HP 
 
 Ml5 
 
 THE GIFT Ol 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 A. 1 17 41^ 7/^j^^ 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 082 456 488 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924082456488 
 
THE TARIFF 
 
 IN THE DAYS OF 
 
 Henry Clay and Since. 
 
 AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW 
 
 Of Our Tariff Legislation 
 
 FROM I»I2 TO R 
 
 By WILLIAM McKINLEY. 
 
 Nkw Yokk : 
 
 HENRY CLAY PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 1896. 
 
Copyright, 1896, by 
 THOMAS E. O'SHEA. 
 
THE TARIFF IN THE DAYS OF HENRY 
 CLAY AND SINCE 
 
 Heney Clay was conspicuously and always a protec- 
 tionist. As tlie acquaintance or friend of many of the 
 founders of the Government, and of their immediate suc- 
 essors in office, he learned from them his early lessons 
 in political economy and statesmanship, and profited by 
 their illustrious example. Born in Virginia in 1777, 
 he had revered Washington with the ardor of youth; 
 Lad become the clerk and protege of the learned and 
 venerable Chancellor Wythe ; and was inspired to his 
 :first oratorical efforts by the splendid eloquence of 
 Patrick Henry. Agreeing with the doctrines of Adams 
 and Hamilton, he yet espoused the cause of Jefferson 
 and entered Congress in 1806, during his second term 
 as President. Intimately associated with that great 
 statesman, he participated with Madison, Monroe, and 
 the younger Adams in the administration of the Gov- 
 ernment, and for forty years earnestly advocated the 
 great principles for which they in common contended. 
 
 As Speaker of the House of Representatives he sup- 
 ported the several protective tariff laws — five in num- 
 ber—enacted from July 1, 1812, to February 5, 1816, 
 which enabled the Government to successfully defray 
 ihe extraordinary expenses of our second war with Eng- 
 land. These laws increased the entire list of duties one 
 ixundred per cent. ; doubled the rates, and placed a 
 
further duty of ten per cent, upon the goods imported! 
 in foreign vessels, besides the large tonnage-tax of $1.50 
 per ton to the vessel. Under such a policy the Ameri- 
 can market was reserved for the American manufac- 
 turer; and, notwithstanding the severe drain and waste 
 of the war, our country emerged from it more prosper- 
 ous and wealthier than it had been at its beginning. 
 
 It was at this period that Mr. Clay 'embraced with 
 such fervency the advocacy of internal improvements 
 and the firm establishment of the protective theory as 
 the two great essentials of what he termed " the Ameri- 
 can system." In a speech in January, 1816, he said : 
 
 "I would effectually protect our manufactories. I 
 would afford them protection not so much for the sake 
 of the manufacturers themselves as for the general 
 interest." 
 
 This was the animating principle of his whole career. 
 
 Despite the caution of Mr. Madison against precipi- 
 tancy,* Congress supplanted these measures with the 
 act of April 27, 1816, greatly reducing the war duties.. 
 This bill did not receive the vote or support of Mr. 
 Clay. Its effects were foreseen and deprecated by him,, 
 and were described some years later as " most deplora- 
 ble." " We behold," said he, " general distress pervad- 
 ing the whole country; unthreshed crops of grain 
 perishing in our barns for want of market ; an alarming 
 
 * In his special message of February 30, 1815, transmitting a copy of the 
 treaty of peace with England, President Madison declared: "There is no 
 subject that can enter with greater force and merit into the deliberations of 
 Congress than a consideration of the means to preserve and promote the 
 manufactures which have sprung into existence and attained an unparalleled 
 maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European 
 wars. This source of National independence and wealth I anxiously recom.- 
 mend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress." 
 
•diminutioa of the circulating medium ; universal com- 
 plaint of the want of employment, and consequent 
 reduction of the wages of labor. To add to these evils 
 there is, above all, a low and depressed state of the 
 value of almost every description of property in the 
 Nation, which has, on an average, sunk not less than 
 fifty per cent, within a few years." 
 
 Col. Benton's picture of the deplorable condition was 
 no less graphic. "No medium of exchange exists," said 
 he, "but depreciated paper; no change even, but -little 
 bits of foul paper, marked so many cents, and signed by 
 tradesman, barber, or innkeeper ; exchanges deranged to 
 the extent of fifty to one hundred per cent. Distress 
 the universal cry of the people, relief the universal 
 demand thundered at the doors of all legislatures, State 
 and Federal." 
 
 Mr. Clay made a gallant effort to enact a more 
 •efficient tariff in 1820, and carried his bill through the 
 House, to be indefinitely postponed in the Senate by a 
 single vote. It was at this time that he said : 
 
 "The War of the Revolution effected our political 
 ■emancipation. The late war (1812) contributed greatly 
 to our commercial freedom, but our complete independ- 
 ence will only be consummated after the policy of 
 protection shall be recognized and adopted." 
 
 No relief came until the passage of the act of May 
 22, 1824, which was largely the work of Mr. Clay, and 
 enacted through his controlling skill and genius. This 
 was not a partisan measure, nor was it enacted by 
 sectional divisions in either branch of Congress. 
 
 In the House, for example, the bill was supported by 
 such prominent Democrats as James Buchanan, of Peun- 
 
sylvania; Louis McLaae, of Maryland, and Samuel 
 Houston, of Texas ; in the Senate, by sucli leaders as 
 Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, Thomas H. Benton, of 
 Missouri, Martin Van Buren, of New York, and Richard 
 M. Johnson, of Kentucky. It will be observed that in 
 this conspicuous group are three statesmen who each 
 subsequently became President of the United States,, 
 and one. Col. Johnson, Vice-President. All gave ardent 
 support to the doctrine of protection as the great essen- 
 tial to our industrial and commercial prosperity. 
 
 In the vote on the passage of the bill in the House, 
 New England cast fifteen yeas, twenty nays; the Mid- 
 dle States, sixty yeas, fifteen nays ; the South, fourteen 
 yeas, sixty-four nays ; and the new States of the West, 
 Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, eighteen yeas, but not a 
 solitary negative vote. Kentucky, also, under the lead- 
 ership of Mr. Clay, was a unit in its favor. 
 
