease in the value of such importations for the first half of the present fiscal year of $8,697,000. The average rates of duties on the importations of manufactures of wool for the year ending June 30, 1889, if estimated under the provisions of the act of October i, 1890, were 91.65 per cent. If the imports of woolen goods for the last half of the present fiscal year should equal those of the first half, the impoirtations of manufactures of wool for the year ending June 30, 1892, would amount to $38,025,000. If the duties for this fiscal year on manufactures of wool should average the same under the present law, they would amount to $34,850,000, or a loss of only $523,000, as compared with the duties on manufac- tures of wool for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889. The revenue to be derived from the tariff on raw wool for the fis- cal year ending June 30, 1892, may be estimated as follows: — ■ The value of wool imported for the first half of this year is $8,162,000. If the duties on wool should average 40 per cent, ad valorem, as is estimated, the amount of duty for six months would be $3,264,800. This would represent the duties for six months; and twice this amount, or $6,529,000, may fairly be estimated as the receipts from wool for the current year. The receipts from duties on manufactures of wool for the current year have been estimated at $34,850,000, making a total of $41,379,000. This is precisely the amount of duties which were received on wool and woolen goods for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889. It is a remarkable coincidence that this estimate for the current year should have produced precisely the amount which was realized for the year 1889. If the bill imported by your committee should become a law, the duties received on wool would be remitted. The duties on woolen goods would be reduced at least one- half; but it is safe to estimate that there will be some in- crease of importations of woolen goods. Such importations for the year 1889 were valued at $52,68t,ooo. The increased duties upon woolen goods by the act of Oc- tober I, 1890, caused a loss of importations of woolen goods to the amount of nearly 28 per cent, for the first six months of the year, as compared with the importations of the first half of the year 1889. It is impossible to determine just 354 TARIFF REFORM. what effect the reduction of duties in the bill reported by your committee would have upon the importations of woolen goods; as the present law is prohibitory upon mostarticles of woolen manufacture worn by the masses of the people. It is not unreasonable to assume that lower duties upon these arti- cles, as well as a reduction of more than one-half upon all woolen goods, would cause some increase of importations; for the reduction of duties would cheapen the price to con- sumers, and thus largely increase consumption. Increased consumption would call for increased home manufacture, as well as, temporarily at least, enlarged importations. But it is impossible to estimate accurately the effect upon revenues of changes in tariff duties. This we can say with full con- fidence — that any reduction of public income by the passage of this bill will be far more than balanced by the healthy de- crease in public expenditure, now imperatively demanded by every public interest. By substituting in Mr. Jefferson's well-known phrase, "economy for taxation," we shall run no risk of causing a deficit in the revenues of the government, while lifting a grievous load of taxation from some of the plain necessaries of life. All of which is respectfully submitted. APPENDIX. (Appendices A, E, F, G, H, I, K and L are omitted in tliis pub- lication, on account of their great length. The substance of each, where important, is given in the text of the Report.) 3SS 356 APPENDIX. T^inci 1-1 no ow u-ir-.o mcnO'JTX) no noOM oooom m-^co ct* r^-^o i-ico r^inino ^tu^ioO cnncT^oo o OOO con om xnrtMco N i-inr^i-i'^fr-Nirii-i wncicoi-Hi-icocooo mcO'^irico CO Qi'Tti-i'O r^ooQOco no '-' »nco o "^oo ooci M Mco N n'l'O^ n in CT' in -st-co o t-* r^ -TO co-fr^ThO m i^(N i-ico O nnw mO mo wr^w nco cnooo o^cir^moo ni-n wcoi-i tJ-covoono '-'»-< mvOO O* o' c^ O w" co' CO in in ci n o' o" i~^ O co" n nco -tnuio w w « rl-Qo"c> CO -^N w MCO r^t->.0 ■^u^inTtN "^OO^O ■^'-' "^■^n O mO T^O O M MTtOM-^coinM NnNiHUMin-rj-o^O l-llnn'*u^co ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOO (S MCO a^-sj-co o ■^oo nr^en-Jtu^cnnM -^co o ■^nw mmo m \d t-i rf r>co O "* O Cr- -J- O^O w cno r^O coci r^vnvno Oco O co co o O O M o^nu->r^M M ino Oivnvo »nO O N *+« O nco ^cif^mQ>w O '-' N nMOT^O"^'-' COCOCMvnNM«T:J-00 MCOtJ- ■rto n rt-l--i*CT^»iTO O nm\D f-'OO nw M o t^co ininMOO "-t-nr^mr^N nco M oo CO CO o^vo o o»vo o rj-coooo r^nno ^^ c7*co '^ ^ n co O^co r^ui-rfNO ■^r^vOO mcT^eor^O r^O m'+'O nc7^u^^^coM cncQ M i:n Oi ^ O^coN in-O ':J-0>covnN w wco Om nco-rJ-tO'^'O OO" O ■rl-co N N MO M innniN r^oo nnm-i-wcoo w o^ a cm wco r^ino o •^■H-TfC>MO '^O moco N ocoo ■^O N M N O OcO'tM noOininM m o a^u^co O-coO h 0"^co OOO r^nr^in'^o n m mN uiinco o^N t^ nr^r^»^N or^N o^on con nr^-o rt wi ciM co^^oou^co^^NMC^MMnlnMC^co^>■TJ• mnqo O 30 CO CO CO « N N CO \0 n O r^t^ooco inmM o N "^C^n■^N in-^-co mo-r-^O t^C^i^m O u-)0 >nin-( cnr^'i-o^t-^O N 'i-rj-n*^nN vn-tO -l-N O "h oO M MOO mO m m o CT'^r^oo r^-OO '■hmNco r--r^u^o »ncoN n Or^toONO^'-'OcoNinTt* r-^h-i M comO OiinnminM i cow inr>.O^NO^^MH< n N t^ O "^ r^o Omncoconco .n • M u^coM nM '+rhnncor^in-i- . n coCT>nMOu^u^O Nr^r>.o .co H (11 i3 b? o c-^ 3 ^ b ^ o -^ V- rt ij^ o O > w rt aJ jj ^ " O OS v.- 2fc>^^ APPENDIX. 357 X Hi o 4; oo Q "t: u c.x 0. uSa CU H " < X! a en o (A MN'ThON 000 CT'O 000 r^ CI p^ o O O o Tf en ■^00 M o-oo o ^ cnoo r-^ -^ o en in of c>co" a> en IT) o" c? eno" r^ o cT 00 u-) i> «H invD cncnoo cno w r^vococo o^ O^ m >-* ■^ m" -j^ ef M en m" i-T M enr^i-* cnenovnw tn^j-o i^m ^m "^ en en vn r^ m 'tj- Tj- o^\o 00 Ttwr^'^NW e^ \o "€> r>-vo "^■^en'C i-'co c^ cnwco iriM n ini-Tvo'd^Q-iD N cnencTo''^'^'^^ enO cn>-i -^OOiiiw^enoo c>e<-jC)cocor^en^ M-^«Tfi-(r-.MhHOW mO «m ci i-ir>comcor->oo encni-< h -^co enw ct^ O in r-*ao nmoommo own cnoi^O ^enoOt^OMO'-'OC^OO^cO'O'^ CO r^ m" o^ cT o 00 w" 00 rf hT i-T cT d^ cf'o" wi-.vCiO«WvO'-iM'rf M U-) en en en CT^ m \ri\Q \n\0 >^ c^ en r^ ui en m" en N rC cT CO in o iH N \0 w r^ en O r^ m in o^ O en O M H r- nj rt ^ biS £ r^ c C rt t^ 1J M 35* APPENDIX. E o a o B 3 cent, of umption ch was reign. \n C^O c'^'O vO O C>co l~>- tJ-CO N li^ w wo o >-( w (TtM a^i-i r>.ci Own tr> t>- CA (NNt'-JTj-TtNC^h-iMiHClOTtC^'-HM SJ c-g£ (^8^ , \0 u-)OOr^«co o a^w TtNr-.-i--^cn W tnr^uiiOMO in-d-w inw tn cnco CT< n~) cnco M w ooo cno h w motnr^o S'SS t;; in o" T? r^ w -rf n m rC (5 r^ rC n d" ^i^ o" g S E "m r>cnu-ir>i^io cnOcoo w wco o tn s*.§ go M c^oco N rj-N M 'd-cnr^o c^co m 2.0-S o vni-Tino'c^'J^'^r^Ooo" d^o" ^o" m w" t** Tt i>.oo ooi-icoN oc7*M o wr^coocn )HMMCliHiH«aWMWN(N H M Ti- >-- CO o^ -rj- c*-)OD Tt CT^O r^ w m -^ cn M CT'a^r^cnG^rfvOoo o ■tj-m r^oco co o o N woocovo O c^^^^li^>-l r^--> "d-O i^^ino CMnr^i-f tJ-m en Scl -8 p CT'OD \o -T t-T en d" 1"^ n'oo" r^o" -±co o i-T f^ l-l»cnu^ CO •■^0"^i-<"^'^wr~^enw l>.o r^ r^ W •Ovnr^oorj-i-imMu-iwcnoome^ ujvn .ooo-i-woooD-^oena^enMO • S5, 9 in j r^ oo" en c> n" d^ hT cf o" ^ en d" o" rC SCO .i^OWf^"^i-cO'rf)-iO'!*"Tj-i-i'0 g.g g .Mr^MOcooooenr-cnenocoin w ft- ; cf w n cT ^^^d' en O ^vnco rj-inco C^OO Oco O- Om O rj-cr^u-ic* iH rococo enc» ct>m o ■^■^o r^c; o^r-iH enenencj>»-i o ■^O'J^f^ a ''CO inw w o Oi>co r--inOco r^o CT>ih " O' CT'co d mcaco mo r>cnino oeno a B o c?oo o ini-( TftHaTmd^ d^oo o in n" T^f * MNr^O^'d-r^'enwcn ^o n co ^ m Tj- M rnco CO CO in N U-) enoo m in w o O MOcor^M M Ncoo M o ooo r^oo i-i o O^N inco Oinmo mco •j-co t1-i> <;; c^ 1-1 CO Tj- tJ- cnO c^ IH inr^-stO-^O ii gOco O -^-^enN O^Ttin-fi-r^incJco M gco ■^(NOco inoo -^inco OoO O^O QO «li oincTd^inw M ^d^T:td>M"d^d\r^d^o (^ cnmino e^ ■^mino t^O inrJ-inOco • coco N N N inco int->N ininOO "+ • ow Ncocor>.iH cnco oo^mm oen °.y ,j5 •coo^r^'^MO^'^ cnco i-< m i-i o O g !ininin»no'"enrCco"^N"ind'md^QO £: .cninu-)inor^OmT3-m«T]-f>Mr^ 5. OcniH^o^cnxn'^M h cnw W^ ■^a^enoOOOOOOQOOOOO e .2 Mini-iOoOOOOOOOOOOO wo^o5oooooooooooo gOwOooOOOOQOOOOOO gcoinMooOOOOOOOOOOO •i o c m ci ©■ 0" en CI in d" co" d" « O O" Qo" m V c a **■ pino « ^tnoOcooo inmr^oo -d a V odd N'<^inor^co a^ *-* ^ en rt u-i > APPENDIX. 359 si-gf PCS E ho-" 0,0 « Eli 00 >o *o ^ '4" t^ o^co o 00 CO r^co "-I r~- o ^ in o m r^ Tj- 000 r^^o N "4 a^ cT d^ d^ i-i" ^^ 9 M O CT* en OCO goo c^co r^ CO O m CT^ O ^J^O O "^ p^ c<^ in ^rf in c> M N « C^ en « r^ O incio en d" »^ c^ M o en o o "^ o en inO O "^ en m r^ r-^ en en en en CJiCO CO a o^ xn M r^oo o^vO en in r^ O Tt iH O en HI 00 O in r^co i-H r^ •^ O t-< O CT" en ^ w' ocT "^ rC i-T ■r^ en en en e^ ^ 0"^oo O^i^ciooino I-. Nco Ninooin )-( enmcncN o O enincncncnci cnn « •^woo mw r^o^'^ 0^00 in r~- o "O 00 m ':5 -^ n'o" O cn^d" c^inincTcTd^c^^w'o" 9 Noo C^oco inciO ^00 ino O^W 'i^r^ *M o ^CT"-^-^© mo ^incnM ci mO ■o f^ •-( o o "^o en HI 00 c» M -^ r^ en ciinci i-( M cnenTj-o enM a^en c^O w uJ-^OClO ininco o^^en'^w r^o '*'-' B 00" co' cf '^co r^ i-T cT ^ i^ rf 00" d^ enocTco" gh-ico ino -^O cnM O w enM inv^i 00 en Qino OwvO moo o tnM mr^enci WO •^ hT en in Tt en in en '^ cT eno" lo" "^i- en en cf N CT'inr^o rfoo m QQO O cno^moo l0^^^ln■^en^^^lnI>.lnenlnc^oo "a- >-t o M r^o r^'JtvO i-i 00 r>'r^«\o M d^ini-r-FiH"ino"'0"'tfoo'"oorC(-roo" - r^ -^ o cno o r-^ in 0^00 en inco en O t-i rj- o M <7>co incnmo O m^^j-en M^oo OmiH\0 r>''<:i-r^0'0 -rhcxjco ^O ^M tJ-tj-m n o c^^^^D cnw mr^- : ■^M CT ^^inoo invo Orinoco ■^CT^O >0 N CT'Qoodenind^'-rcne^r^co'oooo ^^^ o cno woo enoo m in':i-t~-ino O 1 Q\ C7> o^ en 0^00 o^ o^ O^CO i^ o^co r>> I^ I (y> t^ O N d^M G^d^^^l-^■^:?00r>.M\0 MOO 'Ti-inN -rf en O^ ^M CniH M MN H«M n n r> u n n ^ u fi Q n Q n 0^ (-) n m n (1 N ui <->. q_ u 4. °. °. o_ o_ u 000^-^MONOOOON»no^u-lO"^ ^0 O >-< c^^r^OO O OOOvOvO r»oo SO r^cc o o r^r^r^f^ooc- ------ - - - - _ _ OOOOCOOOOOCOOOCOOOCOajOOQOOOOOQO cn fS ^ bo < H < & CQ 2 S H 12: M a; H 360 APPENDIX. APPENDIX J. PRICES OF WOOL IN BOSTON AND LONDON. [National Association of Wool Manufacturers, office 70 Kilby Street. OiBcers for 1892: President, William Whitman, Boston, Mass. Vice-Presidents, John L. Houston, Hartford, Conn.; A. C. Mil- ler, Utica, N. Y.; Thomas Dolan, Philadelphia, Pa.; Theodore C. Search, Philadelphia, Pa. Secretary, S. N. D. North, Bos- ton, Mass. Treasurer, Benjamin Phipps, Boston, ISiass. Boston, Mass., February 8, 1892. Dear Sir: In writing you the other day, at the request of the Su- perintendent of Census, giving you such information as was in my possession regarding the prices of domestic wool for a period of years, I neglected to inclose copies of a diagram recently published by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, which shows the fluctuations in the prices of Ohio fine and Ohio medium washed wools for a period of twenty-three years, or since the enactment of the tariff of 1867; and also the corresponding prices of colonial wools of the several descriptions in the London market. The publication of this diagram in the December bulletin of this association was accompanied by an elaborate review of the condi- tions surrounding the domestic and the English wool markets for the entire period, which was prepared by Mr. Charles F. Avery, of the well-known firm of Mauger & Avery, and to which you are re- spectfully referred. 1 may add that the grade of Australian wool which most nearly corresponds to the Ohio washed fleece wool is the Port Phillip fleece, and this is the line of quotation which should be studied to ascertain the relative London and Boston prices of wool at any given time. Copies of this diagram are inclosed, and additional copies will be forwarded for the use of your committee if they should be desired at any time. Very respectfully yours, S. N. D. North, Secretary and Special Agent Eleventh Census. Hon. William M. Springer, Chairman Ways and Means Committee , WashinMon, D. C. Boston, Mass., February 15, 1892. Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of February 12, and take pleasure in inclosing herewith, as requested, a table compiled from the diagram previously forwarded to you, showing in parallel col- umns the average Boston prices of Ohio medium washed fleeces and the average London prices for corresponding dates of Port Phillip fleece, from 1866 to 1890. The London figures for i8gi are not yet available, but will be forwarded as soon as possible. The Port Phillip fleece is a washed wool, as is also the Ohio fleece quoted. The London prices are reduced to American money. It should be observed that these London prices are uniformly ^o/i^ prices, while APPENDIX. 361 the American prices are average prices in currency, until the resump- tion of specie payments, January i, 1879.* I also send you by this mail a copy of the last bulletin of this as- sociation, in which you will find the notes of Mauger & Avery, indi- cating the condition of the domestic and the English wool markets during each of the years covered by this table. With great respect I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant, S. N. D. North, Secretary, Hon. William M. Springer, Chairjnati Ways and Means Committee. Average annual price of wool for the twenty-five years: Cents. Ohio 41.48 Port Phill ip 41 . 04 Difference in favor of American wool 44 Average annual price of wool for twenty-three years, omitting 1871-72: Ohio 40.26 Port Phillip 40. 52 Difference in favor of foreign wool 26 * In the table which follows, a separate column has been added to show th^golti prices of American wool. 362 APPENDIX. Average price in Boston of Ohio medium wool and average price in Lon- don of Port Phillip fleece in American currency, 1866 to 1890— both washed wools: [London quotations from Windeler & Co. American prices from Mauger & Avery, Boston.] lio p ort hio _ h- P ort Year. Month. "l« ren lium ur- "«=': cy). ii° ^}° Ph illip 3Ce Id). Year. Month. ">" ren ium ur- ■"«' cy). (6" h.o Ph mm flp Id)* f/c illip ece Id). Ce NTS. Ce NTS. Ce NTS. Ce NTS. Ce NTS. Ce NTS. 1866 Mar . . 65 . 50 52 1873.... Feb . . . 68 60 50 June . 60 40 44 May. . 53 45 52 Sept. . 67 . 46 48 July.. . 48 . 41 53 Dec. . 60 44 45 Oct... . 53 49 55 1867 Mar.. 53 39 44 Dec. 53 48 . 51 June . 55 40 44 1874.... Feb .. 54 48 . 51 Sept. . 49 34 43 May. . 56 50 50 Dec .. 46 34 42 June . 53 48 . 52 1868 Mar.. 43 31 42 Aug.. 54 49 53 June.. 48 34 42 Dec. 54 48 . 52 Sept.. 45 31 38 1875.... Feb.. 56 49 49 Dec. 48 36 40 May. . 52 45 50 1869 Mar.. 50 38 36 June. . 49 42 48 June . 50 36 32 Aug.. 50 44 46 Sept. . 48 35 34 Dec. 50 44 47 Dec. 48 40 34 1876.... Feb.. 52 46 45 1870 Feb.. 46 39 36 May. . 49 44 42 May. . ■47 41 •36 June. . 35 31 37 July.. ■45 39 34 Aug. . 40 36 40 Sept. . .48 42 32 Dec. . 40 37 45 Dec. .48 43 33 1877.... Feb.. 43 41 42 1871 Feb.. .46 .41 35 May. . 40 37 39 May.. •52 •47 39 June. . 44 42 43 July.. .60 •53 •43 Aug.. 44 42 42 Oct... .62 ■55 .46 Dec. 44 •43 43 Dec. .62 • 57 .48 1878,... Mar. . 45 ■44 ■43 1872 Feb .. .72 ■ 65 •54 May. . 43 •43 .42 May. . .80 .70 • 47 July.. ■36 •36 • 44 July.. .70 .61 • 50 Sept.. • 37 ■37 ■42 Sept. . .60 • 53 •53 Dec .. •37 ■37 .40 Dec .. .60 •53 •55 * The prices reduced to a gold basis were calculated upon the value of currency at the dates indicated as given in the Quarterly Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879. APPENDIX. 363 Average price in Boston of Ohio medium wool and average price in London of Port Phillip fleece in American currency, 1866 to 1890 — both washed wools — (continued): [London quotaUons from Windeler & Co. American prices from Mauger & Avery, Bos- ton.] 1879. 1880. . 1883. Month. Mar. June. Sept. Dec. Feb . April June. Sept. Dec. Mar. Tune. Aug. Sept. Dec. Feb . May. Aug. Sept. Dec. Mar. June. Sept. Oct.. Dec. Feb . May. June. July. Nov. Ohio medium (gold). Cents. 35 34 38 43 54 60 48 48 48 49 44 44 46 46 46 45 45 45 45 43 44 41 40 40 40 38 34 34 34 Port Phillip fleece (gold). .40 .42 .40 •43 .46 • 49 •43 • 44 •44 .40 .41 .41 .41 .42 •43 •44 • 44 •44 •43 •43 •43 .41 .41 .42 .40 •39 •39 .40 •39 Year. 1886. 1887. 1890. 1 891. Month. Ohio medium (gold). Jan. . . April. July.. Sept.. Dec .. Feb .. April. July.. Sept. . Dec .. Feb .. April. July. . Sept. . Dec .. Feb .. April. July. . Sept. . Dec .. Feb .. April. July. . Sept. . Dec .. Feb .. May. . July.. Oct. . . Dec .. Cents. •33 •32 •31 •35 -35 •36 ■34 •33 •38 .38 •38 •37 -37 •36 •36 •35 •34 •33 •34 ■34 •38 •37 •39 •37 ■37 •37 •36 •37 •37 •37 Port Phillip fleece (gold). Cents. •38 •37 • 36 • 33 • 33 • 32 .29 •34 •37 •33 • 34 ■ 34 •32 • 30 • 31 •31 •31 •32 • 33 •34 •33 •34 •36 ■38 .40 ■37 ■34 ■32 •34 .32 S. N. D. North, Secretary National Association of Wool Manufacturers^ Boston, Mass. 364 APPENDIX. APPENDIX N. Department of the Interior, Census Office, Washington, February 2O, 1892. I Sir: In reply to your esteemed favor of February 23, 1892, I beg to hand you herewith a statement showing total for the woolen in- dustry for the census of 1880 and the census of 1890, as also a copy of a communication from Mr. S. N. D. North, transmitting these data and giving explanation in regard thereto. In this connection I beg to call your attention to the fact that this information is preliniinary and subject to such correction as may be found necessary upon receipt of further information and examination of the returns and tabulations. Very respectfully, F. R. Williams, Special Agent in charge of Manufactures. Hon. Wm. M. Springer, House of Representatives^ Washington, D. C. Department of the Interior, Census Office, ) Washington, February 26, 1892 \ Sir: In reply to the letter from Hon. Wm. M. Springer, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, asking for certain data with reference to the manufacture of wool in the United States, as shown by the census of 1890, I beg leave to in- close a table to be transmitted to him. The figures given in this table have been somewhat hastily compiled from the tabulation sheets, in order that there might be no delay in responding to Mr. Springer's request. They are subject to correction, therefore, and will be somewhat modified in their final publication by reason of the fact that the preliminary data from one or two establishments are still lacking. I have to request that, in transmitting this table to Mr. Springer, you will explain to him that any comparisons instituted between the statistics of 1880 and those of 1890 should take intoconsideration the following points: (i) The number of establishments reported in 1890 includes woolen mills which were idle during the census year, and the amount of cap- ital invested also includes that represented in these idle mills. (2) The item of miscellaneous expenses of manufacture reported for 1890 includes an element in the cost of manufacture which was omitted from the census of 1880, such as taxes, insurance, interest, rent, and small sundries. (3) The value of product reported in i8go includes the value of the product of the shoddy mills, which was not included in the value of product as reported in 18S0. The value of the shoddy returned by the census of 1880 was 14,989,615. The value of the shoddy reported in 1890 is about |g, 000, 000. The exact figures will be available shortly. Very respectfully, S. N. D. North, Special Agent, Hon. Robert P. Porter, Superintendent of Census, Washington, D. C. APPENDIX. 365 in 1^ T+r^cniOO O M « vnw o^o-QO m r^oo ^ cnoD w r^ o w o en o "2"^-. cnrCrCoorfco vnw vn« cf-O O O O N cnenci incT'vOco tn-rroo r^ •+00 IT) r~- r^ en CO o 00 CO (-(■^ MOWOOMMMioin m\0 enco o O wi <^ vo c7>r^oo cnr^CT>r^co OO o^omr^co rtMCO M ON '4'r>.'+ OO vO M vO N CO M OCO r^O'^M M M\O00 CJ-N •s3 CO \0 vO CO • M l_t •+ N ■ -d- r^ •i- ^ ■ en ■rl- CO ■ CO >-( r* (N N N . in w o^ O »^ ^ "^ o^vO M v/i c^ r- o c^oo r^ ^ 00 CO u^ N o" ^n m" «" cT vo" CD -f en en co" rC w MOO "i-r^o^cj Oi/^ooo -d- cnoo m m M oo^N'^cnuiM-i-'^cn cnoo M ^ -^ u^ m" en cT en O O CO a^ 00 00 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO- 00 CT^OO O^OO CJ^OO O^OO CT*CO O^OO CT»00 O^ OOOOOOOOOOCOOOQOOOOOOOCXDOOOOOOOO C4 in S u <« < < u Q O S -S 366 APPENDIX. N M w 1 . 00 OO - \n cniD CO en in r^o -too O U^ m M N t M 00 « • 00 >J3 • \r> o u^M M ooor^t~^N goOvO o Tf o CO o i~^oo oor^.O'cnw'O m a>CT> CO CT- "■ 1 . CM^ • 313 « O " ! -^ ^ r M Ni^O^'i >H inoo OcnO C^^mo^ 00 o H .0 00 , u-nO locnco iriCTimcoo cncr-w w N W . N !>■ , M CT>CO iTjr^-rtWOOsO « r-N o a o t-- 1/1 w oo "^ • mo • 'i-O ■^■^^0 C^w w H r^r^o oo m "rt 1^ 1 . O w . O O^co CN r^w iri'^TtOoo rj-cncoo "S "7^ M : ^^ ' O cr*'<^Moo Om NincOTj-^oo M'tJ- V r^ r^ r- ^ I cTo" r 00 -^x^w Of^f^tno O Omoo cn>-( ^1 en o C , \rt m . irjrj-cnco w r^cnooooo ct'i-i o n rh Tl- xn 1- . 00 o , rr^^cnmo cT^moo m cnci mr^cn €& T? in M uS f ^^ s u O en CO • ..cT»»0»'^-N .in. N ^ r^ w .00 .cn.w -o -00 .Q • m 2 in Is o o cnio I-^.e^.O .w Tco . •rh s CO , .Q .N .M .W ,t>..iH . . O , , . IH . en aS' ' r ^ "^ I I r ' ■ ^ u s O O H ■> • O en OoOM Oh uir^oo OO O^nQ en O M w i-< oo r^co cooO'-'Omuiw o o (N • irjoO l^ C71 C r« • r^ en CT-oo Tj-OO cno M Ttvnr^u-iTj-uiO — 'tJ rt u tn H • ON. NOHTfNMMvo oco in i-( en m en ■p in o C* 1 . a> o . « M ^t'l-oo enw o CJ'O'oo eninincj to c^ K . 00 o , M O r^ en m « O r^co m co en m f-^oo d > 0^ U.S «" ; Tj* O^ oo O "H M en !>■ r^ -t 1/ ■) 00 IT) ■ rJ-I^MO OtHO O N '<:l-r^00t^«O tn (N o -ri- a^o^Me*r>ominiHN o^ w en H lis * *. • o o c o o o o oogoooooooooooo O^OO O^OO O^CO O^CO O^OO CTiOO CT<0O CT- S 00 C7>OC a>oo cT-co OD 00 OC CO 00 oo CO cococooooooooocoooooooascoQOoo >^ M M W M H W ^ S w w ; > - 3 c 'S. .S" •" nl & z c Tj 4) ^ « 13 S :§ .E .a .2 C li r^o cncT-'*'*!-' « a^« r^ . 01 M 00 CT« N inoo cncCT'C^^'^M coinvooo o^O O .ON cn ^ CB J; en-^vOO'^cn wm r^OwO ; M > D, U) lOTfiriM c<^co r-^cowoo wco 000 "lF . TtO "^ t* [rt inO c^O O^M OCO iH 000 m\0 CT^ ui -rt ir • ^"S. 2 s 0^u^0 W r^Tj-r^M inmrJ-N tJ-u-jO N '^ • ''^ '^O it r+inr^crd"'0'^inir)inTfrC|<'^M tj-vO N '. en (> -^ f-i 61 ioOm comoo u->vO CT- JS cnwr^r^ioM n -^ mo m c<^o O O w . -* <* rt y| CO in cnco 010 >-i«j- Mino^cocTi w 4©- M am c<^o H N in « \n o^ "* M C^co OOOO-^-mMCJ w in w • j2 . ooo■*moo^•T^cflT^cOM mr-.oo w m M wen MM or^M M 6.2 21 PI *^ 0000000000000000 CT-OO CT'OO CT> « 00 O^CO CJ-OO CT'QO O^OO Cr»00 CT-CO C7>CXD CT-OO >• oooooocooooocooocooococococooooo 00 H CO 00 00 CO 00 1 Y-w— - & cn dj ^v, tj n Ic .5 rt TS ^C "o 1 1 1 ' a K -^ 13 1. . ^ (/] i OJ i ^ ^ (0 & ^ fe ti .2 Sf g § s? (UU4»O^V- r^ CO CO "^ in N "rf o €& c^ cn m" CO Jl O OQO IN "o" o o CO -* oO CO w is N CO OJ CO CO -+ o -fo w o a^ N CO rtco O CO O in Tt C> w 0_ u 4^1 f-*00 CJ o cnO N l O CO CO -- M CO ^ CO in M ^ O in ino O aS c^\0 oc c^ -:}■ O ^ t-'l M -1- M m" ^ w in C c^ CO CO M vo "^ M o r^ "^J= . w w 1/ T rt '^ -^ in to m^o M S:3 2 *^ C a" O O o O o oooooooo a CO O'CO o>co Oco O^co CT-co O^OD > CO CO (-1 M CO CO CO COQOCOCOCOCOCOOO i ' 3 [fi ui (U -Si ctl c c: *J 1 -a d '^ ^2 .E > g J= M *5 « u is S .2 — ;^ f > ^ ^ ^ < ■£i^ 9-S .n o iS s APPENDIX. 