 It was in the course of this debate that Mr. Clay 
 delivered his celebrated speech of March 31, 1824, 
 which is to this day a strong and effective argument 
 for the protective policy. In discussing the relative 
 advantages of foreign and domestic trade, he said: 
 
 "The greatest want of civilized society is a market 
 for the sale and exchange of the surplus of the pro- 
 duce of the labor of its members. This may exist at 
 home or abroad, or both, but it must exist somewhere 
 if society prospers ; and wherever it does exist it should 
 be competent to the absorption of the entire surplus of 
 production. It is most desirable that there should be 
 both a home and a foreign market. But, with respect 
 to their relative superiority, I can not entertain a doubt. 
 The home market is first in order and paramount in 
 
importance. The object of the bill under consideration 
 is to create this home market, and to lay the foundations 
 of a genuine American policy. The creation of a home 
 market is not only necessary to procure for our agricul- 
 ture a just reward for its labors, but it is indispensable 
 to obtain a supply of our necessary wants. If we can 
 not sell, we can not buy. The sole object of the tariff 
 is to tax the produce of foreign industry with a view to 
 promoting American industry." 
 
 The effects of this legislation were immediate and 
 gratifying, realizing the predictions of its friends and 
 promoters. Every class felt the revival of business and 
 the general prosperity ; the factory, the farm, our ship- 
 ping, mercantile, commercial, and mining interests all 
 enjoyed the change. Some years later Mr. Clay him- 
 self bore eloquent testimony to the improved conditions 
 of the country. In his memorable speech in the Senate 
 on February 2, 1832, he said : 
 
 " If I were to select any term of seven yeairs since 
 the adoption of our present Constitution which exhibi- 
 ted a scene of the most undisputed dismay and desola- 
 tion, it would be exactly that term of seven years 
 which immediately preceded the establishment of the 
 
 tariff of 1824 If the term of seven years were 
 
 to be selected of the greatest prosperity which the 
 people have enjoyed, it would be exactly that period of 
 seven years which immediately followed the passage 
 of the tariff of 1824." 
 
 With the act of 1828, still further increasing the 
 duties, Mr. Clay had no immediate part, as he was then 
 Secretary of State. In the earlier tariff debates Mr. 
 Calhoun had appeared as a protectionist, and Mr. "Web- 
 
ster as his opponent. In 1824 their positions were 
 exactly reversed, and in 1828 Mr. Webster again 
 favored an increase of duties. Most of the distin- 
 guished Democrats already mentioned were supporters 
 of the law of 1828, and to their aid that great leader 
 Silas Wright, of New York, contributed the weight of 
 his splendid abilities. Five gentlemen who sub- 
 sequently became President were recorded on the pas- 
 sage of the act — Van Buren, William Henry Harrison 
 and Buchanan for, and Tyler and Polk against it. 
 Never in any subsequent period of our history have the 
 duties been higher, or the protective principle more 
 rigidly sustained. 
 
 The condition of the National finances was emi- 
 nently satisfactory ; the public debt was being rapidly 
 reduced, and the Treasury contained a surplus. Under 
 these conditions, Mr. Clay, again in the Senate, in May, 
 1830, offered a resolution "for the immediate abolition 
 of all duties on all articles not coming into competition 
 with similar articles made or produced in the United 
 States, except those on wines and silks, which ought to 
 be reduced." This was opposed by Mr. Hayne, of 
 South Carolina, and others, who proposed instead a re- 
 duction of all duties, but after much discussion the 
 acts of May 20 and May 29, 1830,— three in all- 
 were passed. The first reduced the imports on cocoa, 
 tea and coffee. The other two, passed May 29th, pro- 
 vided, respectively, for a decrease in the duty on 
 molasses, with a drawback on spirits, and for a reduc- 
 tion of the duty on salt. 
 
 No general reduction, however, was made until two 
 years later. Then President Jackson recommended a 
 
revision of the tariff, and on January 9, 183 2, Mr. Clay 
 renewed his resolution for a reduction of duties on non- 
 competing articles. The opposition demanded the 
 change of rates to a revenue standard. This Mr. Clay 
 earnestly opposed. In his great speech of February 
 2, 1832, he said: 
 
 "The fall of the protective policy would te pro- 
 ductive of consequences calamitous indeed. When I 
 look to the variety of the interests involved, to the 
 number of individuals interested, the amount of capital 
 invested, the value of buildings erected, and the whole 
 .arrangement of the business for the prosecution of the 
 various branches of the manufacturing arts which have 
 sprung up under the fostering care of this Government, 
 I can not contemplate any evil equal to the sudden 
 overthrow of all these interests. History can produce 
 no parallel to the extent of mischief which would be 
 produced by such a disaster. The repeal of the edict 
 of Nantes itself was nothing in comparison with it. 
 That condemned and brought to ruin a great number 
 of persons; the most respectable portion of the popu- 
 lation of France were condemned to exile and ruin by 
 that measure. But, in my opinion, the sudden repeal 
 of the tariff policy would bring ruin and destruction 
 on the whole population of this country. There is no 
 evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which 
 would result from such a catastrophe." 
 
 In the same debate he expressed what was to him 
 always a firm conviction when he declared : 
 
 " Gentlemen deceive themselves ; it is not free trade 
 that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is 
 in effect the British or colonial system that we are in- 
 
vited to adopt, and if tBis policy prevail, it will lead, 
 substantially, to the re-colonization of these States, 
 under the commercial dominion of Great Britain." 
 
 The result of the contention was the revision of the 
 tariff on the lines proposed by Mr. Clay, as provided in 
 the act of July 14, 1832. The position of Mr. Clay 
 was identical with that of ex-President John Quincy 
 Adams, who, on May 22d, submitted a report to the 
 House from the Committee on Manufactures, ably sus- 
 taining the protective policy. In the course of his 
 argument, Mr. Adams said : 
 
 "Under that system of policy (the protective) the 
 Nation has risen from a depth of weakness, imbecility, 
 and distress to an eminence of prosperity unexampled 
 in the annals of the world. It was by counter legisla- 
 tion to the regulations of foreign nations that the first 
 operations of the Government of the United States 
 were felt by the people ; felt in the encouragement and 
 protection given to their commerce ; felt in the fulfill- 
 ment of the public engagements to the creditors of the 
 Nation; felt in the gradual discharge of the debt of 
 gratitude due to the warriors of the Revolution ; felt 
 in the rapid increase of our population, in the con- 
 stantly and profitably occupied industry of the people, 
 in the consideration and respect of foreign nations for 
 our character, in the comfort and well-being and happi- 
 ness of the community ; felt in every nerve and sinew, 
 in every vein and artery of the body politic." 
 
 South Carolina assumed to be greatly offended that the 
 reduction of duties was not much larger, and proceeded 
 to place herself in an attitude of hostility to the General 
 Government by promptly passing a law, commonly 
 
known as the "Ordinance of Nullification," declaring 
 that the new tariff was unconstitutional and void, and 
 should not be collected in that State. Proclamation 
 was made, by the authority of the Legislature, that if 
 the Government of the United States should in any 
 way attempt to enforce the tariff laws by means of its 
 Army and Navy, then "South Carolina will no longer 
 consider herself a member of the Federal Union." 
 
 The cause of her advocacy of nullification and seces- 
 sion, however, as Col. Benton observes in his '' Thirty 
 Years' View " was really " not the tariff at all, but the 
 institution of human slavery." Mr. Calhoun realized 
 that the policy of protection to home industry was in- 
 imical to the employment of cheap or enslaved labor. 
 
 President Jackson met the issue boldly, and in Feb- 
 rury, 1833, secured the j)assage of what was designated 
 at the time as "the Force Bill," by which he would have 
 und(jubtedl\' secured the collection of the revenues in 
 South Carolina, had the nullification movement not been 
 promptly abandoned. In his efforts for peace and the 
 Union, however, Mr. Cla}- had mean while been active in 
 the attempt to secure the passage of a bill, which, while 
 it would provide a gradual reduction of duties, would 
 still preserve intact the protective system. His ideas 
 were embodied in the bill he introduced in the Senate 
 on February 12, 1833, (which became a law in two 
 weeks, or on February 26th,) that is known as one of 
 the three great " Compromises " with which his name 
 and fame are so inseparably connected. 
 
 The friends of Jackson, Clay and Calhoun were for 
 once united in support of the same measure, and it 
 passed the Senate by a vote of twenty-nine to sixteen. 
 
Still some of the strong men of that body, Webster, 
 Benton, the venerable Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and 
 Mahlon Dickerson, of New Jersey, voted against it. A 
 bill to reduce the tariff had previously passed the House 
 but Mr. Clay's bill was accepted by it as an amendment 
 and passed that body immediately by a vote of 119 to 
 85, Four of the six New England States, and Dela- 
 ware, New Jersey, and Missouri voted solidly against it 
 and all the Southern members but two for it. 
 
 Taking the tariff of 1832 as the basis, the "Clay Com- 
 promise " provided for an ultimate reduction of duties 
 on all imports to a uniform level of twenty per cent, ad 
 valorem. One tenth of the excess above twenty 
 per cent was to be taken off on January 1, 1834 ; 
 one tenth on January 1, 1836 ; one tenth on January 
 1, 1838 ; one tenth on January 1, 1840 ; three tenths 
 on January 1, 1842, and the remaining three tenths 
 on July 1, 1842. The "compromise" consisted in 
 the swift reduction of duties after January 1, 1842, as a 
 concession to the " NuUifiers, " and the slow and gradual 
 reduction prior thereto as a concession to the protec- 
 tionists. 
 
 The new law calmed the excitement in the South, but 
 its effects were otherwise unhappy and disastrous. More 
 than any other one cause it is generally charged that 
 it occasioned the great financial crisis of 1837, a sad 
 period of gloom and disaster almost equal to that which 
 had preceded the enactment of the tariff of 1824. 
 
 Mr. Clay believed that experience would, as it did, 
 speedily teach the j)eople a just appreciation of the ad- 
 vantages of jsrotection to home industry. He believed 
 that " the American system woald soon become firmly 
 
 10 
 
j)lantecl in the bosoms and affections of the j^eople.'" 
 He had in no sense forsaken his creed ; he simply sought 
 to save the protective principle from disuse and aban- 
 donment. Never were the policy or opinions of any 
 statesman more completely vindicated. 
 
 Within five years a panic swept over the country that 
 almost beggars description for its severity and distress. 
 Not only were manufactures prostrated, but commerce,, 
 navigation, mining, and especially agriculture, shared 
 in the general ruin. The scenes Clay and Benton had 
 so. vividly portrayed in 1824 were repeated, only as de- 
 velopment had increased, the losses now appeared still 
 more frightful. Mortgages were foreclosed and forced, 
 sales made in every direction ; thousands of able-bodied 
 men were out of work, or toiling at not more than 
 twenty-five cents per day ; while other thousands, un- 
 able to obtain employment at any price, with their 
 wives and children, were obliged to appeal for charity, 
 and rely upon the free soup-houses, which were estab- 
 lished in every city, for the only food they could procure. 
 
 Sophistry can not withstand the piercing gaze of 
 public opinion. Theories will not avail against facts. 
 False leaders appealed in vain, but the people attributed 
 their distress in great part to the existing tariff, and 
 when opportunity again came, as it did in the National 
 election of 1840, they overthrew and drove from power, 
 in every branch of the Government, the party they 
 held responsible for it, by most surprising majorities. 
 
 As a result of this great revolution, and in obedience 
 to the popular will. President Tyler, although himself a 
 free-trader, felt constrained, on August 30, 1842, to- 
 give his assent to another great protective tariff law. 
 
 11 
 
The history of its passage is peculiarly interesting. 
 
 The Twenty-seventh Congress was Whig in both 
 "branches by a majority of thirty-one on joint ballot — 
 the Senate, Whigs 28, Democrats 22; and the House, 
 Whigs 133, Democrats 108. At the beginning of the 
 session, in December, 1841, Millard Fillmore, the Whig 
 leader of the House, moved the reference of so much of 
 the President's messasje as related to the tariff to the 
 Committee on Manufactures, the customary and proper 
 reference, to the Committee which had framed all the 
 tariff bills of our earlier Congresses. 
 