369 APPENDIX O. Department of the Interior, Census Office, ) Washington, D. C, February 29, 1892. ) Sir: enclosed herewith please find copy of a letter from Expert Special Agent S. N. D. North, in charge of the investigation relating to the statistics of wool manufactures, transmitting statement re- quested in your several communications of recent date, so far as it has been practicable to prepare them. Your attention is respectfully called to the fact that the figures are preliminary, and subject to re- vision upon receipt of additional information. The data covering the following items, viz., quantity of " camel's hair," quantity of " mohair," and total quantity of " raw materials " will be forwarded to-morrow, or as soon thereafter as the totals can be ascertained by this office. The table of materials consumed will be supplemented by a table indicating the quantities and values of various yarns manufactured for sale, and showing their distribution among the various industries using them, and will indicate more ac- curately than these tables can the relative quantity of wool used in each branch of the manufacture. The following data for Table 2 is also omitted, viz., "hands em- ployed " and " total amount of wages paid," and cannot be furnished for several days. Very respectfully, Robert P. Porter, Superintendent of Census. Hon. Wm. M. Springer, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C Department of the Interior, Census Office, ) Washington, February 29, 1892. j Sir: I transmit herewith two additional tables requested by Hon. William M. Springer, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, showing approximately the quan- tities and value of the principal raw materials consumed in the wool manufactures of the United States during the census year of i8go, and the summary classification of the manufacture in the several branches. The figures are subject to material modification, as the tabulation sheets are revised on receipt of additional information; but they pre- sent a suflSciently accurate statement of the comparative use of the several raw materials in the branches of industry committed to my charge. These branches of industry included not only the manufacture of woolen and worsted goods proper, but also the manufacture of shod- dy, and the manufacture of hosiery and knit goods of both wool and cotton. The tables inclosed have been so prepared as to permit as exact a comparison as possible with the similar statistics of 1880. The hosiery and knit goods industry is classified with the wool manufactures in accordance with the rule of classification in mixed textiles which assigns them to their group according to their mate- rial of chief value. The value of the wool consumed in hosiery and 370 APPENDIX. knit goods in 1890 was $8,269,418, and of the cotton $3,714,065, and if it were practicable to so take the census of this industry, their product might be apportioned between the wool manufacture and the cotton manufacture in about the same ratio. It is thus to be borne in mind that these tables necessarily include a great branch of industry that is distinctively a cotton industry. The quantity of cotton consumed in the wool manufacture proper will be exaggerated in calculations based upon the inclosed tables which do not take thisfact into account. Of the total of 75,638,865 pounds of cotton here reported 32,447,617 pounds were used in hosiery and knit goods, and of the total value of the products of hosiery and knit goods establishments ($67,637,442) about $20,000,000 was pure cot- ton hose or knit goods, into which not a particle of wool entered. The total quantity of wool consumed in the census year 1890 is found to have been 372,873,713 pounds in " the condition purchased " as compared with 296,192,229 pounds in 1880. By adding to this total the camel's hair and mohair, the wool contained in imported yarns consumed by domestic manufacturers, and the proper allow- ance for the washed and scoured wool included in the returns made under the head " in condition purchased," we may approximately ascertain the wool consumption of 1890 as equivalent to 423,000,000 pounds in the grease. The apparent decrease in the number of establishments engaged in the manufacture of woolen goods is a continuance of the tendency observed in 1880. The census of 1870 reported 2,891 woolen mills; that of 1880, 1,990; that of i8go shows 1,312. This decrease is due to the disappearance of the custom carding mills, which formerly carded wool to be spun in families. The census of 1880 contained returns from 570 of these neighborhood carding-mills, besides 233 others which used less than 5,000 pounds of raw material per annum. These carding-mills have now almost disappeared, while the number of fully equipped mills, supplied with machinery for all the processes of manufacture, has considerably increased, and there is a healthy growth in the machinery capacity of the United States, as will ap- pear in the final analysis of the returns. The custom carding-mill is so distinctly an adjunct of household industry that the propriety of continuing to enumerate it in statistics relating to manufactures by automatic machinery may be doubted, except for the purpose of illustrating the gradual disappearance of the household manufacture before the advance of the factory system. The decrease in the number of wool hat manufacturing establish- ments will also be noted. This is attributable to the development of the fur hat industry, which has been excluded from these statistics. The quantity of foreign wool consumed in the carpet manufactory is not correctly shown in the tables; as, in the first presentation, the separate manufacture of worsted yarns for carpets is classified under the head of worsted manufactures. Respectfully submitted. S. N. D. North, Special Agent. Hon. Robert P. Porter, Superintendent of Census, Washington, D. C. APPENDIX. 371 o Iz; U-)t^ N -^ cnN « ■ HH . t^ " 1 »o 10 M VD -<^ Tf fCO • NO . HH in 7. 00 00 t^ ON t>-00 u-> . -^r^ .vo HH = S 00 00 -^ -' r^ "-1 "-■ '. U-) in '. r-- >-. S roO iTi -^00 "^ c^oo , 00 m . •* en HH t^ , ■^ HH iSrC vO 0^ I-. r^oo t^ (T) «-• 0. lOOO i^ -^ rOi— 1 M ' HH • CT r^'^ rn « ; ; m w '^ Ch J>. Tj- a^00 Q NO VO N r^M ONHH N roON'd-r^io -o vO r^w « in'O^ u-i ON O^-O^ "t 9, "^ '^. "^^ (4 X Q Z D u-im cf\ rC ro 1000 t-^ r^ uo\o -+ LD ^O fO « ONOO U-) M -rj- ■^ ON H- 'rt 00 m ^ -^ c^r^i-i NO J y^vO ONTf i-i w M m '5 < hH ^o t^cni-i ri- Osi-' M TJ-a^•^'■o vO N ONOO rD 00 -71- i^NO 10^ ^NO M a» t^ ONOO 00 rooO CD LT) HH -"^ HH M ^ Q Z ^o m N OCO O'^D'OOO roO loro 13 N yD nDOO 0N"^0 O'O u-iON-^W -g vo^ -^ 00 liTO I-" ■^ Th ro rovO t^ "^ ^ .-T w" MNOM HHM I-( -i^J-M cn cu "O "^ u-i-<1- _j hH l-l vD 00 i-< !-. io\0 00 HH N 00 ON t^ "o CO OOOuT-H ONO w i>.mi--oo ro HH li-1 00 N Th in -^00 NO -^NO n-)0 HH ^ Q 1 t-^ ►" ly-) N W HH CN -^00 r^LOO\LnNO .y U-> ON M 'd- r^ONO roO i^O "r|-M rn -rf r^ ON >J->O00 ^0 NW KHH-O ON- s 00 c^ OO s>. a^-LTiin^ ■^'O c^ N 00 00 Ph IOC* vo t^inw HH M M p «oo 00 i>* ro "^00 r^ in ■* N ^00 Ml On coNO « H-ioONO N mr'^^J^o m "O HHvo o:)omo rr>HH n w ror^ ^ Q Z ^ N M OM~~>ONCT>ONTrwoo ^00 >-« M 00 -o 00 00 .-^-rfN V. cu H- !>. HH M cni-' mco [^ QOOOOOOOOOOO OnQO ONOO ONOO O^00 OnOO OvOO ri O^OO >< 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 '—I _a S 'C 1 3 E5 8 nl 4J ^ ■S -3 *rt 1 1 a. M ^ ^ ^ w <^ t "S 8 K ^ ^ H .«J -S tu) „ «J u u ^ ^ e* 's -- h ^ ^ h ^ u a 1 372 APPENDIX. ^T3 rt o rTvo" ■^ c?. -^ ON cf-^o~ '-" m" f^ rC O >o H 00 'O O CO lO t>- t-^O a\ O M ^ u 4> a. t^^ hH 00 00 HH vo Tt- ^ M i^oo ro ■^OO "^ O O lO'O O O N -• 00 "^ vOVJD in O" »0 ■^ rf C^OO' d^ tn C\00'" t~C On fO On C\ r-*00 LOVO i-H \0 "O "-) t>. 0\ O I-" ro m On rO'O t-^ -^ -^ lt) *ss ro ON OOO inu> « O rovo '^'O W m ^J^ m t^ ON •-« ON^r^fOM CT^t-^ONO IJ^ m ONi-i 11 (I oo CO B e CO I oooooooooooo ONOO a^QO OsoO 0^00 OOO oco OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCX) o 2; H 3 c bo ^ ^ 43 a 'o o o -2 O S PRICES OF WOOLS IN UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND, i866-'90. Average for twenty-three years of same quality of wool: Port Phillip fleece in London 40. 52 cents per lb. Ohio medium in Boston 40. 26 cents per lb. Foreign wool higher by 26 cents per lb. The experience of a quarter of a century of high protective tariffs on wool and on woolen goods has proved the policy to be disastrous to the wool grower, disastrous to the wool manufacturer, and dis- astrous to the American consumers.' — David A. Wells. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, April 4, 1892. THE FREE WOOL BILL. Mr. McMILLIN. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the further consider- ation of revenue bills; and, before that motion is put, I de- sire to ask a courtesy of the House that I think it will not be slow to grant. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, of whose recent illness all are apprised, is able to come into the House to-day. He has prepared, and desires to have read, a speech that will occupy twenty-five or thirty minutes, as he states. We did not know of this fact when we closed the general de- bate, and I desire that he be permitted to speak, notwith- standing the order closing general debate. Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my associ- ates upon this side of the House I join most heartily in the request, and I hope there will be unanimous consent. The SPEAKER. Unanimous consent is asked that the gentleman from Illinois be allowed to occupy twenty-five minutes. Is there objection ? Mr. BURROWS. I hope that the time will not be limited to twenty-five minutes. I hope he will be allowed to occupy as much time as he desires. The SPEAKER Is there objection to the request ? 373 374 APPENDIX. There was no objection. The motion of Mr. McMillin was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, for the pur- pose of considering the bill (H. R. 6007) to place wool on the free list and to reduce the duties on woolen goods. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the bill. The Clerk read the first section of the bill, as follows: Be it enailcit, etc.. That on and after the ist day of January, 1893, the following articles, when imported, shall be exempt from duty, namely; All wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals, and all wool and hair on the skin, all noils, top waste, slubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, yarn waste, card waste, bur waste, rags, and flocks, including all waste or rags composed wholly or in part of wool. At this point Mr. Springer entered the Hall, amid loud applause on the floor and in the galleries. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped on this occasion to be able to make some extended remarks on the pending bill, but the condition of my health is such that I am admonished that I can not do so. I have prepared a brief statement, however, which I will ask my distinguished friend from Nebraska [Mr. Bryan] to read for me. Mr. BRYAN then read for Mr. Springer the following: In the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, which I had the honor to submit through the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr. McMillin] on March i, 1892, to accompany the bill (H. R. 6007) "to place wool on the free list and to re- duce the duties on woolen goods," the following statement appears on pages 20 and 21 of that Report. [The quotation is omitted, as it will be found in the Re- port cited under the heading " Prices of Wool in the United States and England," see page 348.] Thus it will be seen that the foreign wool used in this country by manufacturers does not come into competition with domestic wool. The one is the complement of the other, just as the wood and iron in vehicles are complements of each other, a given amount of each being required to com- plete the finished product. That which most competes with domestic wool is shoddy, every pound of which used in the manufacture of woolen goods displaces i pound of scoured wool or 3 pounds of wool in the grease. The Appendix J, to which reference is made in the fore- going statement, is printed on pages 39 to 41, inclusive, of PRICES OF WOOLS IN U. S. AND ENGLAND. 375 said report. It will be seen from the foregoing statement that " Your committee requested the Bureau of Statistics to furnish it with a statement showing the prices of wool of the same quality in the United States and Europe from 1866 to this time." The request was transmitted to Mr. S. N. D. North, who is not only the special agent of the Census Office in charge of statistics of wool manufactures, but also the secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, whose principal office is at Boston, in the State of Massa- chusetts. Mr. North on February 8, 1892, addressed a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, printed on pages 39 and 40 of said report, in which he states as follows : I may add that the grade of Australian wool which most nearly corresponds to the Ohio washed fleece wool is the Port Phillip fleece, and this is the line of quotations which should be studied to ascer tain the relative London and Boston prices of wool at any given time. There was transmitted with this letter a diagram, published by said association, which showed these prices by marks. This was not deemed satisfactory; and on the 12th of Febru- ary, 1892, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means wrote to Mr. North, requesting him to furnish a table coinpiled from the diagram previously forwarded, showing in parallel columns the average Boston prices of Ohio medium- washed fleeces and the average London prices for correspond- ing dates of Port Phillip fleece from 1866 to 1891. To this letter Mr. North replied, under date of February 15 last, in which a table of Messrs. Mauger and Avery, of Boston, was furnished, with the statement that " the Port Phillip fleece is a washed wool, as is also the Ohio fleece quoted." This table is headed "Average price in Boston of Ohio medium wool and average price in London of Port Phillip fleece in American currency, 1866 to 1890, both washed wools." The table is printed in full in Appendix J, herewith attached. The Ohio wool is given in currency down to 1878, when specie payments were resumed. The American currency prices were reduced to a gold basis by an expert in the Treasury Department, and are given in the table printed on page 44 of the committee's report. The chairman of the committee requested an expert of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department to compute the annual average price of said wools for the twenty-five years covered by the table; and also the average annual price 376 APPENDIX. for twenty-three years, omitting the years 1871 and 1872, with the following result : Average annual price of wool for the twenty-five years; Cents. Port Phillip 41.04 Ohio 41.48 Difference in favor of American wool .44 Average annual price of wool for twenty-three years, omitting i87i-'72 : Ohio 40. 26 Port Phillip 40.52 Difference in favor of foreign wool .26 The reason for making a computation leaving out the years 1871 and 1872 is as follows: In the bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers of December, 1891, page 362 et seq., appears an article by Mr. Charles F. Avery, of the firm of Mauger & Avery, entitled " Twenty-five Years of the World's Wool Markets," which concisely recites for each year of the past twenty-five years the causes of the fluctua- tions as revealed in contemporaneous wool circulars and the records of that firm. Under the head of " 1871 " Mr. Avery says : July — Great falling off in clip of the United States. October — Speculation in wools and woolens. Decevtber — Fabulous profits realized by speculators. Under the head " 1872:" January — Wild speculation in wools of all kinds. February — Prices advancing. March — Wools contracted for on the sheep's back in Ohio and Michigan, at 65 to 70 cents per pound. These quotations from Mr. Avery's article explain the unsettled and speculative character of the wool market for the years 187 1 and 1872, and render them unfit for com- parison as a normal condition of the market. Hence an an- nual average price of wool for twenty-three years was com- puted, omitting the years 187 1 and 1872, with the result above stated, namely: Ohio, in Boston, 40.26 cents; Port Phillip, in London, 40.52 cents; showing a difference in favor of foreign wool of twenty-si.K one-hundredths of a cent, or a little over one-quarter of a cent a pound. This annual average for twenty-three and twenty-five years had doubtless never been made before; and hence, when Mr. PRICES OF WOOLS IN U. S. AND ENGLAND. 377 North furnished this table to the Committee of Ways and Means, he was undoubtedly uninformed or in the dark as to what a general average would be. When this publication was made the Boston Journal of Commerce stated, in commenting upon this fact, that the table " furnished by Mr. Springer, of the Ways and Means Committee, was unfortunate and in- advertent, and a purely clerical error." Thereupon Mr. North addressed a communication to the editor of the Journal, in which he states : The clerical error was made by Mr. Springer in utilizing the fig- ures furnished him for a purpose foreign to that for which they were compiled. He further stated: The table was not intended to show relative cost, but simply rela" live fluctuations in price, which is a very different thing. Mr. North having inadvertently " let the cat out of the bag," as it were, by furnishing the Committee on Ways and Means with the tables, true in every detail, but the meaning of which he did not then comprehend, now endeavors to re- tract or explain away the true meaning of the table. In this he has utterly failed. I call the attention of this House and of the country to the article published in the December number of the Bulletin, a periodical published quarterly by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, of which Mr. North is himself the edi- tor, and therefore the author of the article from which I am about to quote. On page 362 of that number, he proceeds to explain the diagram, a copy of which he first sent to the com- mittee, as follows: The purpose of this diagram is to demonstrate the truth of the proposition, elaborated in the last number of the Bul/e/in, that the price of wool in the United States varies in sympathy with the price of wool in the markets of the world; that its value here is determined primarily by its value in those markets, and that, in order to correctly interpret its rise and fall, we must be in possession of all the facts regarding the general business conditions in this and other countries, and particularly the conditions surrounding the wool manufacture. From this extract it will appear that the price of wool in the United States varies, not in accordance with the tariff on wool, but " in sympathy with the price of wool in the markets of the world; that its value here is determined primarily by its value in those markets, and that, in order to correctly in- terpret its rise and fall, we must be in possession of all the 37^ APPENDIX, facts regarding the general business conditions in this and other countries, and particularly the conditions surrounding the wool manufacture." This is precisely the position taken by your committee in the extract heretofore quoted and published on pages 20 and 21 of the committee's report. It is not the tariff that controls the price of American wool, it is the value of wool in the world's market. However, Mr. North in the editorial re- ferred to on page 363 says: That the price of Ohio washed fleece wool, previous to the last two years has quite uniformly been higher than the price of the nearest corresponding grade of Australian wool (Port Phillip fleece), but rarely by the full amount of the duty upon class i wool. Here it will be seen that Mr. North states distinctly that the Ohio washed fleece is the American wool which most nearly corresponds in grade to the Australian or Port Phillip fleece. The committee called upon the Bureau of Statistics to furnish it with prices of an American wool which was of the nearest corresponding grade of some foreign wool, so as to determine the relative value (which is always determined by the price) of like quality in both markets. This information was given; and the Ohio washed fleece and the Port Phillip fleece have been recognized by the mercantile world for more than a quarter of a century as wools of the nearest corre- sponding grade. And these two wools, being of nearest cor- responding grade, it will appear by the table furnished for the twenty-three years indicated, are of practically the same value in both countries; for value is determined by price, the price at which each sold, showing that on the average the foreign wool was worth a quarter of a cent more in London than the Ohio wool was worth in Boston. In the Bulletin of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers for the quarter ending September, 1891, there appears an editorial, doubtless furnished by Mr. North, in which he says: The sympathy of markets is world-wide; and the law of supply and demand penetrates everywhere, as surely as water seeks its level. The tariff permits us to largely control our own market; but, even when controlling it, we must accept values that are beyond our control. (Page 250.) Here Mr. North admits that the tariff on wool permits us "to largely control our own market." In this statement, Mr. North inadvertently gives away his case. The American wool merchants do control the home market; and the price PRICES OF WOOLS IN U. S. AND ENGLAND. 