 Charles G. Atherton, of New Hampshire, the leader 
 of the Democratic side, moved as a substitute to refer it 
 to the Committee on Way and Means. His purpose 
 thereby, as he fully avowed in debate, was that "the 
 revision of duties should be made Avith exclusive refer- 
 ence to the raising of revenue, and that the pro- 
 tection of our industrial interests should not be con- 
 sidered at all." Even without the final reduction under 
 the Compromise tariff of 1833, which was to occur on 
 July 1, 1842, the revenue was not sufficient for the 
 support of the Government, and Mr. Clay had insisted in 
 the Senate that the duties of necessity must be raised for 
 that object alone to at least thirty per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Mr. Atherton's motion was lost. Seventy-one Demo- 
 crats and twenty-four Southern Whigs voted in the 
 affirmative, but they were overruled by the negative 
 votes of ninety Whigs and fourteen Democrats — the 
 latter all from Pennsylvania but three. The subject 
 was then referred to the Committee on Manufactures, 
 by whom a bill and report were promptly presented. 
 _Bon. Walter Forward, of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the 
 
 13 
 
Treasury, also made an elaborate report, and submitted 
 a bill to Congress, and a third bill and report were sub- 
 sequently offered by the Senate Committee on Manu- 
 factures. 
 
 The bills were in accord in recognizing the principle 
 of protection but differed in details. The best features 
 of all three were embodied in a bill that passed the 
 House on July 16th, by the vote 116 to 112. William 
 Parmenter, of Massachusetts, was the only Democrat 
 who voted in the affirmative. Fourteen Whigs and 
 ninety-eight Democrats voted in the negative. 
 
 The supporters of the bill included John Quincy 
 Adams, William Pitt Fessenden, Francis Granger, 
 William Cost Johnson, William L. Goggin, Kenneth 
 Eayner, of North Carolina, Nathaniel Gr. Pendleton and 
 Jeremiah Morrow, of Ohio, Richard W. Thompson and 
 Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, Thomas F. Marshall, of 
 Kentucky, Zadoc Casey, of Illinois, and Jacob M. 
 Howard, of Michigan. It passed the Senate on August 
 5th — yeas twenty-five, all Whigs; nays twenty-three, 
 all Democrats but three. 
 
 To the very general regret and surprise, President 
 Tyler vetoed the bill, because " it did not suspend the 
 distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands among the several States of the Union," which 
 had been provided by an act passed in September, 
 1841, that he himself had signed. Co ogress received 
 Tiis message with great indignation and the House 
 attempted to pass the bill over his veto, but this failed 
 for want of the required two-thirds vote. 
 
 Another but substantially the same bill was passed 
 by both branches of Congress within the next fortnight 
 
 13 
 
and this, too, was vetoed by Mr. Tyler. His second 
 veto message, on motion of ex-President Adams, was 
 referred to a special Committee of Thirteen, of which 
 Mr. Adams became Chairman, and in such capacity- 
 wrote a scathing report against what he characterized 
 as the President's arbitrary and inconsistent actions.. 
 He declared that Mr. Tyler ought to be impeached, and 
 this was the general opinion of the Whigs of the 
 country, both in and out of Congress, although they 
 realized that such a thing was impossible. 
 
 This report so irritated the President that he sent a 
 protest to the House in which he sought apparently to- 
 interfere with its legitimate functions and powers. 
 John Minor Botts, of Virginia, thereupon offered the 
 same resolution* which the Senate had adopted in 
 1834 (and for which Mr. Tyler had himself voted), in 
 censuring President Jackson for a somewhat similar 
 action. This was adopted by a strictly party-vote — 
 yeas (Whigs), 87 ; nays (Democrats), 46. 
 
 A provisional tariff bill, to supply revenue until 
 something more satisfactory could be agreed upon, was 
 next attempted. In the discussion of this bill in the 
 House, on August 22d, Hon. Thomas T. McKennan, 
 of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out all after the 
 enacting clause, and insert the bill which had been twice 
 
 * The student of history will recall that this was the Senate resolution 
 offered by Mr. Clay in his controversy with President Jackson about the 
 removal of the Government deposits from the United States Bank at 
 Philadelphia. It was adopted by the Senate, on March 28, 1834, by a vote 
 of twenty-six to twenty, and read as follows : 
 
 Besolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation 
 to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not 
 conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both. 
 
 It was for this resolution that Mr. Tyler, then a Senator from Virginia, 
 had voted. 
 
 14 
 
vetoed already, omitting the section regarding the 
 distribution of the proceeds of the sales of land, and 
 the clause imposing a duty of twenty per cent, ad 
 valorem on tea and coffee. He was a new member, but 
 so great was his ability and so persuasive his eloquence, 
 that his motion prevailed and the bill passed the House 
 by the close vote, yeas 105, nays 103. Of the 
 affirmative votes, eighty-five were Whigs, and twenty 
 Democrats, ten of the latter from New York, nine from 
 Pennsylvania, and one from Massachusetts. Of the 
 negative votes, sixty-eight were Democrats, and thirty- 
 five Whigs; some of whom, although staunch protection- 
 ists, would not surrender their convictions as to the 
 land controversy in any emergency. 
 
 This bill, with some further slight modifications, 
 passed the Senate, on August 27th, by the bare major- 
 ity of a single vote — yeas, twenty-four ; nays, twenty- 
 three. Twenty Whigs and four Democrats (Ruel Will- 
 iams, of Maine, Silas Wright, of New York, and James 
 Buchanan and Daniel Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania) 
 voted in the affirmative, and fifteen Democrats and 
 eight Southei-n Whigs in the negative. It numbered 
 among its supporters George Evans, Richard H. Bayard, 
 Rufus Choate, John J. Crittenden, William L. Dayton, 
 and William A. Graham. The House concurred in the 
 Senate amendments, and, to the general surprise, the 
 bill was promptly approved by the President. 
 
 The framers of the new law were evidently im- 
 pressed with tLe truth of Mr. Clay's wise maxim enun- 
 ciated when referring in former years to ad valorem 
 duties. " Let me fix the value of foreign merchandise," 
 said he, " and I do not care what your duty is.'' 
 
 16 
 
Specific duties were substituted for ad valorem as far as 
 possible throughout the whole list. It proved a wise 
 and beneficent measure, even more strongly protective 
 than its friends at first had thought it would be. During 
 the four years it was in operation it raised the country 
 from the depths of financial depression and distress to a 
 condition of confidence and prosperity such as it had 
 not enjoyed since 1832. 
 
 So widely popular was the new law that in the Pres- 
 idential campaign of 1844, the Democrats in the critical 
 Northern States were as earnest and outspoken advo- 
 cates of it, and the doctrine of protection, as the friends 
 of Mr. Clay. Their candidate for the Presidency, Hon. 
 James K. Polk, of Tennessee, had uniformly voted 
 against protective measures in Congress, but on the 
 other hand Hon. George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, 
 the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, had as 
 a Representative been an active supporter of all such 
 bills. It was this fact, more than any other, that led 
 to his nomination. 
 
 Indeed, in the exigencies of the campaign, Mr. Polk 
 himself felt constrained to write his friend, Mr. John 
 K. Kane, of Philadelphia, on June 19, 1844, the only 
 avowal of political principles he made " for the public 
 eye " after his nomination. In this letter he declared 
 that he had " voted for the tariff of 1832," the act of 
 all others most offensive to South Carolina, and desired 
 to " afford reasonable incidental protection to home in- 
 dustry " in keeping with " the policy of General Jack- 
 son on this subject." "In my judgment," said he, "it 
 is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it 
 may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws, and 
 
 16 
 
all other means within its power, fair and just protec- 
 tion to all the great interests of the whole Union, em- 
 tracing agriculture, manufactures, and the mechanic 
 arts, commerce and navigation." 
 
 By this and similar assurances the fears of the pro- 
 tection wing of the party were put to rest. This was 
 true in Pennsylvania especially, then " the pivotal State " 
 of the Union, for there the efforts of Mr. Dallas and Mr. 
 Buchanan were successful in October, and the prestige 
 of this triumph practically insured the election of Mr. 
 Polk. It was so successful that Mr. Polk not only 
 received majorities in the manufacturing centers of New 
 Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, as " a better pro- 
 tectionist than Clay," but the planters of Alabama, 
 Georgia and Mississippi were induced to support him 
 with equal unanimity because as the Democratic 
 leaders in those States declared, " Polk was, and always 
 had been, the consistent and uncompromising enemy of 
 the protective policy." 
 
 His election accomplished, Mr. Polk called into his 
 Cabinet, as Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. Robert J. 
 Walker, of Mississippi, a zealous free trader, who was 
 willing to go to any extreme in support of his theo- 
 ries. As Senator he had opposed the law of 1842, and 
 was well known to be intent upon its repeal. 
 
 The Twenty-ninth Congress, elected in 1844, was 
 Democratic in both branches, so that the Administra- 
 tion could reasonably expect to direct its fiscal legisla- 
 tion. Mr. Walker at once assailed the protective law, 
 "given to the country by a Whig Congress" in terms 
 of great severity. He submitted a report upon the 
 tariff in which he arraigned our manufacturers as but 
 
 17 
 
little better than public conspirators, guilty of botb 
 deceit and extortion. His report was hailed with de- 
 light in England, but found little favor at home. 
 
 Richard Cobden declared that " he had never read a 
 better digest of the arguments in favor of free trade 
 than that put forth by Mr. Secretary Walker and ad- 
 dressed to the Congress of the United States." He- 
 commended Mr. Polk's annual message of December,. 
 1845, also, and "congratulated his (British) associates 
 that both President Polk and Mr. Secretary Walker 
 had taken the task out of our hands of lecturing to the 
 people of America upon the subject of free trade." 
 Indeed, this was the general opinion of English leaders, 
 so freely declared that the House of Lords ordered the 
 report of Secretary Walker to be printed and dis- 
 tributed throughout the kingdom. 
 
 Encouraged and supported by the President, Mr. 
 Walker at length secured not only the repeal of " the 
 odious Whig law," but the enactment of a bill meet- 
 ing his own views, then and since commonly known 
 as "the Walker tariff." This was not done, however, 
 without disagreement in the Cabinet, heated contests 
 in Congress, and much dissatisfaction among the rank 
 and file of the Northern Democracy. 
 
 The vote in the House, on the passage of the bill, 
 July 3, 1846, resulted — yeas, 114; nays, 93. Among 
 those voting in the negative were twenty members from 
 the South, including such Whig leaders as Garrett 
 Davis, of Kentucky ; Meredith P. Grentry, of Tennessee ; 
 James Graham, of North Carolina; John S. Pendleton, 
 of Virginia; and Robert Toombs and Alexander H. 
 Stephens, of Georgia. These men joined heartily with 
 
 18 
 
svLch. prominent leaders of the North as John Quincy 
 Adams, George Ashmun and Robert C. Winthrop, 
 of Massachusetts; Charles J. Ingersoll and James Black, 
 ■of Pennsylvania; Jacob Collamer, of Vermont; Caleb 
 B. Smith, of Indiana ; Washington Hunt, of New York ; 
 and Columbus Delano, Robert C. Schenck and Joshua 
 R. Giddings, of Ohio, in every effort to retard or 
 defeat the bill. 
 
 In the Senate, the contest was still more stubborn 
 and uncertain, and is a familiar and memorable inci- 
 dent in the annals of American politics. . The body 
 was evenly divided upon it and the Adminstration 
 prevailed in the end only through the action of Vice- 
 President Dallas, who, contrary to his own offc-ex- 
 pressed convictions and life-long affiliations, gave the 
 ■casting vote in favor of the passage of the bill. 
 
 The test vote was taken on July 28th, twenty-seven 
 Senators voting for the bill, and twenty-seven against 
 it. Of those voting in the affirmative, seventeen were 
 from the slave-holding; States and ten from the free, all 
 Democrats. Of those voting against the bill eleven 
 were from the South, and sixteen from the North, all 
 Whigs but three — -John M. Niles, of Connecticut, and 
 Simon Cameron and Daniel Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania. 
 Despite the attempts to divide the Whigs on sectional 
 lines, some of the strongest leaders of the South stood 
 side by side with Webster, Corwin, Evans, Niles and 
 Cameron in upholding the cause of protection. Crit- 
 tenden, of Kentucky, Berrien, of Georgia, the Claytons, 
 of Delaware, Mangum, of North Carolina, and Reverdy 
 Johnson, of Maryland, eloquently sustained the policy 
 of their party and good of the country. President Polk 
 
 19 
 
was quick to approve the laAV, and it went into effect 
 August 30, 1846. 
 