379 which the farmer gets is largely controlled by them, always having in view the fact that they must also accept values which are beyond their control. Mr. North further states, on page 257 of the same Bulletin as follows: The foreign wools imported do not represent an equal number of pounds of domestic wool displaced, but increase the marlcet for domestic wool. If the foreign wool increases the market for domestic wool, why not let it come in without attempting to keep it out by a tariff of 11 cents a pound in the grease, 22 cents a pound washed, or 33 cents a pound scoured ? And further, if the foreign wools do not displace the do- mestic, there is no competition between the two; and, if no competition, the tariff on the foreign wools would not affect the price of the domestic. The fact here stated by the Bul- letin that the foreign wools do not displace the domestic, but increase the market therefor, is precisely the position con- tended for by revenue reformers; and it will not be surpris- ing if protectionists who still believe that the tariff on foreign wool actually raises the price of the domestic should de- nounce the Bulletin, which is the organ of the wool manu- facturers, as a " free-trade sheet, in disguise, supported by the Cobden Club with British gold." It should be remarked in this connection that the word " Ohio " applied to wools is not limited to wools grown in that State, but to all wools of like grade in the United States. The Ohio medium wool and the Port Phillip fleece, being hoth washed wools, the tariff on the importation of the Port Phillip fleece would be 22 cents a pound. If protection to American wool protected to the amount of the tariff, the Ohio wool should be worth 22 cents a pound more than it actually was during the twenty-five years covered by the present high tariff. In May, 1872, the price of Ohio medium, as appears by the table printed on page 41 of the committee's report, reached 70 cents in gold, and the price of Port Phillip fleece in Lon- don was only 47 cents, a difference of 23 cents in favor of Ohio wool. This is the only time since the wool tariff of 1866 at which the American producer realized the protection to which he was entitled, if protection actually protects in his case. This circumstance is explained by Mr. Avery, as heretofore stated, showing the "wild speculation in wools of 380 APPENDIX. all kinds in the United States " and also by the further fact which appears in a table printed on page 33 of the report, namely, that during the year 1872 the imports of foreign wool reached 126,000,000 of pounds, while the average imports of wool for the five years preceding was only 44,000,000 of pounds for each year. This immense increase in importations brought the foreign wool into competition with the domestic. It will also be seen that the production of domestic wool for 1872 was only 150,- 000,000 of pounds while the production for 1869 was 180,- 000,000, thus showing a large falling off in production and immense increase in imports. These two facts explain the conditions which prevailed in 187 1 and 1872 and are described by Mr. Avery, and caused the " fabulous profits realized by speculators," etc. But, allowing the Ohio wool this advan- tage, which existed but for one month, the general average for the twenty-five years showed less than half a cent a pound more in value in the Ohio wool than the corresponding grade of Australian wool in London. Mr. North, on page 258 of the same article, gives the fol- lowing encouragement to the American wool grower: There is, therefore, nothing in the situation which need alarm or discourage the American wool grower. He must learn to be satisfied with a small profit on his wool. This may be consoling to the American wool grower. He must, under a high protective tariff, expect smaller profits on his wool. If, however, he would only realize that protection does not protect him, that he does not get as much for his wool under high protection as he would get without it, he need not be content with smaller profits on his wool. " Foreign wools," as Mr. North truly states, "will not dis- place an equal number of pounds of domestic wool, but will increase the market therefor." An increased demand wil' produce an increased price. The pending bill is in the inter- est of the wool grower as well as the wool manufacturer; but it is especially in the interest of the American consumer. If the report of your committee is carefully considered, it will be seen that " the experience of the past quarter of a cen- tury of high protective tariffs on wool and on woolen goods has proved the policy to be disastrous to the wool grower, disastrous to the wool manufacturer, and disastrous to the American consumers." It may be asked. How, under free wool, can woolen goods be cheaper if native wool is higher ? The answer is, that the PRICES OF WOOLS IN U. S. AND ENGLAND. 381 foreign wool, which is subjected to a tax of 44 cents upon the amount of such wool in a pound of cloth, will come in free; and that such mills as the Arlington will not be permitted to earn dividends amounting to 50 per cent, per annum. Take off the tax on foreign wool, permit healthy competition, and prices of woolen goods must fall. Consumers will get the benefit of all that is now paid on foreign wool, and of all that is now charged for protection on cotton, shoddy, and other adulterants. INCREASED CONSUMPTION. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to the fact that the placing of raw sugar on the free list, and the corresponding reduction of the duty on the refined product by the act of October i, 1890, caused an increased consump- tion of sugar to the amount of 23.86 per cent, during the year 1891, the first year after its passage; which is nearly 24 per cent. Pass this bill, and a similar result will follow. It will, in all probability, cause an increased consumption of woolen goods to an equal amount. Such an increase in the consumption of woolen goods during the first year after its passage will cause a demand for 597 more woolen establishments, includ- ing the 271 establishments which were idle during the census year of 1890, to be started up again. It will demand an mcrease of capital in such establishments to the amount of $74,000,000; an increase in materials to be used to the amount of $48,000,000; an increase to the amount of $80,000,000 in the product of woolen mills; a demand for 61,000,000 pounds more of domestic wool, and for 27,000,000 pounds more of foreign wool; it will give employment in woolen factories to 52,000 more hands, and will increase the amount of wages to be paid to such hands to the amount of $18,000,000. With increased demand for wool, prices of wool will in- crease; and, with increased demand for labor, wages will also increase. Pass this bill, and thousands of feet heretofore bare, and thousands of limbs heretofore naked or covered with rags, will be clothed in suitable garments; and the condition of all the people will be improved. Those who favor its passage may be asssured that they have done something to promote the general weal, something — To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, [Loud and prolonged applause.] IN CONCLUSION. The impending presidential contest will involve the whole question of governmental taxation and tariff reform. It may not be settled at the November election. Such is the con- servative character of our government that important changes and great reforms are brought about slowly, and their ac- complishment is attended with great difficulty. At this time there is 150 majority in the House of Representatives in favor of radical changes in our tariff laws, while the Senate and president are opposed to any change in the present leg- islation. The friends of tariff reform earnestly desire and have every reason to expect that the ensuing Presiden- tial and Congressional elections will place the whole law- making power in their hands; but if they should fail to secure any of the necessary powers they will not slacken their efforts. It is an irrepressible conflict — a conflict be- tween right and wrong ; a contest in which upon one side are arrayed the beneficiaries of protective tariffs and govern- ment bounties — the favored few who are, by legislation, authorized to impose cruel and exacting burdens upon the whole people for their sole benefit; and, on the other hand, the great mass of consumers, the producers of wealth, the toiling millions, who are compelled by existing legislation to give up a portion of their earnings for the benefit of the favored interests. It is a contest of the masses against the classes, and it will never be ended until it is settled upon the funda- mental principles of right and justice. Every year the masses are becoming better informed as to their rights, and as to the operation of existing laws. They will soon arise in their might, seize every branch of the law-making power and enact legislation in their own interest. The complete success of tariff reform in this country will be the beginning of a new era; there will then be a new South, a new North, a new East, a new West. Every branch of industry will be stimulated into natural and permanent growth; larger and better markets will be opened for the products of our mines, our farms, our factories, and forges; better wages and more constant employment will be given to 382 IN CONCLUSION. 383 labor. Every man who earns his living by the sweat of his brow will receive the whole fruits of his earnings. No por- tion will be taken by legislation and bestowed upon the fa- vored few. All will be equal before the law. The people will be better educated, better clothed, better housed and better fed. They will be permitted to buy where they can get most for their money and to sell where they can get the most for their products. Our commerce will be enlarged and extended in all directions where trade may be profitable. American ships, loaded with the products of American toil, will crowd the ports of the whole world, and whiten every sea with their sails. APPENDIX. PLATFORM OF PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL CONVENTION AT CHICAGO, June 22, 1892. REAFFIRMATION OF PRINCIPLES. " Section i. The representatives of the Democratic party of the United States, in national convention assembled, do reaffirm their allegiance to the principles of the party as formulated by Jefferson and exemplified by the long and illustrious line of his successors in Democratic leadership from Madison to Cleveland; we believe the public welfare demands that these principles be applied to the con- duct of the Federal government through accession to power of the party that votes them; and we solemnly declare that the need of a return to these fundamental principles of free popular government based on home rule and individual liberty, was never more urgent than now, when the tendency to centralize all power at the Federal capital has become a menace to the reserved rights of the States that strikes at the very roots of our government under the Constitution as framed by the fathers of the republic. FEDERAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS. " Sec. ^. We warn the people of our common country, jealous for the preservation of their free institutions, that the policy of Fed- eral control of elections to which the Republican party has commit- ted itself, is fraught with the gravest dangers, scarcely less moment- ous than would result from a revolution practically establishing a monarchy on the ruins of the republic. It strikes at the North as well as the South, and injures the colored citizen even more than the white; it means a horde of deputy marshals at every polling-place, armed with Federal power; returning-boards appointed and con- trolled by Federal authority; the outrage of the electoral rights of the people in the several States; the subjugation of the colored peo- ple to the control of the party in power; the revival of race antago- nisms now happily abated, and the utmost peril to the safety and happiness of all; a measure deliberately and justly described by a leading Republican Senator as ' the most infamous bill that ever crossed the threshold of the Senate." Such a policy , as sanctioned by law, would mean the dominance of a self-perpetuating oligarchy of office-holders, and the party first entrusted with its machinery could be dislodged from power only by an appeal to the reserved right of the people to resist oppression, which is inherent in all self-govern- ing communities. Two years ago this revolutionary policy was em- phatically condemned by the people at the polls; but, in contempt of that verdict, the Republican party has defiantly declared in its latest authoritative utterance that its success in the coming elections will 384 PLATFORM OF PRINCIPLES. 385 mean the enactment of the Force bill and the usurpation of despotic control over elections in all the States. THE FORCE BILL. " Believing that the preservation of Republican government in the United States is dependent upon the defeat of this policy of legalized force and fraud, we invite the support of all citizens who desire to see the Constitution maintained in its integrity, with the laws pur- suant thereto, which have given our country a hundred years of un- exampled prosperity, and we pledge the Democratic party, if it be entrusted with power, not only to the defeat of the Force bill, but also to relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure, which, in the short space of two years, has squandered an enormous surplus and emptied an overflowing treasury, after pil- ing new burdens of taxation upon the already overtaxed labor of the country. THE TARIFF. " Sec. 3. We denounce Republican protection as a fraud; a robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal government has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties except for the purpose of revenue only, and we demand that t lie col- lection of such taxes shall be limited to the necessities of the government when honestly and economically administered. " We denounce the McKinley tariff law enacted by the Fifty-first Congress as the culminating atrocity of class legislation; we endorse the efforts made by the Democrats of the present Congress to modify its most oppressive features in the direction of free raw materials and cheaper manufactured goods that enter into home consumption, and we propose its repeal as one of the beneficent results that will follow the action of the people in entrusting power to the Democratic party. Since the McKinley tariff went into operation there have been ten reductions of wages of laboring men to one increase. We deny that there has been any increase of prosperity to the country since that tariff went into operation, and we point to the dullness and dis- tress, the wage reductions and strikes in the iron trade as the best possible evidence that no such prosperity has resulted from the Mc- Kinley act. FARM MORTGAGES. " We call the attention of thoughtful Americans to the fact that after thirty years of restrictive taxation against importations of foreign products in exchange for our agricultural surplus the homes and farms of the country have become burdened with a real estate mortgage debt of over two thousand five hundred million dollars, ex- clusive of all other forms of indebtedness; that in one of the chief agricultural States of the West there appears a real estate mortgage debt averaging ^ib^pcr capita of the total population, and that similar conditions are shown to exist in other agricultural exporting States. We denounce a policy which fosters no industry so much as it does that of the sheriff. 386 APPENDIX. RECIPROCITY. " Sec. 4. Trade interchange on the basis of reciprocal advantages to the countries participating is a time-honored doctrine of the Demo- cratic faith, but we denounce the sham reciprocity which juggles with the people's desire for enlarged foreign marlcets and freer ex- changes by pretending to establish closer trade relations for a coun- try whose articles of export are almost exclusively agricultural pro- ducts, with other countries that are also agricultural, while erect- ing a custom-house barrier of prohibitive tariff taxes against the richest countries of the world that stand ready to take our entire sur- plus of products, and to exchange therefor commodities which are necessaries and are comforts of life among our own people. " Sec. 5. We recognize in trusts and monopolies which are de- signed by capital to secure more than their just share of the joint prod- uct of capital and labor a natural consequence of prohibitive taxes, which prevent that free competition which is the life of honest trade, and we believe their worst evils can be abated by law, and we de- mand the rigid enforcement of the laws made to prevent and control them, together with such further legislation in restraint of their abuses as experience may show to be necessary. PUBLIC LANDS. " Sec. 6. The Republican party, while professing a policy of re- serving the public lands for small holdings by actual settlers, has given away the people's heritage until now a few railroads and non- resident aliens, individual and corporate, possess a larger area than that of all our farms between the two seas. The last Democratic ad- ministration reversed the improvident and unwise pol'icy of the Re- publican party touching the public domain, and reclaimed from cor- porations and syndicates, alien and domestic, and restored to the people nearly one hundred million acres of valuable land to be sacredly held as homesteads for our citizens, and we pledge ourselves to continue this policy until every acre of land so unlawfully held shall be reclaimed and restored to the people. " Sec. 7. We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of i8go as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with possibili- ties of danger in the future which should make all of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its speedy repeal. We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage, but the dollar unit of coinage of both metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value or be adjusted by international agreement or by such safe- guards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the market, and in the payment of debts; and we demand that all paper currency shall be kept at par with and redeemable in such coin. We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for the protection PLATFORM OF PRINCIPLES. 387 of the farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless victims of unstable money and a fluctuating currency. " Sec. 8. We recommend that the prohibitive 10 per cent, tax on state banlc issues be repealed. CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. " Sec. g. Public oiBce is a public trust. We reaffirm the declara- tion of the Democratic National Convention of 1876 for the reform of the civil service, and we call for the honest enforcement of all laws regarding the same. The nomination of a president as in the last republican convention by delegates consisting largely of his ap- pointees, holding office at his pleasure, is a scandalous satire upon free popular institutions and a startling illustration of the methods by which a President may gratify his ambition. We denounce a policy under which Federal office-holders usurp control of party con- ventions in the States, and we pledge the Democratic party to the reform of these and all other abuses which threaten individual liberty and local self-government. FOREIGN POLICY. " Sec. 10. The Democratic party is the only party that has ever given the country a foreign policy consistent and vigorous, compel- ling respect abroad and inspiring confidence at home. While avoid- ing entangling alliances, it has aimed to cultivate friendly relations with other nations and especially with our neighbors on the Ameri- can continent, whose destiny is closely linked with our own, and we view with alarm the tendency to a policy of irritation and bluster which is liable at any time to confront us with the alternative humil- iation of war. We favor the maintenance of a navy strong enough for all purposes of national defense and to properly maintain the honor and dignity of the country abroad. RUSSIAN oppression CONDEMNED. "Sec. II. This country has always been the refuge of the op- pressed from every land — exiles for conscience' sake — and in the spirit of the founders of our government, we condemn the oppres- sion practiced by the Russian government upon its Lutheran and Jewish subjects, and we call upon our national government, in the interest of justice and humanity, by all just and proper means, to use its prompt and best efforts to bring about a cessation of these cruel persecutions in the dominions of the czar, and to secure to the oppressed equal rights. HOME RULE IN IRELAND. " We tender our profound and earnest sympathy to those lovers of freedom who are struggling for home rule and the great cause of self-government in Ireland. RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION. " Sec. 12. We heartily approve all legitimate efforts to prevent the United States from being used as the dumping ground of the criminals and professional paupers of Europe, and we demand the rigid enforcement of the laws against Chinese immigration and the 388 APPENDIX. importation of foreign workmen under contract to degrade our labor and lessen its wages, but we condemn and denounce any and all at- tempts to restrict the immigration of the industrious and worthy of foreign lands. PENSIONS. "Sec. 13. This convention hereby renews the expression of appre- ciation of the patriotism of the soldiers and sailors of the Union in the war for its preservation, and we favor just and liberal pensions for all disabled Union soldiers, their widows and dependents; but we demand that the work of the pension office shall be done industri- ously, impartially and honestly. We denounce the present adminis- tration of that office as incompetent, corrupt, disgraceful and dis- honest. WATERWAYS. " Sec. 14. The Federal government should care for and improve the Mississippi River and other great waterways of the Republic, so as to secure for the interior States easy and cheap transportation to the tidewater. When any waterway of the Republic is of sufficient importance to demand the aid of the government such aid should be extended on a definite plan of continuous work until permanent im- provement is secured. NICARAGUA CANAL. " Sec. 15. For purposes of national defense and the promotion of commerce between the States, we recognize the early construction of the Nicaragua Canal and its protection against foreign control as of great importance to the United States. world's fair. " Sec. 16. Recognizing the World's Columbian Exposition as a national undertaking of vast importance, in which the general gov- ernment has invited the cooperation of the nations of the world, and appreciating the acceptance by many such powers of the invitation so extended, and the broad and liberal efforts being made by them to contribute to the grandeur of the undertaking, we are of the opinion that Congress should make such necessary financial provision as shall be requisite to the maintenance of national honor and public faith. education. " Sec. 17. Popular education being the only safe basis of popular suffrage, we recommend to the several States most liberal appropria- tions for the public schools. Free common schools are the nursery of good government, as they have always received the fostering care of the Democratic party, which favors every means of increasing intel- ligence. Freedom of education, being an essential of civil and relig- ious liberty, as well as a necessity for the development of intelligence, must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever. We are opposed to State interference with parental rights and rights of con- science in the education of children, as an infringement of the fiinda- mental principle of the Democratic doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government. PLATFORM OF PRINCIPLES. 389 ADMISSION OF NEW STATES. " Sec. 18. We approve the action of the present House of Repre- sentatives in passing bills for the admission into the Union as States the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona, and we favor the early admission of all the Territories having the necessary populations and resources to entitle them to Statehood, and while they remain Terri- tories we hold that the officers appointed to maintain the government of any Territory, together with the District of Columbia and Alaska, should be dona fide residents of the Territory and District in which their duties are to be performed. The Democratic party believes in home rule and the control of their own affairs by the people of the vicinage. PROTECTION TO RAILWAY EMPLOYES. "Sec. ig. We favor legislation by Congress and State legislatures to protect the lives and limbs of railway employes and those of other hazardous transportation companies, and denounce the inactivity of the Republican party, and particularly the Republican Senate, for causing the defeat of measures beneficial and protective to this class of wage-workers. THE SWEATING SYSTEM. " Sec. 20. We are in favor of the enactment by the States of laws for abolishing the notorious sweating system, for abolishing contract convict labor and for prohibiting the employment in factories of children under fifteen years of age. SUMPTUARY LAWS. " Sec. 21. We are opposed to all sumptuary laws as an interfer- ence with the individual rights of the citizen. A CHANGE DEMANDED. " Sec. 22. Upon this statement of principles and policy the Dem- ocratic party asks the intelligent judgment of the American people. It asks a change of administration and a change of party in order that there may be a change of system and a change of methods, thus as- suring the maintenance unimpaired of institutions under which the Republic has grown great and powerful." THE NEAL AMENDMENT. That part of section 3 printed in italics was inserted in the platform on motion of the Hon. Lawrence T. Neal of Ohio. He moved to strike out of the report of the committee on resolutions the following, namely: " Sec. 3. We reiterate the oft-repeated doctrines of the Demo- cratic party that the necessity of the government is the only justifi- cation for taxation, and whenever a tax is unnecessary it is unjustifia- ble; that when custom-house taxation is '.evied upon articles of any kind produced in this country, the difference between the cost of labor here and labor abroad, when such difference exists, fully meas- ures any possible benefits to labor; and the enormous additional im- 39d Appendix. positions of the existing tariff fall with crushing force upon our farmers and workingmen for the mere advantage of the few whom it enriches, exact from labor a grossly unjust share of the expenses of the government, and we demand such a revision of the tariff laws as will remove their iniquitous inequalities, lighten their oppressions and put them on a constitutional and equitable basis. " But in making reduction in taxes it is not proposed to injure any domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth. From the foundation of this government the taxes collected at the custom-house have been the chief source of Federal revenue. Such they must continue to be. Moreover, many industries have come to rely upon legislation for successful continuance, so that any change of law must be at every step regardful of the labor and capital thus in- volved. The process of reform must be subject in the execution to this plain dictate of justice." And to insert in lieu thereof the italicized portion of sec- tion 3. The motion to strike out and insert was adopted by the convention, yeas 564, nays 342. HOM. GEOVEE CLEVELAND. THE GREAT TARIFF MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT CLEVELAND. December 6, 1887. To the Congress of the United States: You are confronted, at the threshold of your legislative duties, with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands im- mediate and careful consideration. The amount of money annually exacted through the operation of present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people, largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet the expenses of the government. When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share towards the careful and economical maintenance of the government which pro- tects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensi- ble extortion, and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong, inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, lilte other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil con- sequences. The public treasury, which should only exist as a con- duit conveying the people's tribute to its legitimate objects of ex- penditure, becomes a hoarding-place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country's development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, theatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder. [That portion of the message relating to the surplus then in the Treasury is omitted. It was estimated that on June 30, 1888, the sur- plus would amount to $140,000,000.] Our scheme of taxation, by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad, and internal- revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things sub- jected to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consum- ers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these im- ported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manu- 391 392 APPENDIX. factured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers, to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid cus- toms duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public treas- ury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacture.* This reference to the operation of our tariff laws is not made by way of instruction, but in order that we may be constantly reminded of the manner in which they impose a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported articles, and thus create a tax upon all our people. It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of the government's income; and in a readjustment of our tariff interests of American labor engaged in manufacture should be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our manufacturers. It may be called protec- tion, or by any other name, but relief from the hardships and dan- gers of our present tariff laws should be devised with especial pre- caution against imperiling the existence of our manufacturing interests. But this existence should not mean a condition which, without regard to the public welfare or a national exigency, must always insure the realization of immense profits instead of moderately profitable returns. As the volume and diversity of our national activities increase, new recruits are added to those who desire a continuation of the advantages which they conceive the present system of tariff taxation directly affords them. So stubbornly have all efforts to reform the present condition been resisted by those of our fellow-citizens thus engaged, that they can hardly complain of the suspicion, entertained to a certain extent, that there exists an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage. We are in the midst of centennial celebrations, and with becoming pride we rejoice in American skill and ingenuity, in American energy and enterprise, and in the wonderful natural advantages and resources developed by a century's national growth. Yet when an attempt is made to justify a scheme which permits a tax to be laid upon every consumer in the land for the benefit of our manufacturers, quite beyond a reasonable demand for governmental regard, it suits the purposes of advocacy to call our manufactures infant industries still needing the highest and greatest degree of favor and fostering care that can be wrung from Federal legislation. It is also said that the increase in the price of domestic manufact- ures resulting from the present tariff is necessary in order that * The increased cost of domestic articles by reason of the tariff on like articles pro- duced abroad is exhaustively considered in the article entitled " Incidental Taxation " published in this volume. TARIFF MESSAGE OF PRES. CLEVELAND. 393 higher wages may be paid to our worltingmen employed in manu- factories, than are paid for what is called the pauper labor of Europe. All will acknowledge the force of an argument which involves the welfare and liberal compensation of our laboring people. Our labor is honorable in the eyes of every American citizen; and as it lies at the foundation of our development and progress, it is entitled, with out affectation or hypocris-y, to the utmost regard. The standard of our laborers' life should not be measured by that of any other coun- try less favored, and they are entitled to their full share of all our advantages. By the last census it is made to appear that of the 17,392,099 of our population engaged in all kinds of industries 7,670,493 are em- ployed in agriculture, 4,074,238 in professional and personal service (2,934,876 of whom are domestic servants and laborers), while 1,810,256 are employed in trade and transportation, and 3,837,112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining. For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all, it will be conceded that there should be deducted, from those which it in- cludes, 375,143 carpenters and joiners, 285,401 milliners, dressmakers, and seamstresses, 172,726 blacksmiths, 133,756 tailors and tailoresses, 102,473 masons, 76,241 butchers, 41,309 bakers, 22.083 plasterers, and 4,891 engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, amounting in the aggregate to 1,214,023, leaving 2,623,089 persons employed in such manufacturing industries as are claimed to be benefited by a high tariff. To these the appeal is made to save their employment and main- tain their wages by resisting a change. There should be no dispo- sition to answer such suggestions by the allegation that they are in a minority among those who labor, and therefore should forego an advantage, in the interest of low prices for the majority; their com- pensation, as it may be affected by the operation of tariff laws, should at all times be scrupulously kept in view; and yet with slight reflec- tion they will not overlook the fact that they are consumers with the rest; that they, too, have their own wants and those of their families to supply from their earnings, and that the price of the necessaries of life, as well as the amount of their wages will regulate the measure of their welfare and comfort. But the reduction of taxation demanded should be so measured as not to necessitate or justify either the loss of employment by the workingman nor the lessening of his wages; and the profits still re- maining to the manufacturer, after a necessary readjustment, should furnish no excuse for the sacrifice of the interests of his employes either in their opportunity to work or in the diminution of their compensation. Nor can the worker in manufactures fail to under- stand that while a high tariff is claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remunerative wages, it certainly results in a very large increase in the price of nearly all sorts of manufactures, which, in almost countless forms, he needs for the use of himself and his fam- ily. He receives at the desk of his employer his wages, and perhaps before he reaches his home is obliged, in a purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own labor, to return, in the payment of the increase in price which the tariff permits, the hard-earned compensation of many days of toil. 394 APPENDIX. The farmer and the agriculturist who manufactures nothing, but wlio pays the increased price which the tariff imposes upon every agricultural implement, upon all he wears and upon all he uses and owns, except the increase of his flocks and herds and such things as his husbandry produces from the soil, is invited to aid in maintain- ing the present situation; and he is told that a high duty on imported wool is necessary for the benefit of those who have sheep to shear, in order that the price of their wool may be increased. They of course are not reminded that the farmer who has no sheep is by this scheme obliged, in his purchases of clothing and woolen goods, to pay a tribute to his fellow-farmer as well as to the manufacturer and merchant; nor is .any mention made of the fact that the sheep-owners themselves and their households, must wear clothing and use other articles manufactured from the wool they sell at tariff prices, and thus, as consumers, must return their share of this increased price to the tradesman. I think it may be fairly assumed that a large proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers throughout the country are found in small flocks numbering from twenty-five to fifty. The duty on the grade of imported wool which these sheep yield is lo cents each pound if of the value of 30 cents or less, and 12 cents if of the value of more than 30 cents. If the liberal estimate of 6 pounds be allowed for each fleece, the duty thereon would be 60 or 72 cents, and this may be taken as the utmost enhancement of its price to the farmer by reason of this duty.* Eighteen dollars would thus represent the in- creased price of the wool from 25 sheep and I36 that from the wool of 50 sheep; and at present values this addition would amount to about one-third of its price. If upon its sale the farmer receives this or a less tariff profit, the wool leaves his hands charged with pre- cisely that sum, which in all its changes will adhere to it, until it reaches the consumer. When manufactured into cloth and other goods and material for use, its cost is not only increased to the extent of the farmer's tariff profit, but a further sum has been added for the benefit of the manufacturer under the operation of other tariff laws. In the meantime the day arrives when the farmer finds it necessary to purchase woolen goods and material to clothe himself and family for the winter. When he faces the tradesman for that purpose he dis- covers that he is obliged not only to return in the way of increased prices, his tariff profit on the wool he sold, and which then perhaps lies before him in manufactured form, but that he must add a con- siderable sum thereto to meet a further increase in cost caused by a tariff duty on the manufacture. Thus in the end he is aroused to the fact that he has paid upon a moderate purchase, as a result of the tariff scheme, which, when he sold his wool seemed so profitable, an in- crease in price more than sufficient to sweep away all the tariff profit he received upon the wool he produced and sold. * The rates referred to by the President were those imposed by the act of March 3, 1883. The McKinley bill fixed the rate at 1 1 cents a pound on all wools of the first class. As such wools were all valued in Europe at less than 30 cents a pound, this was an in- crease of I cent a pound. The President conceded that the former received an increased price for his wool by reason of the tariff. But this concession need not now be made, since it was shown by the statistics furnished the Ways and Means Committee of the Fifly-second Congress that the same grades of wool sold for less in this country than in Europe. — See Report of Committee of Ways and Means, Fifty-second Congress, printed in this volume. TARIFF MESSAGE OF PRES. CLEVELAND. 395 When the number of farmers engaged in wool-raising is compared with all the farmers in the country, and the small proportion they bear to our population is considered; when it is made apparent that, in the case of a large part of those who own sheep, the benefit of the present tariff on wool is illusory; and above all, when it must be con- ceded that the increase of the cost of living caused by such tariff, be- comes a burden upon those with moderate means and the poor, the employed and unemployed, the sick and well, and the young and old, and that it constitutes a tax which, with relentless grasp, is fastened upon the clothing of every man, woman, and child in the land, rea- sons are suggested why the removal or reduction of this duty should be included in a revision of our tariff laws. In speaking of the increased cost to the consumer of our home manufactures, resulting from a duty laid upon imported articles of the same description, the fact is not overlooked that competition among our domestic producers sometimes has the effect of keeping the price of their products below the highest limit allowed by such duty. But it is notorious that this competition is too often strangled by combinations quite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, which have for their object the regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination. The people can hardly hope for any consideration in the operation of these selfish schemes. If, however, in the absence of such combination, a healthy and free competition reduces the price of any particular dutiable article of home production, below the limit which it might otherwisje reach under our tariff laws, and if, with such reduced price, its manufac- ture continues to thrive, it is entirely evident that one thing has been discovered which should be carefully scrutinized in an effort to re- duce taxation. The necessity of combination to maintain the price of any com- modity to the tariff point, furnishes proof that some one is willing to accept lower prices for such commodity, and that such prices are re- munerative; and lower prices produced by competition prove the same thing. Thus where either of these conditions exist, a case would seem to be presented for an easy reduction of taxation. The considerations which have been presented touching our tariff laws are intended only to enforce an earnest recommendation that the surplus revenues of the government be prevented by the reduction of our customs duties, and, at the same time, to emphasize a sugges- tion that in accomplishing this purpose, we may discharge a double duty to our people by granting to them a measure of relief from tariff taxation in quarters where it is most needed and from sources where it can be most fairly and justly accorded. Nor can the presentation made of such considerations be, with any degree of fairness, regarded as evidence of unfriendliness toward our manufacturing interests, or any lack of appreciation of their value and importance. These interests constitute a leading and most substantial element of our national greatness and furnish the proud proof of our coun- try's progress. But if in the emergency that presses upon us our manufacturers are asked to surrender something for the public good and to avert disaster, their patriotism, as well as a grateful recogni- tion of advantages already afforded, should lead them to willing co- 396 APPENDIX. operation. No demand is made that tliey shall forego all the benefits of governmental regard; but they cannot fail to be admonished of their duty, as well as their enlightened self-interest and safety, when they are reminded of the fact that financial panic and collapse, to which the present condition tends, afford no greater shelter or pro- tection to our manufactures than to our other important enterprises. Opportunity for safe, careful, and deliberate reform is now offered; and none of us should be unmindful of a time when an abused and irritated people, heedless of those who have resisted timely and rea- sonable relief, may insist upon a radical and sweeping rectification of their wrongs. The difficulty attending a wise and fair revision of our tariff laws is not underestimated. It will require on the part of the Congress great labor and care, and especially abroad and national contemplation of the subject, and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country. Under our present laws more than four thousand articles are sub- ject to duty. Many of these do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate, by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an impor- tant factor in any effort to reduce the price of these necessaries; it would not only relieve them from the increased cost caused by the tariff on such material, but the manufactured product being thus cheapened, that part of the tariff now laid upon such product, as a compensation to our manufacturers for the present price of raw ma- terial, could be accordingly modified. Such reduction, or free impor- tation, would serve, besides, to largely reduce the revenue. It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a bet- ter chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other coun- tries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have the opportunity of extending their sales beyond the limits of home consumption — saving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market, and afford- ing their employes more certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher than partisanship and considered in the light of that regard for patriotic duty which should characterize the action of those intrusted with the weal of a confiding people. But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective action. Both of the great political par- ties now represented in the government have, by repeated and au- thoritative declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction; and neither as citizens or partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges. TARIFP^ MESSAGE OF PRES. CLEVELAND. 