 By tlie new law the duties were for the first time ex- 
 clusively ad valorem. On articles where the protective 
 principle had directly applied under the old law the 
 duties averaged about twenty-four per cent. It em- 
 braced nine schedules, under the headings A to I, respect- 
 ively. The first schedule, spirits, bore a duty of one hun- 
 dred per cent.; the second, tobacco, spices, wines, pre- 
 served fruits and meats, forty per cent.; the third, rated at 
 thirty per cent, carpets, cotton, silk, linen, wool, glass, 
 leather, sugar, iron, and minor articles ; the next four 
 fixed rates at twenty-five, twenty, fifteen, ten, and five 
 per cent, respectively upon the bulk of the merchandise 
 then imported to this country ; the remaining schedule 
 was devoted to an enlarged free list. The average 
 duties under the law, on the importations of 1847, were 
 twenty-seven and seven-tenths per cent.; but in 1856 
 they fell to twenty-one and sixty-eight-hundreths. 
 
 It was the boast of the author of this law, and it is to 
 this day claimed by his adherents, that the so-called 
 Walker tariff "remained unchanged for eleven years, 
 during which time the country enjoyed great prosperity; 
 and that it was then voluntarily amended by its friends 
 only in the direction of their well established free- 
 trade policy." While it is a fact that the law was not 
 amended until 1857, it is a matter of dispute whether it 
 brought "prosperity to the country," and it is not true 
 that the people ever gave it their express approval. 
 
 Indeed, in the Congressional elections of 1846, when 
 the country was engaged in a foreign war and the 
 patriotic impulses of the people would naturally have 
 
 20 
 
led them to sustain the' Administration, so great was the 
 indignation over the new tariff, that a Democratic 
 majority of sixty-two in the House was changed to a 
 Whig majority of three — a clear Whig gain of sixty-five 
 in a total membership of 227. Seldom since has 
 the country witnessed so striking a condemnation of 
 any measure by public opinion. 
 
 Again, in the Presidential campaign of 1848, it was 
 due to the tariff policy of the Administration that Penn- 
 sylvania gave her electoral vote to Taylor instead of 
 Cass, thereby defeating the latter. The State had been 
 Democratic since the days of Jefferson ; it had sustained 
 Jackson ; it had voted for Van Buren, in 1836 ; for Polk, 
 in 1844 ; and, in 1848, no divisions were apparent within 
 the party on the question of slavery. Yet Taylor carried 
 the State over both C.iss and Van Buren b}^ about 2,300 
 votes, and over Cass alone by 13,500. Had Cass re- 
 ceived the electoral vote of Pennsylvania, despite the 
 loss of New York, he would have been elected. In that 
 State, at least, the people did not endorse, or at all ap- 
 prove, of " the noble impulse given to the cause of free 
 trade, by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, " commended 
 by the Democratic National platform. 
 
 During the National campaigns of 1852 and 1856, and 
 in the Congressional elections of 1850, 1854, and 1858, 
 the constant and exciting contentions over slavery en- 
 grossed public attention. No other political issue was 
 discussed, nor was the condition of the business affairs 
 of the country from 1847 to 1856 generally such as to 
 especially excite partisan differences. Anticipating for 
 the moment the passage of the law of 1857, let us con- 
 sider the claim of the advocates of free trade that this 
 
 21 
 
country enjoyed "unexampled," or "great and excep- 
 tional prosperity, from 1847 to 1861," the period when 
 the tariff - for - revenue - only policy held sway in the 
 country. 
 
 Simultaneous with President Polk's approval of the 
 "Walker bill came the declaration of war with Mexico. 
 This led to the employment of an army of 100,000 
 men, and the outlay of more than $150,000,000 among 
 the people for its support, above the ordinary expendi- 
 tures of the Government, during the next two years. 
 
 Before this stimulus to our manufactures and trade 
 began to subside, a terrible famine occurred in Ireland. 
 This caused an unprecedented demand for our bread- 
 stuffs and brought to the United States extraordinary 
 shipments of specie. Then followed the European rev- 
 olutions of 1848, by which the trade and manufactures 
 of the entire continent were disturbed, and in some dis- 
 tricts suspended. Importations to the United States 
 were stopped, and for the time being our manufacturers 
 enjoyed both the home market and a profitable foreign 
 trade. 
 
 Next came the discovery of gold in California, carry- 
 ing to our Western shores the surplus jjopulation of our 
 manufacturing and agricultural districts, and sending 
 back to the East abundant streams of the precious 
 metals. Such a condition was more than accidental — 
 it was in the highest degree fortunate and providential. 
 
 During the six years following 1848 it drew to the 
 Pacific Slope from the older States a splendid popula- 
 tion of enterprising and vigorous citizens, and added to 
 the wealth of the world more than $640,000,000, in the 
 output of gold alone. With such advantages we 
 
 22 
 
should have become not only immensely wealthy, but 
 amply able to meet every demand of the Government 
 without borrowing a dollar for years to come had we 
 possessed a wise fiscal policy. 
 
 But in 1854 the output of gold showed signs of 
 decline and failure, and then, by another of the 
 remarkable incidents of the time influencino; our busi- 
 ness conditions, the Crimean war broke out — a war 
 between England, France, and Russia, three of the 
 leading powers of Europe and the world. " Con- 
 fusion worse confounded " reigned in the industrial 
 circles of Europe for the next two-and-a-half years, and 
 dui'ing this period the United States enjoyed the richest 
 harvest she had ever before reaped from foreign lands. 
 Our country could hardly have been depressed under 
 such remarkable conditions. But when peace came to 
 Europe, manufacturing was resumed in England and 
 France with greater energy and with more alluring 
 prospects for trade in America than had ever before 
 been known. 
 
 Then naturally, and inevitably, with our vastly 
 increased importations, and consequent dependence 
 upon foreign factories, our whole business situation was 
 swiftly changed from apparent prosperity to actual 
 distress. The tai iffi-f or-revenue-only policy rested at 
 length solely upon its own merits. We were as 
 a nation pursuing the hazardous experiment of spend- 
 ing abroad the money we should have kept at 
 home. The gold of California, the largest product of 
 that precious metal so far discovered in any country, 
 was speedily drained by Europe. Within a year after 
 the close of the Crimean waj-, this country was dis- 
 ss 
 
tressed and humiliated by the only financial panic it 
 had experienced for twenty years, since the adoption of 
 a somewhat similar tariff policy to that it was then 
 pursuing. 
 