397 Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by- dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us — not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight re- duction of the advantages which we award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contem- plated. The question of free trade is' absolutely irrelevant; and the persistent claim made in certain quarters, that all efforts to relieve the people from unjust and unnecessary taxation are schemes of so- called free-traders, is mischievous, and far removed from any con- sideration for the public good. The simple and plain duty which we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the government, and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury through the perversion of govern- mental powers. These things can and should be done with safety to all our industries, without danger to the opportunity for remuner- ative labor which our worlfingmen need, and with benefit to them and all our people, by cheapening their means of subsistence, and in- creasing the measure of their comforts. The Constitution provides that the President " shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union." It has been the custom of the Executive, in compliance with this pro- vision, to annually exhibit to the Congress, at the opening of its ses- sion, the general condition of the country, and to detail, with some particularity, the operations of the different Executive Departments. It would be especially agreeable to follow this course at the present time, and to call attention to the valuable accomplishments of these Departments during the last fiscal year. But lam so much impressed with the paramount importance of the subject to which this communi- cation has thus far been devoted, that I shall forego the addition of any other topic, and only urge upon your immediate consideration the " state of the Union " as shown in the present condition of our Treasury and our general fiscal situation, upon which every element of our safety and prosperity depends. [Paragraphs calling attention to the reports of the heads of Depart- ments are omitted.] As the law makes no provision for any report from the Depart- ment of State, a brief history of the transactions of that important Department, together with other matters which it may hereafter be deemed essential to commend to the attention of the Congress, may furnish the occasion for a future communication. Grover Cleveland. Washington, December 6, 1887. STEVENSON AND REID. The records of the Democratic and Republican candidates for Vice-President of the United States, in reference to or- ganized labor, is of interest. Mr. Reid has run the New York Tribune office with non-union printers for many years, and until nominated for Vice-President. He was in a con- stant warfare with organized labor, and the Tribune was posted in every union printing establishment in the United States as a " rat" office. Contrast Mr. Reid's record with that of Mr. Stevenson, the candidate of the Democratic party. Mr. Stevenson has been a stockholder for twenty-five years in the McLean County Coal Company, and is now, and has been for several years, the President of the company. The company is engaged in mining coal at Stevensonville, near Bloomington, Illinois, where he resides. On the nth day of July, soon after he was nominated for Vice-President, the miners employed by the company called on him in a body, at his residence, preceded by a drum corps, and a color-bearer with the national flag. Mr. Stevenson met the assemblage of miners and other citizens who had collected, and gave them a hearty greeting. Thomas Radford, who has been an employe of the company for many years, in be- half of his fellow-miners, addressed Mr. Stevenson as follows: MR. Radford's remarks. We have called upon you this evening to extend our most hearty congratulations for the honor recently bestowed upon you. To be nominated for the office of Vice-President, the second highest posi- tion in the gift of the people, is an honor of which any one may well feel proud, and as citizens of the town in which you live, we are proud of the great distinction, and especially are proud of the fact that this honor has been bestowed on one with whom we have been so closely allied in a business way for so many years. It is with much gratification that we can look back over the past years that we have been in the employ of the McLean County Coal Company, for in all these years no pay day has ever passed that we have not been paid our wages in full. Few disagreements have ever arisen, and these have been quickly and amicably settled, and we cannot relate any instance where the company has treated us unfairly, and many a happy home has been erected in Stevensonville that would never have been there except for the kindness and consideration shown many of us both by your- self and your brothers. These things we have not forgotten, and we are here this evening to extend in the warmest terms our hearty con- 398 Hon. ADLAI STEVENSON. STEVENSON AND REID. 399 gratulations, feeling assured that in you we have a friend, one that will stand for right, and one that has the laboring interest at heart. I have been asked by my fellow-laborers to make this acknowledg- ment to you, and we have come this evening for that purpose, not as any political organization, for we represent both of the great political parties, but as your friends and co-laborers, to extend our hands and our best wishes for your success always. MR. Stevenson's reply. In response Mr. Stevenson spoke as follows: It has been my good fortune on more than one occasion to witness manifestations of the kindly feelings entertained toward me by my neighbors and fellow-townsmen, but I can say to you in perfect candor that your presence to-night, and your words of kindness have touched me more deeply than I have ever been touched before. It is, indeed, gratifying to know that the most cordial relations exist between the officers of our company and all of those who are employed in its service. As has been truly said by your chairman, few dis- agreements have ever occurred between yourselves and the com- pany, and these have all been amicably settled. During the time I have been president of the company no disagreement or misunder- standing of any kind has arisen. I was more than gratified at the re- mark of Mr. Radford that I had not only treated you with justice, but always with kindness. I have certainly aimed to do so. Mr. Radford has referred to the fact that many of you have homes of your own in the village of Stevensonville, paid for out of your earnings at the mine. It has been a source of great pleasure to my brothers and myself that our efforts to enable each of you to procure a comfortable home have met with such gratifying success. The most kindly and cordial relations should ever exist between the em- ployer and employ^. All disagreements should be settled by con- ference or arbitration. It has been my firm conviction for years that organization looking solely for the bettering of their condition, and the protection of their rights is a necessity to the wage-earners. I will detain you, gentlemen, with but an additional suggestion. It is this: By appropriate legislation when needed, but. especially by the management of all the industrial enterprises of the country, the hours of toil should be lessened. This would give to the wage-earn- er more time for the enjoyment of home and the society of his family. Again, gentlemen, I thank you for this visit, and I take pleasure now in tendering you the hospitality of my home. Several other brief speeches were made by miners, all in the same strain as that of Mr. Radford. The miners were most hospitably entertained. As Judge Worthington of Illinois, when placing Mr. Stevenson in nomination for Vice-President very pertinently remarked, " He does not require the certificate of a labor organization to prove that he is the friend of labor." His record of twenty-five years as an employer of labor is his highest commendation. THE TIN-PLATE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. Hon. Benjamin F. Shively of Indiana, a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, delivered an able and ex- haustive speech in the House of Representatives June 15, 1892, on the bill to reduce the duty on tin plate, etc., to one cent a pound, and to place it on the free list October i, 1894. In commentmg upon the manufacture of tin plate in the United States under the stimulus provided in the McKinley bill, he thoroughly exploded the claim that the industry had been successfully started in this country. He said: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Fifty-first Congress having granted to the American tin-plate industry all the power to tax other American industries that it asked, inquiry may be made without offense into the progress and extent of this industry. Let it be remembered that while the increase of duty did not go into effect until July i, i8gi, the law itself, for all the purposes for which it was enacted, went into effect with the approval of the act in October, i8go. All the effects of the increase of the duty were anticipated in the market nine months before the increase of duty actually went into effect. This fact is conclusively shown by the statistics of both the majority and minority reports on this bill. The reputed authors of the law themselves said in the House and Senate when the bill was under consideration, that preparations were then making for the manufacture of tin plate. One of the manufacturers himself stated on this floor that his firm was ready to begin the production at once. In fact, the American tin-plate producers have had all the practical advantages of the in- crease of duty for the past twenty months, and I object to having the date of the tiirth of this statutory infant misstated in an effort to magnify its growth. It should also be kept in view that tin plates are only coated sheet iron and sheet steel, and that the tin-plate industry is a part of the general sheet-iran and sheet-steel industry. When the law of i8go was passed there were about seventy rolling mills in the United States making sheet iron and sheet steel. It was then claimed that the addition of cold rolls and tinning-pots was all that was required so far as the machinery of the industry is concerned. Thus being merely an extension of one of the oldest, richest, and most powerful industries in the country, neither the novelty of tin-plate production nor the capital required can be plead to extol its progress or magnify its present dimensions. On January gth the American Tin-Plate Manufacturers' Association gave out for publication a list of the tin-plate factories already in operation in the United States, together with those in process of con- 400 THE TIN-PLATE INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. 4OI struction. Of the total number twenty-four were alleged to be turn- ing out tin plate, with a total capacity of 38,550 boxes per week. This meant 273,475 boxes, or 30,545,300 pounds, or over 15,270 tons, for the month of January alone. If that association was dealing simply in capacity, and not product, it was very careful to not say so. These figures are modest compared with the avalanche of statistics turned loose on the country by political tin-plate makers during the past two years. But it is a matter of congratulation for Congress and the country that the statistics of this new statutory industry have at last been removed from the exclusive control of the rhapsodist, the romancer, and the dreamer, and brought within the lines of rea- sonable certainty. The government, in the execution of its function as a partner with the American tin-plate manufacturer, furnishes the latter, at its own expense, with blanks to be filled out and sworn to, showing the amount of tin plate produced. It furnishes a special agent at its own expense to supervise the collection and compilation of these reports. These reports have been filed in the Treasury De- partment, showing the progress, extent, and amount of production of tin plate in the United States for the nine months ending March 31, 1892. They have been arranged and compiled, together with the letters accompanying them, by the special agent of the Treasury De- partment. They have been printed in document form and are now before us. This has all been done at the expense of the government, that they may be used in defending the tax on tin plate in this debate, as shown by the letter on page 24 of the " Special Report to the Sec- retary of the Treasury," issued "April 26, 1892." [Applause.] It is true these reports are the ex parte statements of interested parties whose franchise from the government depends on their mak- ing a good showing. It is also true that they were collected, com- piled, and published by an administration which claims that the " law has created new industries," and which cannot be said to be interested in weakening the claim. But I rejoice that they are before us, and cheerfully accept them in so far as they attempt to state history as showing the amount of what the Treasury Department construes to be tin-plate production in the United States. These . sworn returns show that the total production of tin plate and terne plate for the three months ending September 30, 1891, was 826,922 pounds; that the total production for the three months ending December 31, iSgi, was 1,409,821 pounds; that the total production for the three months ending March 31, 1892, was 3,004,087 pounds; or that the total production for the nine months covered by this report was 5,240,830 pounds, or about one-fifth the amount claimed by the American Tin-Plate Manufacturers' Association for the month of January alone. Col. Ira Ayer, the special agent of the Treasury Department, who prepared this report, places the average annual consumption of tin plate and terne plate in the United States at 678,000,000 pounds. This is certainly a reasonably low estimate. Allowing three hundred working days in the year, this would give us a consumption of 2,260,000 pounds per day of eight hours. So, according to this re- port, the American production of tin plate and terne plate for the three months ending September 30, i8gi, was equal to less than four hours' consumption. [Laughter.] The production for the quarter ending December 31, 1891, was less than five hours' consumption, 402 APPENDIX. The production for the quarter ending IWarch 31, 1892, was less than twelve hours' consumption, and the production for the entire nine months equals less than twenty-two hours' consumption. [Laugh- ter.] These calculations are all based on the sworn official returns to the Treasury Department, and anyone who doubts them can easily test them for himself. The importation of tin plate and terne p.'ate for the year 1889 was over 727,000,000 pounds. It is in my judgment fair to say that the normal annual consumption in the United States is not less than 680,000,000 pounds. This would make the American demand for the nine months ending March 31, 1892, 510,000,000 pounds. The duty on this at 2.2 cents per pound amounts to $11,220,000. The 5,240,- 830 pounds, the American production for the same period, sold at fancy American prices, would bring about $300,000. So the net re- sult of the partnership of the government with the American tin-plate producer down to March 31, 1892, is 5,240,830 pounds of tin and terne plate, at a cost to the American people of about $2 per pound, as against 2% cents per pound to people unblessed by our tariff. I respectfully submit that an article so precious should be measured by troy weight. [Laughter.] It does not avail for gentlemen to contend that the $11,220,000 go into the public Treasury. This money goes into the public Treasury in spite of the act of 1890, which seeks to exclude both product and revenue. And whether these millions go into the public Treasury or eventually into the pockets of the American tin-plate producers, the paralyzing effect of the law which exacts them on those Ameri- can industries which must use tin plate is precisely the same. [Applause.] But, Mr. Chairman, let us inquire into the real character of the American industry that produced this 5,240,830 pounds of tin and terne plate. What constitutes tin-plate production in the true me- chanical and commercial sense of the phrase ? Here [exhibiting it] is a sheet of black plate ready for tinning; here [exhibiting a bright sheet] is the same character of plate coated with tin. The one is known in the trade as black plate, and the other as tin plate. These are the products of extensive and varied processes. First, a billet of iron or steel is hot-rolled into sheets of a certain gauge or thinness. Second, these sheets are placed in vats and subjected to an acid bath; this is the pickling or cleaning process. Third, they are placed in a furnace and heated to a bright cherry red; this is the annealing or tempering process. Fourth, they are cold-rolled to the required gauge. This gives us the black sheet or plate, which is dipped in molten tin or put through a tinning machine and comes out a bright tin plate. There are other subordinate and intermediate processes, such as doubling, shearing, washing, oiling, and brushing. But the five I have mentioned are the principal processes, the very least and simplest of which is coating the black places with tin. All these proc- esses combined constitute the production of tin plate in every sense in which that industry has hitherto been considered. The deadly parallel between the statistics of the importations of foreign black plates and what the Treasury Department construes to be American tin plate amounts to a mathematical demonstration. But THE TIN-PLATE INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. 403 aside from these statistics I have positive knowledge based on care- ful personal investigation that the great bulk of the 5,240,830 pounds of tin plate and terne plate reported to the Treasury Department is the product of a foreign industry simply coated in this country. In other words, here [exhibiting it] is a black plate. The great bulk of the 5,240,830 pounds reported to the government consists of these black plates, which were hot-rolled, pickled, annealed, and cold-rolled in Wales, imported into this country, dipped in imported tin in an imported tinning-pot, and brought out in the form of this [exhibiting sheet coated with tin] coated sheet, and then called by grace of the Treasury Department tin plate " produced in the United States." [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] You have probably all heard of the Philadelphia establishment known as the N. & G. Taylor Company. You have received from these gentlemen a liberal supply of literature on the subject of American tin-plate production. Their letter to members of Congress, bearing date April 14th, contains the following: Even in this short time we are producing as fine tin plates as were ever imported, and it may be added here that our cHmate is a better and a dryer one for the production of this article. Now, I happen to know that these " as fine tin plates as were ever imported," were black sheets which had been hot-rolled in Wales, pickled in Wales, annealed in Wales, cold-rolled in Wales, brought to Philadelphia, run through imported tin, in an imported tinning-pot by an imported Welshman, and commended to a credulous American public as American tin plate. [Laughter and applause.] We are in- formed in the same letter that our only disadvantage in this country is " in the simple item of labor." As these gentlemen have shown by statistics furnished us that the labor cost is less than 25 cents a box in tinning these black sheets, and as this dipping industry seems to be operated by foreign labor anyway, it is difficult to see wherein we are at any substantial disadvantage even in the " simple item of labor." [Applause.] But, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of congratu- lation that our " climate is a dryer and better one for the produc- tion of this article," especially as it seems that up to date about the only thing American connected with this industry is our American climate. [Laughter and applause.] In concluding this branch of my subject, Mr. Chairman, I repeat, that thus far American tin-plate production is simply a dipping in- dustry. This industry is novel in the sense that the history of human industries shows nothing like it. That the returns to the Treasury Department for the present quarter will show a decided increase of the product of this dipping industry there can be no doubt. To my personal knowledge certain Welsh firms are sending over tinning- pots and Welsh laborers, and establishing American tinning attach- ments to their Welsh tin-plate mills. By this means they can bring in 100 pounds of their own black plates under a duty of $1.65, run them through their own tinning machines by the same labor that would tin them abroad, sell them to the American consumer under a protection of I2.20, and place the 55 cents as a clear bonus or sub- 404 APPENDIX. sidy to the credit of their own bank account. Such is the general character of the industry developed under the act of 1890. ******* Now, Mr. Chairman, what relation does the American tin-plate industry, established on the basis already shown, bear to the ques- tion of American wages? The tinning or coating process is a most simple one. The palm oil floats on the surface of the molten tin in the tinning-pot or tinning machine. You stand at one end of this ma- chine, and place the black sheet between the rolls. The sheet is drawn down through the palm oil and molten tin, and comes up through other rolls at the other end of the machine a bright plate. A man and a boy are all that is required to operate the latest patent machine. In fact, the N. & G. Taylor Company themselves say in a recent letter that two boys with the latest improved tinning-pots can make 70 boxes of tin plate per day. Boys are not permitted in the tinning departments in Wales for reasons I shall explain later. At present the tinning-pots in use in this country are not turning out 70 boxes per day. The majority of them are of the older and cruder pattern. But I have seen an offer of the latest improved Welsh tin- ning-pot to the American trade, in which it is warranted that two boys can average 70 boxes daily. Accepting the statement of the N. & G. Taylor Company, let us apply it to the American product for the nine months ending March 31, 1892. Two boys with one tinning-pot will make 70 boxes per day. Four boys, by a double shift, will make with the same tinning-pot 140 boxes per day, or 840 boxes per week. Eight boys with two tinning-pots will make i,58o boxes per week. The American product for the nine months reported to the Treasury Department was 5,240,830 pounds, or 48,528 boxes. It will be seen that eight boys at this rate would tin these 48,528 boxes in twenty-nine weeks. Now, cut the daily output in two; allow that two boys will tin 35 boxes per day, four boys 70 boxes per day with the double shift; allow to the boys wages at the rate of $I2 each per week, and you find that on this basis six- teen boys would tin the entire American output for the nine months in twenty-nine, weeks, and receive in wages a total of $5,568, while the American consumers would pay as duty on the black plates alone, $86,306. Added to this is the $27,291 difference between the duty on the black plates and the protection on the tinned plates, or a total of $114,297 for the American consumers to pay for $5,568 of Ameri- can wages. [Applause.] The annual consumption of tin plate and terne plate in the United States amounts to about 680,000,000 pounds, or 6,296,290 boxes. Four boys with one tinning-pot make by the double shift 140 boxes per day, or 1,680 boxes per week, or 43,680 boxes per year. It will be seen that 580 boys with 145 tinning-pots will at this rate make our entire annual consumption. Now, double the number of boys and tinning-pots in deference to the vivid fancy of some of our tin-plate manufacturers, and allow to each boy $600 in wages per year. You have 1,160 boys receiving a total annual wages of $696,000, while the duty on the black plates would amount to nearly $11,220,000, and the additional protection on the plates after they are tinned to $3,740,000, or a total of $14,960,000. In other words, after doubling the number of laborers, which some of our American tin-plate manufacturers THE TIN-PLATE INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. 