 After the Democratic victory in the Presidential 
 campaign of 1856, the administration of Mr. Pierce, 
 under the influence of Secretaries James Guthrie, of 
 Kentucky, and Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, made 
 haste to secure the passage of an act to still further 
 reduce existing duties. Our importations were already 
 unprecedentedly large, but it was claimed that the 
 revenues were more than the Government required, or 
 could properly apply in its legitimate expenditures, 
 including the payment of the National debt. Accord- 
 ingly the law of March 3, 1857, was enacted. It passed 
 the House by a vote of 118 to 72, and met with but 
 little opposition in the Senate. The members from the 
 Western States were the most conspicuous of those 
 from any section in speaking and voting against it. 
 ^Questions of " popular sovereignity " and " free soil 
 for free men " were absorbing the public mind both 
 in and out of Congress. Party lines were not 
 drawn, nor was any general apprehension manifested 
 as to the bad policy of the pending measure. The 
 new duties averaged about nineteen per cent, ad 
 valorem, with abundant loopholes for undervaluation 
 and fraud, and afforded probably less protection than 
 those of any other tariff law in our history. 
 
 The immediate effect was an increase in importations, 
 and a heavy drain upon the specie of the country, 
 while there was a marked reduction in the exportation 
 of our agricultural products. A financial crash was 
 
 24 
 
inevitable, and it fell witli disastrous force upon the 
 country in the fall of 1857 within six months after the 
 passage of the new law. The panic soon swept over 
 the entire Union, prostrating alike our agricultural, 
 commercial, mining, and manufacturing interests. 
 
 The need of relief everywhere was so apparent that 
 Pi'esident Buchanan in his first annual message, on 
 December 8, 1857, felt constrained to appeal to Con- 
 gress to do all in its power "to increase the confidence 
 of the manufacturing interests and give a new impulse 
 to business." His description of the condition of the 
 times is, so striking that it bears frequent repetition. 
 
 " In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the pro- 
 ductions and elements of National wealth," said he, "we 
 find our manufactures suspended, our public works 
 retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds 
 abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown 
 out of employment and reduced to want." Then came 
 the admission, which has always been made when- 
 ever the free trade policy was adopted, that "the same 
 causes which have produced pecuniary distress through- 
 out the country have so greatly reduced tbe amount of 
 imports from abroad that the revenue has proved 
 inadequate to meet the necessary expenses of the 
 Government." 
 
 The stagnation of business and paralysis of trade and 
 enterprise continued during the next four years, with 
 severe and widespread distress, almost as great and ex- 
 hausting as during the previous low-tariff financial de- 
 pressions of 1819-24 and 1837-42. It was impossible- 
 to repeal the new law, even if the Administration had, 
 attempted it. 
 
 35 
 
In this period of fifteen years, from 1847 to 1861, in- 
 clusive, during which the economic theories of Mr. 
 Walker j)revailed, the total receipts from customs were 
 $708,107,973, while the outlays of the Government were 
 $807,133,078. Consequently the expenditures exceeded 
 the receipts by $99,025,105. Thus as strictly revenue 
 measures the laws of 1846 and 1857 were both un- 
 satisfactory. During the eleven years of the contin- 
 uance of the tariff of 1846, the expenditures of the 
 Grovernment exceeded its receipts $21,790,909. Of 
 this deficit, $8,205,305 occurred during the years 1855, 
 1856, and 1857; so that when the act of 1857 was 
 passed, it should have been apparent that while the ex- 
 penditures were constantly increasing, the revenue was 
 steadily diminishing. During the three years named 
 our imports of merchandise exceeded our exports by 
 nearly $123,000,000, while our exports of specie 
 amounted to $132,500,000. During the four years of 
 the operation of the tariff of 1857, the total receipts 
 from customs were $184,125,000, and the expenditures, 
 $261,359,196. Thus the expenditures of the Govern- 
 ment exceeded its receij)ts $77,234,196, and the new law 
 was shown to be even more inadequate for revenue 
 purposes than that of 1846. 
 
 Unsupported by the fortunate events which had for 
 ten years given us the appearance of great prosperity, 
 our own vast product of gold, and the benefits accruing 
 to our people by reason of a great foreign war, the 
 system did not sustain itself for a single year. Instead 
 of our having a large balance of trade always in our 
 favor, as should have been conspicuously the case, our 
 foreign imports exceeded our exports of home 
 
 26 
 
products by the tremendous sum of $448,354,907,, 
 while the exports of our specie exceeded the im- 
 ports of money from other countries by the startling 
 aggregate of $406,519,261. Can it be doubted that it" 
 the protective policy had been steadily maintained 
 during this period and the duties had remained as fixed 
 by the tariff of 1842, that there would have been not 
 only an abundance of revenue, but that the public 
 debt, principal and interest, would all have been 
 extinguished, and the Treasury able to furnish abund- 
 ant means to defend the imperiled life of the 
 Nation at the outbreak of the Civil War? Instead, 
 our credit was gone and it was with great difficulty 
 that the Government could borrow money either at 
 home or abroad, and then only by selling our bonds 
 bearing a high rate of interest at a heavy discount. 
 An able financier has stated his confident belief that 
 $200,000,000 in specie, which he declares could readily 
 have been provided by a protective tariff between 1850 
 and 1860, would have kept the National debt $1,000,- 
 000,000 below the vast sum it attained during the war. 
 Certain it is, that with a surplus instead of a deficit in 
 the Treasury, the Nation would not have been put to- 
 the shame of " having its pajaer hawked in the money 
 markets at the usurious rate of one per cent, a month."* 
 Yet to this condition we were reduced under a revenue 
 tariff in the summer of 1860. 
 
 Never was there a period in our history in which the 
 free trade policy had so excellent an opportunity to 
 demonstrate its usefulness and adequacy to our indus- 
 trial and govei'umental conditions. But, instead of in- 
 
 * James 6. Blaine. 
 
■suring prosperity, it produced universal distress and 
 want ; instead of raising money to support the Govern- 
 ment, even during a time of peace and wonderful 
 development, the system of duties it provided was 
 utterly insufficient and produced results exactly the 
 opposite of those claimed for it. As soon as the foreign 
 wars ceased, the revenue began to diminish and the 
 expenditures to exceed it, thus creating deficiencies and 
 enforcing loans and increasing our National debt from 
 $15,500,000, in 1846, to $90,580,000, on March 4, 1861. 
 