405 themselves assign to this new tin-plate industry, it appears that each dollar of wages paid by it is to cost the Anaerican people I21.77. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] ******* The effect of the increased duty on tin and terne plates, Mr. Chair- man, by the act of i8go, is no longer a matter of prophecy or conject- ure. It has not naturalized the tin-plate industry. The best that it shows is a slender tinning attachment to an alien industry. It has not increased employment for American labor. It has disorganized old and self-sustaining American industries. It has compelled a re- vision of price lists. It has lessened the potentiality of American capital. It has compelled the shifting of American industrial invest- ments. It has thrown American labor out of employment. It has reduced American wages. It has menaced the progress of a canning industry fraught with almost infinite possibilities to American agri- culture. It has cleared the way for foreign rivals to take our export canned-goods trade. Viewed from every standpoint consistent with the interests of American industry, the dignity of American states- manship, and the requirements of American patriotism, the increase of the duty on tin and terne plates by the act of 1S90 has proven to be the most vicious, reckless, and profligate perversion of the Fed- eral taxing power in the whole history of the government, and for this reason we by this bill demand its repeal and fix an early day when these articles of such necessary and universal consumption among the American people shall be remitted to the free list. [Loud and long-continued applause on the Democratic side.] THE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET. For President y GROVER CLEVELAND. For Vice-President^ ADLAI E. STEVENSON. National Committee. State or Territory. Name. Address. Alabama Henry D. Clayton Eufaula. Arkansas U. M. Rose Little Rock. California M. F. Tarpey Alameda. Colorado Chas. S. Thomas Denver. Connecticut Carlos French Seymour. Delaware Lewis C. Vandergrikth. . .Wilmington. Florida Samuel Pasco Monticello. Georgia Clark Howell, Jr Atlanta. Idaho Frank W. Beane". Blackfoot. Illinois Benj. T. Cable Rock Island. Indiana S. P. Sheerin Logansport. Iowa J. J. Richardson Davenport. Kansas Chas. W. Blair Leavenworth. Kentucky Thos. H. Sherley Louisville. Louisiana James Jeffries Rapides. Maine Arthur Sewall Bath. Maryland Arthur P. Gorman Laurel. Massachusetts Josiah Quincy Boston. Michigan Daniel J. Campau Detroit. Minnesota Michael Doran St. Paul. Mississippi Chas. B. Howry Oxford. Missouri John G. Prather St. Louis. Montana A. J. Davidson Helena. Nebraska Tobiah Castor Omaha. Nevada R. P. Keating Virginia City. New Hampshire Alvah W. Sullowav Franklin. New Jersey Miles Ross New Brunswick. New York William F. Sheehan Buffalo. North Carolina M. W. Ransom Weldon. North Dakota W. C. Leistikow Bismarck. Ohio Calvin S. Brice Lima. Oregon E. D. McKee Portland. Pennsylvania William F. Harrity Philadelphia. Rhode Island Samuel R. Hovey Newport. Sou th Carolina M. L. Donaldson Greenville. South Dakota James M. Woods Rapid City. Tennessee Holmes Cummings Memphis. Texas O. T. Holt Houston. Vermont Bradley B. Smalley Burlington. Virginia Basil B. Gordon Sandy. Washington Hugh C. Wallace Tacoma. West Virginia John Sheridan Wheeling. Wisconsin E. C. Wall Milwaukee. Wyoming W. L. Kuykendall Saratoga. 406 COMMITTEES. 40^ Slate or Territory. Name. Address. Alaska A. K. Delaney Jumeau. Arizona C. M. Shannon Clifton. District of Columbia. . .James L. Norris Washington. New Mexico H. B. Ferguson Santa Fe. Oklahoma T. M. Richardson Oklahoma City. Utah Samuel A. Merritt Salt Lake City. Indian Territory E. N. Allen McAllister. Executive Committee. Name. State. Chair^ian ex-officio, William F. Harrity. . Pennsylvania. Secretary ex-officio, S. P. Sheerin Indiana. M. F. Tarpey California. Chas. S. Thomas Colorado. Carlos French Connecticut. Samuel Pasco Florida. Clark Howell, Jr Georgia. J. J. Richardson Iowa. Charles W. Blair Kansas. Thos. H. Sherley Kentucky. James Jeffries Lou isiana. Arthur Sewall Maine. Arthur P. Gorman Maryland. Daniel J. Campau Michigan. Michael Doran Minnesota. Chas. B. Howry Mississippi. John G. Prather Missouri. Alvah W. Sulloway New Hampshire. Miles Ross New Jersey. William F. Sheehan New York. M. W. Ransom North Carolina. Calvin S. Brice Ohio. S. R. HovEY Rhode Island. Holmes Cumminos Tennessee. O. T. Holt Texas. Bradley B. Smalley Vermont. Basil B. Gordon Virginia. Campaign Committee. Chairman, Don M. Dickinson Michigan. Secretary, Bradley B. Smalley Vermont. Calvin S. Brice Ohio. Arthur P. Gorman Maryland. William F. Sheehan New York. M. W. Ransom North Carolina. Benj. T. Cable Illinois. E. C. Wall Wisconsin. Josiah Quincy Massachusetts. William F. Harrity Pennsylvania. W. C. Whitney New York. INDKX. Abbett, C4ov. Leon, 297. Acetate of lead — see lead acetate. Acids, 63, 345. Acorns, 45, 219. Adams, George E., 139. Administrative act of 1890, 25. Admission of new states, 387. Agate— see buttons. Agricultural implements, manufac- turers of, 393. Agricultural products, 38, 39, 118, 130, 257, 265, 270-296. Agriculture and farmers, 22, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 52, 69, 92, 97, 152, 177, 204, 218, 321, 228, 331, 247-253, 200, 268-^96, 301, 319, 321, 338, 384, 394, 405. Agriculture, report, 176, 178, 206. Alaska, 387. Alcohol, 28, 40, 107, 108, 229, 269. Alexandria, 79. Alien holdings in U. S., 294, 384. Allen, Mr. E. P., 301. Almonds, 208. Alpaca hair — see wool. Altman & Co., 86. Aluminium, 30. American Agricultural Association of the West, m. American industry sacrificed, 32, 405. American Iron and Steel Association —see sub Iron . American Tin Plate Association — see sub Tin Plate. American workmen, wages, etc. — see under specific names. Anderson, John A., 90, 92. Animals, 3.s, 205, 207, 230— see horses; cattle; hogs; sheep; mules. Antwerp, SSS. Apples. 39, 211. Arbitration, 399. Argentine Republic — see wool, Argen- tine Republic. Arizona, 357, 387. Arkansas, .357, 365. Arlington Mills, 381. Army-cloths, 343. Arnold, Constable & C«\, 86. Art squares, 326. Art, works of, 319— see paintings, stat- uary. Arthur, President Chester A., 68. Astrakhan, 327. Atkinson, Louis E., 185. Aubusson carpets— see wool, carpets. Australian wool— see wool, Australian . Averaging rates, 67. Avery, Chas. F., 360, 376-381. Axminster carpets — see wool, carpets. Ayer, Ira, 401. Ayres, Wm. M., 234. Azaleas, 45. Bacon, see hogs. Bagging, cotton, 32, 33. Bakers, 393. Balance of trade— see trade,balance of. Baltimore, 351. Band iron— see iron, hoop, etc. Banks, internal-revenue tax on, 108, 268,385. Bar iron, 31, 35— see girders. Barbed wire, 266. Barclay, "Wm. F., 123. Barley, 38, 39, 50, 55, 118, 206, 207, 211. Barrels, 36 — see gun barrels. Barrels, gun — see gun barrels. Barter, all foreign trade is by — see trade, balance of. Bass wood, 36. Bastiat's "Sophisms of Protection," 159 —see dogmas. Bayne, Thomas M., 141, 142, 183. Beach, Lewis, 132. Beams, 261. Beans, 207. Beans, castor, 28, 64. Beaver Falls, Pa., 203. Bed-sides, wool, 326. Beds, 45. Beef, 208, 210,211,270. Beer — see malt and malt liquors. Beeswax, 45, 61,219. Beet seeds, 45 — see seeds. Beet sugar— see sugar, Belgium, 338. Beltmgs, 325, 331. Berlin, 338. Berlin rugs— see wool, carpets. Bessemer — see iron, steel. Billion-Dollar Congress — see Congress, Billion-Dollar, Bimetallism, 384 — see silver. Binding twine — see twine. Bindings, 325. Bingham, Henry H., 183. Birmingham , 399. Bismarck, Count, 276. Black-listing strikers, 124, 125. Black plate — see sub tin plate. Blacksmiths, 393. Blaine, James G., 193, 196, 197, 250-253, 270-372. 409 410 INDEX. Blair, Senator Henry "VV., 13-1, 214- see labor, report of L'(_immitt».-<.' o\\ education and. Blankets, 41, 99, 240, 305, 324, 348, 344— see woolen goods. Bloomington, Ills., 398. Bookings — see wool, carpets, Boies, Gov. Horace, ^77. Bombyx mori, 215. Bonds, 191. Books, 43, 45, 57, 219. Boots— see shoes. Boracic acid, 28, 266. Borax, 28, 266. Boston, 297-309, 351, 3G0, 373-381. Boston Globe, 297. Boston Journal of Commerce, 377. Bottles, 79, 121. Bounties— see sugar, silk; subsidies; taxation. Bounties, unconstitutional, 216, 258. Braces, 325. Braids, 45. 325. Brass, 28, 53. Brazil, 251, 270,276-278. Breadstuffs, 38, 39, 40, 206, 207, 252, 269, 275, 290 — see barley; malt; buck- wheat; corn; oats; rice; r^'e; wheat; flour. Breckenridge, Wm. C. P., 138, 370, 177, 233. Brewer, J. Hart, 75, 76. Briar wood or root, 45, 221. Brick, 28, 244. Bridges, 261. Bristles, 219. " British gold," 379. "British gum," 65, Broadcloth, 343. Broom-corn, 218. Broome Co., N. Y.,347. Brumm, Charles N., 144. Brussels carpets — see wool, carpets. Bryan, Wm. J., 41, 374. Buckwheat, 38, 118, 207. Buflalo hair, 169, 332. Bulbs, 45, 220. Burden of taxation — see prices in- creased by protection. Burrows, Julius C, 161, 183, 199, 373. Business interests, 103, 395, etc. Butchers, 393. Butter, 207. Butterworth, Benjamin, 227,228. Buttons, agate, shell, and pearl, 19,43, 44, 203, 305. Buttons, covered, 32.5. Bynum, William B., 234. Cabbage, 218. Calamities contmually predicted, 173, 183. Calely, James, 190. Calicoes, 265. California, 213, 258, 305, 357, 365. Camel's-hair, 169, 240, 323-381, 332, 369. Campau, B. J., of Detroit, 254. Campbell, Gov. Jas. E., 277, 309. Camphor, 261. Canada, laborers, 194. Canada, trade with, 31, 90, 93, 209, 225, 227, 271. Canada wool, 165, 330. Canada wool — see wool, Canadian. Canary seed, 45. Candles, 61, 62. Canning industry, 33, 405. Cans — see tin plate. Cape wool— see wool. Cape. Carnegie, Andrew, 197. Carpenters, 393. Carpets — see wool, carpets. Caruth, Asher G., 266. Cass i meres— see woolen goods, 170, Castor oil and beans, 28, 64, Cattle, 39, 207, 269, 370. Cement, 28, 29, 69— see lime, plaster. Centennial celebrations, 386, 393, Census reports, 59, 287, 332, 343, 345, 360, 364-372. Central Labor Union— see Labor Un- ion, Central. Centralization of power, 383. Chairman of committee of the whole, Mr. Springer, 21. Chamber of Commerce, New York, 101, 244. Champagne— see wines. Cheap foreign goods—see trade, for- eign, checked by tariff. Cheapness, good and bad, 159. Checks — see banks. Cheese 207 Chemicals,'20, 27, 28, 57, 58, 131, 188, 194, 244, 329. Chemicals — see quinine; dj-estuffs; camphor; glue; chloroform; vitriol. Chenille carpets — see wool, carpets, Chicago, 299, 382. Children employed, 119, 121, 12:^, 125, 346, :387. Chinaware, 28, 29, 47, 75, 107. Chinese, 97, 123, 134, 197, 198, 199, 219, 233, 350, 276, 385, Chipman, J. Logan, 254,267, Chloroform, 261. Chocolate, 38, 305. Cider, 207. Cigarettes — see tobacco, 193. Cigars — see tobacco. Cinchona— see quinine. Cisterns, 69. Civil service reform, 385. Clarke, R. H., 221, Class legislation, 113, 114, 201, 389— see protection. Classes and masses — see condition of laboring classes in U. S. Clay, blue, for crucibles, 45. Clays — see earths. Cleveland, Grover, 198, 298, 382, 391- 397. Tariff message, 151, 153, 190. Cloaks, 325, 327. Clothing, ready-made, 41, 47, 325— see coats; cloaks; tailors; milliners, &('. Coal Company, McLean County, 398. Cobden Club, 379. Coal, 34, 123, 331— see coke. Coal tar, 45. Coats, 327, Coca — see chocolate. Coffee, 45, 46, 305, 360, 363. INDEX. 411 Coffins, 2GG. Coke, 34, 109, 133. Colorado, 357, 366. Coloring- matters— see dyestuffs. Combination — see trusts. Comfits, 208, 211. Commission, tariff— see tarili' commis- sion. Committee on "Ways and Means — see Ways and Means Committee. Compensating' duties — see sub wool. Condition, not theory, 397. Condition of the laboring classes in China, 134, 197. Condition of the laboring classes in England, 127, 196, ;^93. Condition of the laboring- classes in Europe, 196. Condition of the laboring classes in the United States, 119, 120, 223, 125, 126, 127, 191, 224, 249, 289, 291, 389. Conference report, Mar. 3, 1883, 94. Conger, Edwin H., 213. Congress, Billion-Dollar, 280, 300. Congresses— see table of contents. Connecticut, 346, 347, 356, 365. Connecticut wrappers, 38. Constitution of U. S., bounties contra- ry—see bounties, unconstitutional. Constitution of U. S., force bill dan- gerous to, 383. Consumption, increased by tariff re- duction, 351, 379, 381. Consumption, merchandise entered for, 230, 358, 359. Consumption — see under specific names Conveyances, tax on, 268. Converse, George L., 106. Convict labor, 43, 387. Cooley, Judge Thomas M., 217. Cooper, Hewitt & Co., 87. Copper, 30. Corcoran, Gen. John W., 297. Cord, woolen, 325. Cordage, 41, 42. Cordage — see twine. Cordage Company, National, 42. Corn, Indian, 38, 39, 50, 85, 118, 207, 310, 311, 215, 210, 257, 270, 389. Corn laws, 246, 293, 321. Corners — see trusts. Corruption funds, for elections — see trusts; British gold; election debts. Cost — see prices. Cost of living — see wages, purchasing power. Cost of protection, 82— see prices in- creased by protection. Cotton, adulterant in woolen goods, 332, 333, 345, ;«7, 349, 371. Cotton and cotton goods, 41, 57, 62, 90, 99, 107, 108, 117, 118, 128, 131, 169, 193, 205, 206, 234, 252, 263, 269, 306, 370. Cotton-bag machinery, 33. Cotton -bagging — see bagging, cot- ton. Cotton-gin— see cotton machmery. Cotton machinery, 33, 33. Cotton ties— see ties, cotton— see, aiso, iron, hoop. Cotton-seed oil, 68. Covers, 326, 327, 343, Cox, Saml. S., 70. Cratinp; &c., expense of, to be added —see expense of crating. Cream of tartar, 64. Crime, in England, 293. Crockeryware— see earthenware. Cuba, 251, 256, 370, 275-278. Currants, 45. Currency— see money. Cuspidors, 74. Cutlery, 30, 47, 201, 325, 257, 304. Cutlery, American Table, Associa- tion, 201. Dairy products, 38, 39, 207— see butter; cheese; milk; eggs. Dakota, 357. Dandelion roots, 45, 219. Daniell & Son, 87. Dates, 45. Dealers— see licenses. Dearness, good and bad, 159. Debate of 1888 and 1890, length, 146, 310-311. Debts on elections — see election debts. Decker, Matthew, 53. Deficit, 261 — see surplus. Degras, 320. Delaware, 356, 365. Demand and supply — see supply and demand. Democratic platform, 382-388. Depression of industries, 238-246, 273, 293, 341, 383— see lockouts; strikes; wages ; prices ; condition of laborers ; &c. Detroit, 2-3, 44, 254-267. Detroit Free Fress^ 354. Denster, Peter V.,91. Dextrine, 65. Dill'erence in principle, 32, 387. Dingley, Nelson, Jr., 156, 157. Direct tax — see taxation, direct. District of Columbia, 387. "Divide, and conquer," 320. Dix, John D., 185. Dockery, Alexander M., 1.38, 146, 151, 209, 211, 233, 338. Dodge, J. R", 178. Dogmas of protection, 95— c/. " Soph- isms of Protection," Dolmans, 335. Domestic products — see taxation, in- cidental. Domestic products, value, 231. Down— see feathers. Drawback, 40, 2-24, 242, 333— see trade. Drawback gives cheap goods to for- eigners, 335. Dress goods, 47, 128, 129, 340, 306, 335, 331— see wool, goods. Dressmakers — see sewing women. Drug wrappers, 32. Druggets— see wool, carpets. Drugs— see chemicals. Dry goods, 85, 86— see silk, woolen dress goods. Ehrich Brothers, cot- ton, wool goods. Dunham, Ransom W., 130, 123. Dutch carpets— see wool, carpets. 412 INDEX. Duties, compensating— see wool, com- pensating: duties. Duties— see tariff; internal revenue, &c. Dyestuffs, 28, 67, 131, 179, 244, 329~see indigo. Earths and earthenware, 28, 47, 57, 73, 74, 107, 108, 109, 304. Education, 386. Education and labor, report of com- mittee on— see labor report. Education, increase of, under free trade, 293, Eggs, 207, 370. ^ Egypt, 79. * Ehrich Brothers, 125. Elastic goods, woolen, 335. Election debts, 201— see corruption funds. Elections, federal control, 255, 382. Embroideries, 335. England, 327, 338. England, condition of labor— see con- dition of laboring classes in Eng- land. England, corn laws— see corn laws. England, history of tariff laws, 293, England, land, 179. England, prosperity under free trade 293. England, quinine, 181. England, trade of, 233, 371, 275, 294. England, wool— see wool, English. English ownership in U. S., 294— see alien holdings. Entered merchandise— see consump- tion. Equalization of burdens— see protec- tion of wage-workers. Errett, Russell, 66, 99. Essences, fruit— see fruit essences. Ethers, fruit — see fruit ethers. Evans's imports and duties, 141. Exchange of products with foreign nations checked by protection — see trade reciprocity. Expense of crating to be added be- fore assessing duty, 25. Exports, 229, 277, 358-359— see trade; reciprocity; drawback. Extravagances in government, 383— see bounties; subsidies; billion-dol- lar congress. Fallacies of protection, 95, 97. Faneuil Hall, 22, 297. Farinaceous substances — see bread- stuffs. Farm mortgages — see mortgages. Farmers, matter with, 247-:^9. Farmers— see agriculture. Farquhar, John M., 320. Feathers, 45. Felt — see wool, felt. Fibers— see cotton; jute; wool; hemp; flax; hair; sisal, &c. Figs, 39, 207, 211— see fruits. Filberts, 207. Finance Committee, 310, 336. Firearms, 30, 45, 47. Fish, 38, 40. Fish, canned, 32- Five-minute talks, 20, 57-93. Flannels, 331, 344. Flax, 41, 57, 206, 211, 220. Florida, 351, 356, 366. Flour, 276. Flower seed, 45. Folger, Chas. J., 104— see report of Secretary of the Treasury. Food, 230 — see under specific names. Foran, Martin A., 122, 123. Force bill— see elections, federal con- trol. Foreign policy, 385. Foreigners, condition of — see condi- tion of laboring classes. Foreigners do not pay the taxes — see tariff duties not paid by foreigners. Foreigners to have cheap goods, 236. Forests 54 France,' 169, 196, 219, 827, 245, 348, S71, 272-276, 388, 344. Free coinage — see silver coinage. Free list, 19, 21, 44, 46, 181, 181-189, 194, 218, 281, 334, 278, 307, 333, 381, 383, 396, 405 — see wool; quinine. Free trade advantages of, 233, 246, 260, 292-396. Free trade among the states, 228. Free trade in laborers — see labor, im- portation of. Free trade, not tlie issue, 102, 298, 897. Free wool — see wool, free. Freeze-out — see sub trusts. Fringes, 325. Frostburg, Md., 123. Fruit, 38, 39, 206, 807— see figs; grapes; plums; prunes; oranges; lemons; raisins; apples. Fruit, canned, 82. Fruit ethers, oils and essences, 28. Fur hats — see hats. Furniture, 36. Galloons, 335. Galvin, Owen A., 297. Garfield, General (President) Jas. A., Gear, John H., 214. Georgia, 356, 305. Germany, 219, 227, 245, 348, 271 , 872-376, 827, 339, 344. Giffln, Robert, 126, 293. Gimps, 825. Gins, cotton — see cotton gins. Girders, 861. Glass and glassware, 28, 89, 30, 57, 77, 107, 108, 108, 202, 331, 257, 304— see bot- tles. Glass, Window, Manufacturers' Asso- ciation, 123. Gloves, 44, 177. Glue, 58-60, 63, 361. Goat hair, 383-381. Gold, 30, 131. Gorings, 385. Gould, Jay, 196. Grapes, 39, 307, 311. Grass seed, 45— see seeds. Grease. 220. Great Britain — see England. Greeley, Horace, 250. INDEX. 413 Gum, 65. Gun barrels, 45 — see firearms. Hair, 45, 169, 220, 323-381, 332, 371— see camePs hair; buffalo hair; mohair; hides; alpaca hair; goat hair; wool. Hams — see hog's. Hansbrough, H C, 220. Hanson vs. Vernon, 217. Harness, 178. Harrison, President Benjamin, 191, 201. ■ J . , Haskell, Dudley C, 63, 91. Hassocks, 326. Hats, 45, 340, 324, 340, 370, 371. Havre, 338. Hawaiian Islands, 228. Hay, 206, 207, 210, 257, 270. Hayes, John L., 307, 337. Hayes, President Rutherford B., 68. Hearings, 47. Heidelberger, Isaac N., 47. Hemp, 41, 57, 206, 211,220. Hemp seed, 45. Hewitt, Abram S., 88, 101, 102, 116, 126. Hides, 45, 46, 131, 177, 245, 260, 323-381. History of tariff legislation— see tariff legislation, history. Hobson's choice: work or starve, 122. Hogs, 39, 207, 208, 210, 211, 319, 270, 272- 276— see animals; lard. Hogs, diseased, 373. Holland, 181, 233, 356, 338. Home market — see market, home. Home rule, 382, 387. Irish, 385, Honey, 307. Hoop iron — see iron, hoop. Hops, 206, 207. Horr, Roswell G., 89, 90, 99. Horses, 39, 207, 270— see animals. Hosiery, 201, 340, 344, 371— see knit Hours of labor— see labor, hours of. Houses, 52, 69— see wood; nails. " How to attack the tariff," 22, 310- 318. Humphrey, Herman L., 75. Hungarians— see labor, imported. Idaho, 357, 366. Illinois, 64, 91, 92, 119, 120, 162, 209, 212, 315, 218, 223, 291, 3:34, 346, 347, 356,365. Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics- see sub reports. Immigration, 289, 385 — see labor, im- portation of. Importation— see trade. Importation, increase between pas- sage and taking effect of law, 283, 400. Importation of labor — see labor, im- portation of. Imports, amount, 239, 358-359— see trade; consumption, merchandise entered for. Improved methods, etc., 116-118, 248. Incidental taxation— see taxation, in- cidental. Income tax, 268, Increased cost— see prices, increased. India, 182, 248. Indian corn— see corn. Indiana, 133, 233, 356, 365. Indigo, 66. Industries, unprofitable— see unprof- itable industries. ''Infant industries " a sham, 150, 393. Ingrain carpets — see wool carpets. Insignificant items, reduction of tar- iff on, 57-93. Internal revenue, 25, 46, 94-99, 107-8, 191, 193, 268, 299, 331— see banks; to- bacco; whiskey; wool, etc. International monetary agreement, Iodine, 67, Iowa, 22, 91, 92, 215, 268-296, 309, 356, 366. Iowa Supreme court, 217. Ireland, trade of, 271. Iron, 30, 34, 35, 36, 53, 57, 60, 84, 96, 100, 107, 109, 116, 128, 131 214, 231, 262, 263, 374, 383, 400-405— see Hewitt, Abram S. Iron and Steel Association, American, 30, 46, 183. Iron, hoop, band or scroll, 31. Iron, manufactures, 57, 131 — see un- der specific names. Iron, ore, 34, 225. Iron, pig, 36, 49, 291— see raw material. Iron, structural— see beams; bridges; girders. Irrepressible conflict, 344, 267, 389. Italian cloths, 335. Italy, .248. Jackets, 335. Java, 182. Jefferson, President Thomas, 382. Jews, 385. Joiners — see carpenters. Jones, Alexander H., 185. Jones, Alexander J. Jute and jute butts, 41, 45, 57, 220. Kansas, 91, 92, 312, 258, 288, 357, 366. Kasson, John A., 66, 70, 77, 79, 91, 99, 100. Kelley, Wm. D., 65, 68, 74, 77, 120, 122, 138, 143, 183. Kentucky, 356, 366. Kerr, Daniel (of Iowa), 209. Knights of Labor, 133, 198. Knit ^oods, 240, 306, 324, 340, 371— see hosiery. Knives — see cutlery. Kunstwolle, 344. Labor and mdustries, report on, 126. Labor, cost of, 34, 35, 36, 96, 100, 350, 387. Labor, division of, makes workmen dependent, 125. Labor, female — see women employed. Labor, hours of, 113, 131, 124, 125, 293, 399. Labor, importation of, 90, 121, 122, 123 134, 194, 198, 263, 283, 306, 385, 403-405— see immigrants. Labor, importation of, agency for, 123. Labor, its object, 114. Labor, not protected by tariff— see wages, tariff's effect on; labor, inx- portation of. 414 INDEX. Labor, report of bureau of statistics, 34,850. Labor, report of commissioner of, 1890, 34. Labor, report of committee on, 20, 180, 138. Labor, report of committee on educa- tion and, 31, 134. Labor, report of Illinois bureau— see sub reports. Labor-saving machinery saves luages not labor, 180. Labor tlie standard of values, 113. Labor Union, Central, 185. Labor unions — see trades-unions. Lace, 45, 385. Lahn, or lame, 380. Lame or lahn, 220. Lamp chimneys. 30, 203. Landers, Chas. S., 47. Lands, public, 384 — see alien holdings. Lard, 808, 311— see hogs. Laths, 36. Lead, 28, 30. Lead acetate, 26. Lead— see white lead. Leather, 52, 177. Lemons, 50, 55, 207, 211. Lenses, 30, 79. Licenses, 108. Lily of the valley, 45. Lime, 88 — see cement; plaster. Limestone, 34. Linen, 803, 363, 366, 878, 306, 315, 345. Linings, 171, 325, 327— see wool goods. Liquors— see Malt; alcohol; whiskey; wmes. Liverpool market— see market, Liver- pool. Loan Association vs. Topeka (T. bond case), 316, 859. Loans by government, 808. Lockouts, 102, 109, 118, 116, 2.38, 343, 265 — see strikes; wages. Lodge bill — see elections, federal con- trol. Lodge, Cabot, 301. London, 338, 360, 37.3-381. London Statistical Society, 126, 293. Lord & Taylor, 85. Louisiana, 205, 212, 258, 305, 351, 357, Lumber, SO, 36, 54, 57, 89, 108, 194, 207, 218, 890, 313, 381, 374. Lutherans, 385. Luxuries, 230, 396. Lyon, 899. McAdoo, "William, 834. McClure, Col. A. K., 234. McKeever, Daniel, 326. McKenzie, James A., quinine bill, 183. McKinley bill— see tariff laws of 1890. McKinley, W. J., Jr., 44, 46, 67, 71, 79, 99, 161, 170. 223, 287, 250, 256, 257, 276, 284, 303, 304, 306, 327. McKesson & Robbins, 183. McLaren, Mr., 344. McLean County Coal Company, 398. McMillin, Benton, 208, 315, 373. Macbeth, 203. Madison, President James, 388. Maine, 162, 194, 203, .346, 347, 356, 366. Maine supreme court, 217. Malt and malt liquors, 25, 60, 55, 107, 108, 192, 206, 207, 339, 369, 399. Manchester, 299. Manger & Avery, 360-362, 375-381. Manila, 41, 380. Manning, Secretary Daniel, 307, 336. Manufacturers, metal, woolen, etc. — see under specific class. Manufacturing Chemists' Associa- tion, 185. Maple sugar — see sugar. Marble, 28. Market, Buy in dearest — see market, Liver- pool, trade. Foreign, advantages as safety- valve, 338, 396. Home, 97, 118, 133, 144, 160, 187, 224, 229, 242, 848, 269, 874-278, 315, 341, 350, 378 -see drawback ; overpro- duction; trade. Home, inadequate, 377, 396. Liverpool, 848, 889, 301. On both sides of the ocean, 376, Maryland, 332, 846, 366, 366. Masons, 893. Massachusetts, 23, 109, 122, 211, 297- 309, 346, 347, 366, 866, 375-881. Masses and classes — see condition of laboring classes in U. S. Matches, 108. Materials — see raw materials. Mats, wool — .«ee wool, carpets. Matte, 45. Matting, 45, 219. Maybury, W. C, 864. Meat, 38, 808, 876, 890- see hogs; beef; slieep; lard; poultry; tallow. Meat, canned, 38. Meat, extract, 808. Mechanics, 69. Medicines, 88, 71 — see morphia ; strych- nine; quinine. Medill, Jos., 83, 88. Melada, 107 — see sugar. Merchandise entered for consumption — see consumption. Merino goods, 344. Metals — see under specific names, 30, 57. Methods, etc. ; wool, peculiarities of, 116,385. Metropolitan Industrial League, 75. Metz wool — see wool, Metz. Mexico, 196, 309, 319, 351. Meztizo wool — see wool, Meztizo. Michigan, 83, 91, 93, 161, 194, 854-267, 290, 347, 356, 366, 876. Michigan Supreme Court, 258. Milk, 207. Mill, John Stuart, 48, 85. Miller, Justice Samuel F., 216, 259. Miller, Senator Warner, 247. Milliners, 171, 393 — see. sewing women. Mills bill — see Congress, 50th. Mills, Roger Q., bill, 31, 138, 146, 185, 193-198, 810. Mines, 130. Minnesota, 91, 92, 194, 890, 356, 366. INDEX. 415 Mississippi, 356, 366. Mississippi River, 386. Missouri, 98, 366, 366. Mohair, 169, 387, 338, 369. Molasses — see sugar. Money — see paper money; silver; banks; bimetallism. Money, purciiasing power — see wages, purchasing power. Monopolies — see trusts. Montana, 357. Moquette carpets — see wool, carpets. Morals and the tariff, 293. Morphia, 45. Morrill, Senator JustiTi S., 183. Morrison, William R., 80. Mortgages, 82, 833-284, 847-849, 886-890, 383. Morton, J. Sterling, 254. Moses, Jolin, 47. Mules, 39, 870. Music, 45. Mustard seed, 45. Mutton — see sheep. Nail Association, Western, 109, 110. Kails, 30, 99, 109. Nails, wire, 266. Napoleon Bonaparte, 79. National Cordage Co. — see sub Cord- age. National Wool Growers' Association — see sub Wool. Navigation laws, 381 — see navy. Navy, 385 — see ships. Navy-cloth, 343. Neal, Lawrence T., 387. Nebraska, 91, 98, 357, 366. Necessaries — see tarill' heaviest on ar- ticles for poor. Needles, 30, 45. NeidriQghaus, F. G., 883. Netherlands — see Holland. Nets, 335. Nevada, 357. New Hampsbii-e, .346, 317, 356, 367. New Jersey, 133, 126, 835, 341, 346, 347, 356, 367. New Mexico, 838, 357, 387. New Orleans, 361. New York, 33, 183, 247-853, 809, 288, 291, 299, 386, 341, 316, 317, 3.56, 367— .see iron; Hewitt, etc. New York city, 126, 3.61. New York Quinine and Chemical Com- pany, 184. New York Trade Journal^ 351. New York Tribune, .398. New York wool trade — see sub wool. Nicaragua canal, 386. Nickel, 30. Nickel matte, 45. Nickel ore, 45. Nimmo, Joseph, Jr., 106, 129— see re- ports of Bureau of Statistics. Nineveh, 79. Noils — see wool, noils. North, S. N. D., 340, 348, 360, 369, 376, 381. North Carolina, 366, 367. Nuts, 38, 208,212— see almonds ; filberts ; pecans; peanuts. Oats, 38, 118, 207, 210, 311, 257. Occupation tax^ 868. Oils, 28, 806, Oils, fruit— see fruit oils. Oils, various — see under proper names. Ohio, 182, 161, 166, 175, 8.35, 369,276,288, 891, 302, 306, 309, 334, 346, 347, 356, 367, 376, 379— see wool, Ohio. Oleomargarine, 25, 193, 193, 899. Onions, 207. Opium, 45. Oranges, 60, 55, 207, 211. Orchids, 45. Oregon, 357, 367. Ores, 30. Ores, iron — see iron ore. Original pacicages, 829. Oswego, N. Y., 347. Overproduction, 118, 132, 150, 168, 166, 243, 847. Paintings, 281, 319. Paints, 28. Palm Oil, 404. Palms, 45 — see plants. Pamphlets— see books. Paper, 43, 67. Paper currency, ;384. Paris white, 88. Pattison, R. E., Gov. of Pa., 834. Pauper labor — see wages. Pauper labor imported — see labor, im- portation of. Pauperism and the tariff, 293. Payne, Sereno E., 199. Peanuts, 808. Pearl buttons — see buttons. Pearls, 44. Pease, 807. Peel, Sir Robert, 380. Penitentiary oITense to repeal law, 267. Pennsylvania, 23, 131, 133, 161, 190-198, 808, 203, 204, 217, 235, 288, 291, :M1, 346, 347, 358, 367. Pensions, 380. People vs. Salem, 858. Peters, S. R., of Kansas, 267. Petersham, .343. Pewter, 30. Philadelphia, 22, 113, 170, 190-198, 233, 244, .351. Philadelphia Becord, 190, 233. Philadelphia speeches, 190-198, 233- 246. Phosphorus, 61. Piano-covers — see covers. Pickles, 207. Pictures — see paintings. Pig-iron — see iron, pig. Pilot overcoats, 343. Pine, 36. Pipes, 221. Pitch, 46, 220. Pittsburg, Pa., 203, 804. Plaits, 46. Plants, 46, 307, 118 — see palms. Plaster, 28 — see cement, lime. Plasterers, 393. Platform, Democratic, 382, .388. Platinum, 30. Plums, 807, 211, 4i6 INDEX. Pools— see trusts; monopolies. Popular Science Monthly, 127. Pork — see hog^s. Porter, Robert P.— see Report of Cen- sus Office. Porto Rico, 270, 276-278. Potash, 28. Potash and compounds, 45. Potatoes, 50, 123, 207, 211, 270. Potters, 47 — see earthenware. Pottery "Works, Union, 75. Poultry, 208. Poultry, canned, 33. Powderly, T. V., 133. Powers &Weightman, 183, 185, 187, 188. Precious Stones, 44. Presidents' Messages, 59, 60-93, 107, 151. Prices, comparative, in Europe and the United States, 23, 49, 115, 348, 360-363, 373-381. Prices decreased by improved meth- ods of production— see improved naethods, etc. Prices decreased, under protection- see improved. Prices increased by protection, 19, 308, 317. 321. Prices increased by protection, do- mestic, 49, 50, 210 — see taxation; in- cidental trusts. Prices increased by protection, im- ports, 82-88, 96, 99, 110, 111, 115, 204, 263, 264, 283, 284, 285, 300, 391— see tariff duties not paid by foreigner; tin plates; taxation, cumulative; aZso sub wool. Prices increased by protection, list, 308. Prices of quinine— see sub quinine. Prices of wool — see sub wool. Prices— see tariff. Prices, where unaffected by tariff, protection unnecessary, 395. Prohibition, alcoholic, 387. Protection, a fraud and robbery, 383. Protection, does it protect? 97, 99, 114, 129, 152, 162, 169, 197, 241, 242, 308, 315, 331, 394. Protection, equal, is unnecessary, 308. Protection for wage-workers, 112, 114, 393. Protection must be continually in- creased, 331. Protection — see tariff. Protection unnecessary where prices are not raised by tariff, 395. Prophecies, 245, 249, 255, 381, 389— see calamities. Provisions, 38, 55, 269. Prunes, 207, 211. Public lands— see lands, public. Pulp, 43. Purchasing power of wages — see wages, purchasing power. Quinine, 21, 181-189, 322. Cinchona, 181-189, 186. - Conclusion, 189. Corner, 188. Manufacturers now favor free trade 332, Quinine— New York and Chemical Co., 184. Prices, 183, 186. St atements after bill passed, 186-187. Statements before bill passed, 183- 186. Statistics showing effect of bill, 186- 187. Where grown, 181, 182. Where made, 183. Quality deteriorates, under protec- tion, 343. Radford, Thomas, 398. Rags — see wool, rags. Railroad employfe, 387. Railroads, 51, 130, 135, 305, 293, 394. Rails, 19, 34, 50, 88, 101, 265, 302. Raisins, 207, 211. Randall, Samuel J., 64, 143. Ranney, A. A., 79. Raw hides — see hides. Raw materials, 23, 69, 101, 167, 169, 171, 186, 188, 193, 194, 334, 230, 242, 252, 307, 313, 340, 343, 346, 369, 383, 396— see iron; drawback; wool, free. Reading ^eraid, 131. Rebellion, 56. Reciprocity, 19, 21, 22, 45, 46, 227, 250- 353, 370, 275, 384— see Canada. Reciprocity is exploded protection, 250. Receipts, 35, 26. Reed, Thos. B., 82, 83, 84, 250, 254, 307. Reedism, 254. Reform Club, N. Y., 247-253. Reid, Whitelaw, 398. Reimposed tax— see tax reimposed. Repeal law, penitentiary offense, 267. Report, agricultural, of Illinois, 222. Report of Census office, 59, 287, 332, 343, 345, 360, 364-3G8, 369-372. Report of department of Agriculture, 176, 178, 206. Report of Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, 119, 222. Report of Bureau of Statistics, 36, 106, 130, 177, 178, 230, 315, 348, 356-35(1, 375. Reports of Commissioner of Labor, 1890, 34, a50. Report of Commissioner of Revenue, Reports of Committee on Ways and Means — see Ways and Means, Com- mittee on. Report s of Secretary of Treasury, 66, 104, 199. Reports of Tariff Commission— see Tariff Commission. Revenue Commission, U. S., 330. Revenue Tariff, speech, 190-198. Revenues, effect of tariff reduction, 353. Rhode Island, 211, 346, 347, 356, 367. Ricardo, 85. Rice,'.50, 55, 56, 206,207, 211. Rich grow richer and poor poorer — see condition of laboring classes. Richland County, Ohio, 276. Riots, 293 — see strikes. Rivers — see waterways. Rockwell, W. F., 47. INDEX. 417 Eod, wire— see wire rod. Rodgers, Josepli & Sons, 203. KooHng— see tin plate. Roots, i-20. Roots,dandelion— see dandelion roots. Rope, 220. Rosengarten & Sons, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188. Round iron, 31. Rubber boots and shoes, 206. Rugs — see wool, carpets. Russell, John E., Mass., 177. Russell, W. E., Gov. Mass., 308. Russia, trade of, 232, 248. Russian oppression, 385. Russian wages, 196, 248. Russian wool — see wool, Russian. Rye, 118, 207, 210, 211. Sacrifice of American Industry, 32. Saddlery — see harness. Salem — see People vs. Salem. Saleratus, 2.s. Salt, 38, 40, 99, 194, 302, 313, 321. Salvation on the free list, 266. Santonine, 28. Savings, of people, 293. Saxony Carpets — see wool, carpets. Screens, 336. Screws, 33, 34. Scroll iron — see iron, hoop. Sealskin, imitation, 337. Seamstressess — see sewing women. Seeds, 45, 207, 310, 218. Serge, 327. Sewing women, 61, 171, 393. Sharpless vs. Mayor, 217. Shawls, 834. Sheep, 39, 147, 148, 149, 160-163, 174, 175, 179, 207, 208, 211, 212, 234-335, 238, 270, 286, 303, 838, 3.34-.336, 356— see wool. Sheep acreage, 174. Sheffield, England, 202, 299. Shell — see buttons. Sherman act of 1890— see silver coin- age. Sherman, Senator John, 184, 266. Shingles, 36. Ships, 244, 294, 321, 385, 390— see navi- gation laws, navy. Shively, Benj. F., 31, 400. Shoddy — see wool, shoddy. Shoes, .53, 116, 117, 177, 193. Shoes, rubber, 266. Shotffun barrels— see gun barrels. Shrouds, 266. Shrubs— see plants. Sidon, 79. Silk and silk goods, 43, .57, 60, 86, 99, 107, 129, 181. Silk bounty, 200, 215— see bounties, un- constitutional. Silver, 30, 131. Silver coinage, 292. 884 Simpson, Jeremiah, 288. Singerlv, Wm. M., 190, 233. Sisal grass, 41, 220. Skill of workmen of different nations, 197. Skins— see hides. Slavery, 344, 267— see irrepressible conflict. Slavery, protection a species of, 112, 115. Slavonians — see labor imported. Smith, Adam, 48. Smith, Thos. C, 75. Snuff — see tobacco. Soaps, 28, 63. Soda, 28. Sophisms of protection, 159 — cf. dog- mas of protection. Sorghum seed, 45. Sorghum sugar— see sugar. South Carolina, 366, 866, 367. South Dakota, 866 — see Dakota. Sovereign, J. R., 289. Spices, 38. Spirits, spirit varnishes, etc. — see al- cohol; whiskey; distilled spirits; wine. Spain, 271. Spectacles, 30. Speculations in sugar— see sugar. Speculations in tin plate — see tin plate, speculations. Speculations in wool — see wool, specu- lations. Spencer, Iowa, 22, 268. Spikes — see nails. Spreckels, Glaus, 305. Springer Bill— see wool. Springer bill. Springer, John W., 181. Square iron, 31. Starch, 38, 65. Statistical Society — see London Sta- tistical Society. Statistics, report of bureau of, 26, 106, 130, 177, 178, 230, 315, 348, 356-359, 375. Statuary, 221, 819. Staves, 36, 91. Steamship subsidy, 200. Steel, 19, 80, 34, 50, 63, 60, 99, 100, 101, 107, 109, 116, 128, 131, 214, 231,291— see Stenger, W. S., 190. Stevenson, Adlai E., 398. Stevensonville, Ills., 398. Stewart, J. D., 217. Stone, 28. Stone-breakers, 122. Stones, precious, 44. Stoneware — see earthenware. Stoves, company, 124. Straw, 45, 207, 219. Strike, encouraged by employer, 124. Strikes, 44, 103, 113, 116, 121, 198, 88.3— see riots; lockouts; wages; depres- sion of industries. Structural iron — see beams, girders, bridges, square iron. Strychnine, 68. Student lamp chimneys— see lamp chimneys. Sub-treasury, 292. Successions, tax on, 268. Sugar, 19, 32, .37, 45, 45, 46, 60, 54, 56, 67, 60, 107, 108, 128, 131, 193, 205, 212, 214, 220, 323, 361 , 256, 267, 260, 264, 266, 278, 285, 304, 351, 381. Sugar bounty, 21, 300, 213, 214, 268,279, 385, 304— see bounties, unconstitu- tional. 4i8 INDEX. Sugar seed, 45— sec seeds. Sugar tax reimposed — see tax reim- posed. Suo:ar trust — see trusts. Sulphur ore, 220. Sulphuric acid or vitriol, 261, 345. Sumatra wrappers, 38. Sumptuary laws, 387. Sundries, 43, 67. Sunn, 41. Supreme Court of Michigan— see sub Michigan. Supreme Court of U. S., 216. Supply and demand, 61, 62, 149, 169, 163. 243, 289, 850, 401. Surplus revenue, 104-137, 108, 161, 191, 199, 214, 383, 391, 395, 396— see deficit. Suspenders, 325. Swank, James M., 30. Sweating, 227, 387. Swine — see hogs. Switzerland, ^2. Switzler, Mr. — see report of Bureau of Statistics. Syndicates— see trusts. Table-covers — see covers. Tables. Agricultural products, 205, 206, 207. Trade of foreign countries, 1890, 271. Imports, 1883, 131. Incidental taxes, .57. Merchandise entered for consump- tion, 1888-89. Raw materials in woolen goods, 169. Sheep, 147. Sheep, 1860-1891, east and west, 350- 357 Shoddy industry in 1860, .343. " " " 1870, 345. " " " 1880, 346. " " " 1890, 347. Wool, 1840-1891, 358-369. Wool, relative prices in Europe and V. S., 361-363. Woolen factories, 1870-1880, 178. Woolen industries, 1870-1880, 243. Woolen industries, 1880-1890, 365-368. Woolen industries, 1890, material, etc., .371-372. Tacks, 30. Taggers' tin— see tin plate. Tailors and tailoresses, 171, .393— see sewing women. Tallow, 208, 211. Talmas, 325. Tannic acid or tannin, 28. Tapestry Brussels carpets— see wool, carpets. Tapestry velvet carpets — see wool, carpets. Tar, 45, 220. Tar, coal— see coal tar. TarilT act of 1867, 1.57, 241, 242. Tariff, actual reduction, 107. Tariir, average rates, 26, 300. TarilV commission, 20, 26, 27, 58-93, 99, 104, 107. Tariff duties not paid by foreigners, 22, 83-88, 192, 1117, 255, 299-304— see prices. Tariff duties, who pays? 319. Tariff, effect on wages — see wages, tariff's effect on. Tarilf, heaviest on articles for poor, 175, 193, 203, 328, 333. Tariff, how to attack the, 22, 310-318. Tariff is a tax, 44, 60, 111, 192, 223, 239, 243, 266, 303, 804. Tariff law of 1846, 819. Tariff law of 1867, 831, 833, 335. Tariff law of 1890, 7, 19, 21, 22, 25-47, 199-246, 255, 269-296, 300, 311, 320, 383, 400. Tariff law of 1890, how made, 19, 46, 47. Tariff laws of 1883, 7, 20, 27, 57-93, 94- 99, 106, 235, 335. Tarifl' legislation, history of. In U. S., 23, 234, 268, 333. In England, 820. Tariff message of President Cleve- land, 891-397. Tariff prohibitory, 121, 332, 333, 3.38, .384. Tariff, proportions of duty and pro- tection, 49, 50, 63. Tariff raises prices — see prices. Tariff Reform Club, Philadelphia, 234. Tariff reform matter, 247-263. Tariff — see protection. Tassels, 325. Tax reimposed by president, 260. Taxation, amount of burden — see pri- ces inci'eased by tariff, imports. Taxation, analysis and principles of, 48, 49, 50, 801. Taxation, compensatory, 239, 828-333, 396 — see sub wool. Taxation, compound — see taxation, compensatory atid taxation, cumu- lative. Taxation, cumulative, 51, 52, 111, 282, 300, 394. Taxation, direct, 298 — see internal revenue income tax, &c. Taxation, incidental. 19, 48-57, 71, 111, 156, 192, 202, 214, 223, 257, 264, 282, 285, 301-304, 342, 892. Taxation, incidental, by anticipation, 284,400. Taxation is just, only for support of government, 391. Taxation must be increased to run government, 280. Taxation, Republican system, 25-47. Taxation, returning, 152, 394. Taylor Company, N. & G., 403-404. Taylor, Nathan A., 142. Taylor, Joseph D., 143. Tea, 45, 46, 141, 205, 860, 263. Telegraphs, 135, 292. Telephones, 292. Tennessee, 866, 867. Tentative plan of attacking the tar- iff, 23, 310-822. Terne plate — see tin plate. Territories, .387. Texas, 166, 351, ,3.57, 367. Textiles — see cotton; woolen; silk. Theophrastus, 79. Thread, 41, 171. Thurman, Allan G., 198. Ties, cotton, 19, 31, 33, 40, 813— see iron, hoop. INDEX. 419 Tile, as, 344. Timber — see wood. Time of labor — see labor, hours of. Times, N. Y., 66. Tin Plate: Act took effect later, 283, 400. Association, American, 31, 47, 400. Association, National, 140, 195, 204, 263, 381. Black plate, 402-404. Capacity, not product, claimed, 401. Character of the industry, 403. Climate, 403. Consumption in U. S., 401. Cost of protection, 403. Cost to consumers, 140. Dipping industry, 403. Encouraged by free pig tin, 143. Industry not self-supporting, 139, 304,281. Is a raw material, for various in- dustries, 145. Labor imported, 403-404. N. & G. Taylor Company, 403-404. Number of workmen, 143. Pig or block, .30, 53, 143, 402. Plate, 19, 21, 33, 30, 31, 32, 40, 47, 53, 138, 145, 194, 204, 3U3, 381, 306, 315, 331,400,405. Prices, in the past, 143. Processes, 403. Rates in the past, 141. Speculations, 284, 400. Trust, 195, .266, 383— see Tin-plate Association. Is sheet-iron, 400. Wages paid, 143, 404. Tinsel, 45, 220. Tinware, 142. Tobacco, 35, 38, 45, 46, 54, 57, 108, 193, 193, 306, 308, 210, 211, 220, 26 ■, 399. Toilet articles, 28. Tombstones, 203, 366. Top-waste — see wool, waste. Topeka bond case — see Loan Associa- tion vs. Topeka. Tournay carpets — see wool, carpets. Townshend, Richard W., 79. Trade, balance of, 118, 130-136, 144, 195, 196, 199, 339, 233, 250, 253, 363,374, 389, 306— see market. Trade, foreign, checked by tariff — see trade, balance of; drawback; raw materials. Trade, growth of England's, 294. Trade, growth of our, 277, 390. Trade is by barter — see balance of trade. Trade must be reciprocal — see trade, balance. Trade, table showing, 371. Trades unions, 44, 71, 112, 122, 12.3, 19S, 398. Transportation, cheap, a blessing, 135. Treasury department, report of, 66, 104, 199. Treasury— see Reports of Secretary. Trees — see wood. Trimmings, 335. Trusts, aiiiicles subject of should not be protected, 395. Trusts, combinations, etc., 33, 42, 109, 110, 124, 150, 187, 190, 194, 303, 360,364, 366, 328, 384, 395— see monopolies. Closing mills, by freeze out, 187. " *' by payment, 303. Trusts, list, 266. Tumblers, glass, 203. Turner, Henry G., 33. Turpentine, 45, 321. Twine, 19, 41, 43, 265, 313. Ulsters, 325. Underwear, 324. Unions— see trades unions. Unprofitable industries, 285 — see tin plate; sugar. Utah, 357, 368. Vanderbilts, 196. Varnishes, 28. Vegetables, 206— see beans; potatoes; corn; wheat; rye; oats. Vegetables, canned, .32. Velvet carpets — see wool, carpets. Venetian carpets — see wool, carpets. Vermont, .305, 346, 356, 368. Vinegar, 38. Virginia, 356, 368. Vitriol, 361, .346. Wages, .57, 76, 95, 98, 100, 103, 104-137, 111-128, 189, 190, 194, 196-7, 198, 24:3, 245, 348, 389, 393, 303, 317, 381, 385, 393, 398, 404-405— see workmen. Wages abroad, 196. Wages, not raised by tariff — see wages, proportion to product. Wages, proportion to cost of living — see wages, purchasing power. Wages, proportion to value of prod- uct, 116, 118, 119, 120, 125, 198, 264, 389, 343, 345, 346— see labor, cost ; con- dition of laboring classes. Wages, purchasing power, 113, 119, 135, 127, 222, 290, 293, 308. Wages, ten reductions to one ad- vance, 383. Walker, Mr. Joseph H., of Mass., 226. Walker tariff, see tariff law of 1846. Walnut Street Theatre, 333. War taxes, 7, 104-137, 108. Warner, A. M., 327. Washington, Joseph E., 140. Washington, State, 3.57, 366, 368. Waste — see wool, waste. Watches, 30. Waterways, 380. Wayne County, Mich., 258 — see De- troit. Ways and Means Committee, 1892, 33, 31, 33, 43, .32:3-372, 400— see Kelley, McKinlev, Morrison, Mills. Webbings,' 325, 331. Wells 99. WeUs, David A., 32, 319, 334, 373, 380. West Virginia, :!56, .368. Western Nail Association — see Nail Association, Western. Wheat, 39, 118, 171, 307, 310, 311, 314, 316, 357, 35fl, 370, .307. Wheeler, Joseph, 68. Whiskey, 25, 1112, 193, 309, 331), 269, 299. White, Chas. T., & Co, 186, 188. White lead, 70. 420 INDEX. Whiting, i28. Whitman, Mr. Wm., 47, 339, 307, 337, 360. Willett & Gray, .351. Williams, Frank R., 364. Wilson, Wm. L., 46, 47. Wilton carpets — see wool, carpets. Windeler & Co., 363. Window Glass Manufacturers' Asso- ciation — see Glass, Window, Manu- facturers' Association. Winans, E. B., 23. Wines, 40, 55, 107, 206, 208, 212, 229, 269, 305. Wire, 33, 45, 220— see nails; barbed wire. Wire rod, 266. Wisconsin, 91, 92, 194, 890, 366, 368. Women employed, 119, 121, 123, 134, 343, 346. Wood, 20, 36, .54, 57, 89, 108, 194, 207,318, 290, 313, 321, 374. Wool, 21, 23, 23, 43, 49, 67, 60, 96, 107, 108, 131,146-180, 169,306,306,308,210, 813, 334, 335, 334-2415, 385, 303, 307, 331, 333-381, 368, 359, 394— see sheep. Adulterants, 169,170, 335, 333, 343,349 — see wool, shoddy; wool, mungo. Adulterants, protected, 338. Amount in finished product — see wool, shrinkage. Antiquity of industry, 150. Argentine Republic, 176. Australian, 165, 173, 176, 176, 302,330, 349, 360-303, 376-381. Canadian, 166, 330. Cape, 330. Carpets, list, 325-326. Carpets, rugs and mats, 171, 240,265, 306, 323-381, 884, 335, 331, 333, 340, 341, :M3, 347, 370, 371. Compensating duty, 239, 313, 338- 333. Consumers not benefited, 841, 342. English, 159, 163, 173, 174, 177, 179, 346, Extracts, 344, 345. Felt, 332, 340, 344, 846, 371. Carpets — see wool, carpets. Trust, 338. Fleece— average weight, 172. Foreign industries, 163, 174. Foreign prices, 159. Free, 146, 107, 173, 176, 179, 242, 244, 285, .308, 313, 323-381, 330, 338. Garnets, .344. Goods, 23, 23, 41, 42, 47, 57, 60, 66, 99, 107, 108, 128, 139, 131, 146-180, 193, 244, 267, 262, 364, 378, 380, 285, 300, 303, 304, 306, 313, 333-3H1, 371— see carpets; cassimorcs; wool. General advantages of tariCT reduc- tion, 179, 180, .381. Gifas.- and dirt, 164, 339. Growers' Association, National, 46, 148, 240, 244, .330. Industries, 1880 and 1890, 340-341 , 364- 368. Idle establishments, 341. Unpro(itable,3.41. Industries, table, 1870 and 1880, 343. Wool— Internal revenue tax on, 331. Manufacturers' Association, Na- tional, 47, 148, 235, 238, 239, 344, 307, 389, 337, 348, 360, 375-381. Bulletin, 148, 344-346, 861, 376-381. Metz or Meztiza, 330. Mixing, 167. Mungo, 323, 343, 344. New York, Trade, 166, 241. Noils, 333-381. Ohio, 161, 165, 175, 349, 360-363, 373- 881— see Ohio. Definition, 879. Overproduction, 150. Peculiarities of Iluctuations in price, 168, 163, 167, 176, 179, 285, 316, 360, 379, 380. Port Phillip, 349, 360-863, 873-381. President's message, 152, .394. Price decreased, 149, 156, 168, 160, 166, 285, 316, 335. Price, how affected by tariff rule, 158, 163, 167, 168, 176, 179, 2&5, 316, 360, 379, 380. Price increased, 154, 156, 842. Rags, 323-381. Raw materials consumed, 370-373. Relative prices in Europe andU. S., 28, 49, 116, 348, 360-863, 373-381. Renaissance, 844. Russian, 177, 179. Shoddy, 33, 225, 241, 332, 340, 341, 344, 343-348, 349, 874. Industries, 1860, 843. 1870, 345. 1880, 346. 1890, .347. Amount consumed, 371. Shrinkage, 164, 239, 303, 338-383. Small profits not necessary, 380. Speculations in, 376, 879, 380. Springer bill, report on, 323-372. Provisions of, 323-326, 333. Tariff, a political necessity, 337. Tariff, act of 1867, and its effects, 167-164, 168. Tariff act of 1888, and its effects, 164. Tax returns in part upon those "protected," 152,394. ■Waste, 383-381, 344. Western, 165, 175. World's supply, 176. Worsted goods — see woolen goods. Yarns, 41,839,834, 369. Work, hours of— see labor, hours of. Workmen, American, superior skill, 197. Workmen in protected industries, 66, 57, 96, 100, 104-187, 111— see labor, cost, wages; strikes; labor, imported. Works of art— see art, works of. World's fair, 880. Worthington, Judge N. E., of Illinois, 399. Wright, Carroll D., 34, 860. Wyoming, 367. Yarns, woolen or worsted — see wool, yarns. Yorkshire broadcloth, 343, Zinc, 30, 53. MES. SPEINaER'S BOOKS. Songs by the Sea, AND OTHER POEMS. BY Rebecca Ruter Springer. "Typographical art, engraver's skill, and binder's taste have all been called upon to contrib- ute an exquisite setting for these poems of rare worth and beauty. An elegant small quarto volume of 170 pages, with numerous toned engravings. Fine Cloth, chaste design, $i-75 Full Gilt Edges, etc., 2.25 *,,;* May be had of all booksellers^ or sent postpaid, on receipt of price, by the publisher, : : iFUmiitfl 10^. mebfU : : Chicago, ■ 148 and 150 Madison Street. New York. - Union Square. SELF. BY Rebecca Ruter Springer. With an Introduction* by Rev. Wm. H. Mil- burn, D. D. New York HUNT & EATON. Cincinnati, - CRANSTON & STOWE. SE&ECT I(E7!DmG. POPULAR NEW BOOKS FOR LIGHT READING AND FOR THE LIBRARY, — ISSUED BY — ■ CHARLES L WEBSTER & CO., (i^ FIFTH AVE., NEW YORK. FICTION. THE AMERICAK" CLAIMANT. (Just Ready.) By Mark Twain. The most widely known character in American fiction, Col. Mulberry Sel- lers, is again introduced to readers in an original and delightful romance, replete with Mark Twain's whimsical humor. Fully illusti'ated by Dan Beard. Cloth, 8vo, $1.50. MARK TWAIN. DON FINIMONDONE : CALABBIAN SKETCHES. By Elisabeth Cavazza. Though a native and resident of Port land. Me., and belonging to an old New England family, Mrs. Cavazza early became interested in Italian matters. Few American authors have so completely captured the Italian spirit as she has done in these pictures of Italian life among the lowly. (" Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Frontispiece by Dan Beard. Cloth, 12mo, 75 cents. " Racy of the Calabrian soil." — Cleveland Flaindealer, "This little book is something new and rare." — Atlanta Constitution. " Each one of these sketches shows the sure touch and the constructive in- stinct of a born artist in letters." — Tiie Literary World (Boston). *' The whole book has a pungent originality, very grateful to the jaded reader of common-place romance." — Christian Union. " Mrs. Cavazza has made a great beginning in these stories, which will bear more than one reading, and which, as the work of a New England woman, are very remarkable. They are dehghtful, and they are mature."— iSicftard Henry Stoddard in Mail and Express. IN BEAVER COVE AI^D ELSEWHERE. By Matt Grim, author of "Adventures of a Fair Rebel." This volume contains all of Miss Crim's most famous short stories. These stories have received the highest praise from eminent critics, and have given Miss Grim a position among the leading lady writers of America. Illustrated hy E. W. Kemble. Cloth, 8vo, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents. '^ Her stories bear the stamp of genius."— 5^ Paul Globe. " A writer who has quickly won recognition by sliort stories of exceptional power." — The Independent. " Miss Crim is a writer of rare dramatic power, and her relations of events in the old and new South are full of fire, picturesque description, and dramatic situations."— Oinctnnaii Commercial-Gazette. "The true Crackers are of Northern Georgia, and Matt Crim is as much their delineator as is Miss Murfree the chronicler of the mountaineers of Ten- nessee." — New York Times. ADVENTUBES OF A PAIE REBEL. By Matt Crim. This novel is the record of a deeply passionate nature, the interest in whose story is enhanced by her devotion to a lover, also a Southerner, compelled by his convictions to take service in the Northern army. Striking descriptions of the campaign in Georgia and the siege of Atlanta are given. With a frontispiece by Dan Beard. Cloth, 8vo, $1.00. Paper, 50 cents. " It is a love story of unusual sweetness, pathos, and candor." — Christian Union. " We advise all who love a good, pure novel to read ' The Adventures of a Fair Rebel.' " — Atlanta Herald. " The incidents are varied, and the interest is never allowed to flag from opening to close of this enjoyable novel." — Philadelphia Ledger, " The style is simple and straightforward, with fine touches here and there. . . The showing forth of the best aspects on both sides of the dreadful struggle is skilfully done, avoiding false sentiment, and maintaining an almost judicial tone, which does not, however, lessen the interest of the story." — The Nation. THE MASTER OP SILENCE. A ROMANCE. By Irving Baeheller. Readers of Mr. Bacheller's stories and poems in the magazines will look with interest for his first extended effort in fiction. ("Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 13mo, 75 cents. " ' The Master of Silence ' is the first novel of Mr. Irving Baoheller, of the newspaper syndicate, and deals in a striking way with the faculty of mind- reading."— iVew YurJe World. " A well-named story is already on the road to success. . . . Altogether the story is a strange character study, full of suggestion, earnest in moral purpose, and worthy of a,tteDUon."— Cincinnati Enquirer. " There is no let up m the intrigue of ' The Master of Silence,' and there is plot and action enough in it to construct a book-case full of novels by Howells and James." — Cambridge Tribune. GEORGIA STORIES. (In Preparation.) By Richard Malcolm Johnston, author of " Dukesborough Tales, " etc. Colonel Johnston has selected a number of his most characteristic and entertaining stories, now first published in book form, for a volume of the new "Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series." Colonel Johnston is easily the dean of Southern men of letters, and the announcement of a new volume from his pen calls for no further com- ment. Cloth, 13mo, 75 cents. MOONBLIGHT, AND SIX FEET OF ROMANCE. By Dan Beard. In " Moonblight " the artist-author has brought into play all those resources of humor, imagination, and sarcasm for which he is so well known, to teach under the guise of a romance the lesson of the wrongs inflicted by capital on labor. In the light of re- cent events at the Homestead mills, this book seems to have been pro- phetic. Illustrated by the author. Cloth, 8vo, |1.00. " A strange but powerful book." — Philadelphia Bulletin. " He does not construct a Utopia like Bellamy; the reforms he proposes are sensible and would be profitable, if greedy capital could be induced to con- sider and try them." — Springfield Republican. *'It is a witty, gay, poetical book, full of bright things and true things, the seer donning a jester's garb to preach in; and one may be sure, under the shrug and the smile, of the keen dart aimed at pride, prejudice, self-seeking, injustice, and the praise for whatsoever is beautiful and good." — Hartford Courant, THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER. A TALE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE OF ALL AGES. By Mark Twain. New popular edition of this " classic " of American fiction. It is a charming romance of the life and times of Edward VI., the boy king of England, and is considered by many to be Mark Twain's best work. Pronounced by high authorities one of the best child's stories ever written. Uniform with the cheap edition of "Huckleberry Finn." Illustrated. Cloth, 13mo, |1.00. ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY PINN. (Tom Sawyer's Comrade.) By Mark Twain. New cheap edition of the laughable adven- tures of Huck Finn and a runaway slave in a raft journey along the Mississippi. Contains the famous description of a Southern feud. Illustrated by E. W. Kemble. Cloth, 13mo, $1.00. IVAN" THE TOOL, AND OTHER STORIES. By Leo Tolstoi. Translated direct from the Russian by Count Norraikow, with illustrations by the celebrated Russian artist, Giibaye- dofE. Cloth, 12mo, $1.00. "The stories in this volume are wonderfully simple and pure."— ZJefrozi JTree Press. " As creations of fancy they take high rank." — Boston Transcript. " ' Ivan the Fool ' is one of the most interesting and suggestive of Tolstoi's fables, and the work of translation is admirably performed." — Chicago Standard. LIFE IS WORTH LIVING, AND OTHER STORIES. By Leo Tolstoi. Translated direct from the Russian by Count Norraikow. This work, unlike some of his later writings, shows the great writer at his best. The stories, while entertaining in themselves, are written for a purpose, and contain abundant food for reflection. Illustrated. Cloth, 12mo, $1.00. MERRY TALES. By Mark Twain. The opening volume of the new "Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series." Contains some of the author's favorite sketches, including his personal reminiscences of the war as given in "The Private History of a Campaign that Failed." Cloth, 12mo, 75 cents. " Very readable and amusing tales they are."— iVeto York Sun. " Thousands will welcome in permanent form these delicious bits of humor." — Boston Traveller. " These tales are now brought together in an attractive and convenient volume which all those who enjoy the author's inimitable humor will appreci- ate." — Public Opinion. "Some of these stories are deep with pathos; others bubble over with humor. All of them are intensely interesting and readable from the opening sentence to the closing line." — New Orleans States, POETRY. SELECTED POEMS BY WALT WHITMAN. Chosen and edited by Arthur Stedman. Shortly before Mr. Whitman's death, the old poet for the first time consented to tlie publication of a selection from "Leaves of Grass," embracing his most popular short poems and representative fy il" passages from his longer lyrical efforts. Arranged WALT WHITMAN. for homc and school use. "With a portrait of the author. ("Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 13mo, 75 cents. " Mr. Steclman''s choice is skilfully made.'" — The Nation. " The volume represents all that is best in "Walt Wliitman."— 5an Fran- cisco Chronicle. "That in Walt Whitman which is virile and bardic, lyrically fresh and sweet, or epically grand and elemental, will be preserved to the edification of young men and maidens, as well as of maturer folk." — Hartford Courant. " The intention of the editor has been to offer those of Whitman's poems which are most truly representative of his g-enius. The selections have been well made, and those who have yet to make acquaintance with this most orig- inal of American poets will have reason to thank the publishers for this little volume." — Boston Transcript. " These ' Selected Poems ' will go a long way toward securing for the dead poet the respectful hearing to which his brilliant talent was entitled."— Noah Brooks in Newarlc {N. J.) Advertiser. " The present selection contains those of Whitman's poems that most fully illustrate his genius, his wonderful appreciation of the soul of nature, his hearty and wholesome spirit of physical and mental joyousness, his serene tran- quillity in old age, and his wide and generous conception of American life."— Providence Journal. FLOWER O' THE VINE : ROMANTIC BALLADS AND SOSPIRI DI ROMA. By William Sharp, author of " A Fellowe and His Wife " (with Miss Howard), "Life and Letters of Joseph Severn,'' etc. With an introduction by Thomas A. Janvier, and a portrait of the author. As one of the most popular of the younger English poets, equal success is anticipated for this first American edition of Mr. Sharp's poems. Its welcome in the American press has been most hearty. Tastefully bound, with appropriate decorative design. Cloth, 8vo, $1.50. " This volume of verse, by Mr. William Sharp, has a music like that of the meeting" of two winds, one blown down from the Northern seas, keen and salty, the other carrying on its wings the warm fragrance of Southern fields."— T/ie Literary Wona, " These old ballads, whether in Scottish dialect or not, are transfused with the wild, uncanny, shivering character of all the old myths of the North, a strange pungent chill, so to speak, as if the breath that gave them voice were blown across leagues of iceberg and glacier."— C/ticag'o Times, "When Mr. Sharp leaves the North with its wild stories of love and fight- ing and death, and carries us away with him in the "Sospiri di Roma" to the warmth and the splendor of the South, he equally shows the creative faculty. He is a true lover of Earth with her soothing touch and soft caress, he lies in her arms, he hears her whispered secret, and through the real discovers the spiTituaX.'*''— Philadelphia Record. " The poems combine a gracefulness of rhythm and a subtle sweetness." — Baltimore American. " The author makes good the claim of his friends as a new poet, both in originality of thought and a, unique grace of expression." — San Francisco Bulletin. " The impression he makes is that of a strong and musical singer, who can sing in many keys. His themes, in the present volume, are limited to two gen- eral fields; one, in which he sings in the ballad form, dealing with the old myths and legends of the land of his ancestors— Scotland— and its rugged hills and wild scenery blend with the narrative of yet wilder, more witchlike imag- inings; while the other, in fine contrast, breathes only Italian airs. They are the breezes from the Mediterranean, and from the Apennines— airs that breathe over the Campagna and the Roman hills." — Hartford Times. Travel, Biography, and Essays. THE GERMAN" EMPEROR AND HIS EASTERN NEIGHBORS. By PoTiltney Bigelow. Cable despatches state that Mr. Bigelow has been expelled from Russia for writing this volume. Interesting personal notes of his old playmate's boyhood and education are given, to- gether with a description of the Emperor's army, his course and policy since accession, and the condi- tion of affairs on the Russian and Roumanian fron- tiers. With fine portrait of William 11. ("Fiction, WILLIAM II. .„ , _ rw ..../-., 1 wf^ 1*^ Fact, and Fancy Series. ) Cloth, 12mo, 75 cents. " A book to attract immediate and close attention." — Chicago Times. " An interesting contribution to evidence concerning Russia." — Springfield Republican. " A much-needed correction to the avalanche of abuse heaped upon the German Emperor." — Philadelphia Inquirer. " The booli should have a place in the library of every student of politics." — Boston Pilot. PADDLES AND POLITICS DOWN THE DANUBE. By Poultney Bigelo'w. Companion volume to "The German Emperor." A highly interesting journal of a canoe-voyage down "the Mississippi of Europe " from its source to the Black Sea, with descrip- tions of the resident nations, and casual discussions of the political situation. Illustrated with numerous oflEhand sketches made on the spot by Mr. Bigelow. ("Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 13mo, 75 cents. WRITINGS OP CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. (In Press.) Edited, with an introduction, by Paul Leicester Ford. Mr. Ford has for the first time collected in one handy volume translations of those letters, etc., of Columbus which describe his experiences in the discovery and occupation of the New World. With frontispiece Portrait. (" Fiction, Pact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 13mo, 75 cents. UWDEIl SUMMER SKIES. (In Preparation.) By Clinton Scollard. A poet's itinerary. Professor Scollard relates, in his charming literary style, the episodes of a rambling tour through Egypt, Palestine, Italy, and the Alps. The text is inter- spersed with poetical interludes, suggested hy passing events and scenes. Coming nearer home, visits to Arizona and the Bermudas are de- scribed in separate chapters. The volume is attractively illustrated by Margaret Landers Randolph, and is most suitable as a traveling companion or as a picture of lands beyond the reach of the reader. Cloth, 8vo, $1.00. AUTOBIOGEAPHIA. (In Press.) By Walt Whitman. Edited by Arthur Stedman. The story of Whitman's life, told in his own words. These selected passages from Whitman's prose works, chosen with his approbation, are so arranged as to give a consecutive account of the old poet's career in his own picturesque language. Uniform with the new edition of Walt Whitman's " Selected Poems." ("Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 12mo, 75 cents. LIFE OP JANE WELSH CARLYLE. By Mrs. Alexander Ireland. A remarkable biography of a wonderful woman, written and compiled by one in thorough sympa- thy with her subject, from material made public for the first time. The powerful side-light it throws upon the life and character of Thomas Carlyle will make the volume indispensable to all who vener- ate the genius, or are interested in the personality, of the Sage of Chel- sea. Vellum, cloth (half bound), 8vo, $1.75. ESSAYS IH" MIINTATURE. (In Press.) By Agnes Repplier, author of " Points of View," etc. A new volume of this brilliant essayist's writings, in which she discourses wittily and wisely on a number of pertinent topics. No new essayist of recent years has been received with such hearty commendation in this country or England. ("Fiction, Fact, and Fancy Series.") Cloth, 12mo, 75 cents.