 While it may be claimed that in the Presidential 
 •campaign of 1860, the tariff played no decisive part, 
 and that other issues controlled, still at the Republican 
 ISTational Convention, next to the resolutions opj)osing 
 the spread of slavery into territory then free, the fol- 
 lowing declaration of the platform is reported to have 
 elicited the most pronounced* applause : 
 
 "While providing revenue for the support of the 
 Greneral Grovernment by duties upon imports, sound 
 policy requires sucli an adjustment of these imports as 
 to encourage the development of the industrial interests 
 of the whole country. We commend, therefore, that 
 policy of National exchanges which secures to the 
 workingman liberal wages, to agriculture renumerative 
 prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate 
 reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the 
 Nation commercial prosperity and independence.'' 
 
 This was accepted then and has always and every- 
 where since been accepted as a cardinal doctrine in the 
 ■creed of the Republican party. Seldom, if ever, has it 
 
 * Murat Halstead, in the OiQcinnati Gommercial, an eye-witness of all the 
 INational Conventions of this year. 
 
 28 
 
been better stated than in these significant sentences. 
 Both wings of the discordant Democracy stood ready 
 to join issue upon the tariff, but it was necessarily of 
 subordinate interest in most of the States. In Ohio, 
 Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and 
 Connecticut, however. Republican chances were de- 
 cidedly benefited by the position of the party on the 
 tariff. Pennsylvania had been carried in 18.56 
 against General Fremont for President, and in 1857 
 against Hon. David Wilmot, for Governor, directly 
 upon the slavery issue. The majority for Mr. Buch- 
 anan had been 82,800; and for Hon. William F. Packer, 
 over Mr. Wilmot, 42,750. It will be remembered that 
 Mr. Wilmot was personally the very embodiment of the 
 anti-slavery issue, and that issue in 1860 was in no re- 
 spect more favorable to the Republicans, in any of its 
 various phases, than it had been in 1857. Without the 
 discussion of the tariff, it was confidently asserted by 
 men of all parties, that in all probability Pennsylvania 
 would have been lost by the Republicans in October, 
 and that Avould inevitably have defeated the National 
 ticket in November. 
 
 The Republican candidate for Governor, Hon. 
 Andrew G. Curtin, was quick to realize this condition 
 of public oj^inion. It was very largely due to his effect, 
 ive appeals to the workingmen of the State, that Re- 
 publican success was assured. In an increased vote, 
 Mr. Curtin carried the State in October by a majority 
 of 82,164, and thus insured it for Mr. Lincoln, who 
 triumphed over all opposing candidates by nearly 
 60,000. From beginning to end of the campaign Mr. 
 •Curtin devoted the gi'eater part of his time to the dis- 
 
 29 
 
cussion of the tariff, and his brilliant victory not only 
 electrified the Republicans of the State and Nation, but 
 clearly demonstrated the strong hold the protective 
 principle had upon the affections of the people. 
 
 During Mr. Buchanan's entire term the receipts of 
 the Treasury were insufficient to meet the appropria- 
 tions of Congress and the Grovemment steadily incurred 
 a large debt. To check this increasing deficit, the 
 House, which was controlled by the Republicans, in- 
 sisted upon a bill providing a scale of duties which 
 would yield a larger revenue, and on May 10, 1860, 
 succeeded in passing it. This bill had been prepared 
 and reported by Hon. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont. 
 It met with but little favor on the majority side of the 
 Senate, and was postponed until the next session. At 
 that time, owing to the absence of the Southern mem- 
 bers, the whole aspect of affairs was changed. The 
 Republicans suddenly found themselves in control of 
 the Senate, and the bill was favorably reported, with 
 amendments increasing the proposed duties. The Senate 
 passed the bill on February 20, 1861, by a strict party 
 vote — yeas twenty-five, all Republicans ; nays fourteen, 
 all Democrats. The South was represented by members 
 from Arkansas, ITorth Carolina, Tennessee and Vir- 
 ginia, and to their negative votes were added those of 
 Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, Joseph Lane, of Ore- 
 gon, and other Northern Senators. The test vote in 
 the House was taken February 27th, and resulted in 
 favor of the bill — yeas, 102; nays, 43. Of those in 
 opposition, twenty-eight were from the South and fif- 
 teen from the North, Seven prominent Southern 
 leaders, noted for their subsequent devotion to the 
 
 30 
 
Union, voted for it. The Administration was within 
 forty-eight hours of its close, when on March 2, 1861, 
 Mr. Buchanan approved the law. In his earlier career 
 he had consistently upheld the protective ductrine, and 
 now doubtlessly welcomed the opportunity to again 
 record himself in its favor. 
 
 The Thirty-seventh Congress convened in special 
 session on July 4, 1861. It was Republican in both 
 branches. Perhaps no legislative body ever enacted so 
 many important and beneficial laws in a single short 
 session, ending August 6th. It met President Lin- 
 coln's demand for $400,000,000 and 400,000 men 
 bravely, and all its measures for the prosecution of the- 
 war were signally successful. It initiated many legis- 
 lative departures, and its work will remain the admir- 
 ation of the student and model of the legislator. 
 
 The "Morrill tariff," so called, had gone into effect 
 on April 1st, and was amply sustaining the hopes of its 
 enactors and friends. It not only provided an in- 
 creased rate of duties, but it authorized the payment 
 of outstanding Treasury notes, and a loan of $10,000,- 
 000. It met the exigencies so well that a general 
 revision was not attempted at the extra session. By 
 the law of August 5, 1861, however, the dutiable list 
 was extended, as Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, 
 Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, 
 estimated, so as to add annually about $22,500,000 to 
 the revenue. Its scope was again extended at the reg- 
 ular session, by the act of December 24, 1861. Under 
 this, the duties on tea, coffee and sugar were increased, 
 directly as a war measure. General tariff acts increas- 
 ing the duties, and rendering more certain their prompt 
 
 31 
 
and easy collection were also passed with comparatively 
 little opposition on July 14, 1862, June 30, 1864, and 
 March 3, 1865. 
 
 The law of 1862 was especially effective. Not only 
 did it practically shut out ruinous competition by for- 
 eign manufacturers, but it provided an internal revenue 
 that in 1866 reached the stupendous aggregate of over 
 $809,000,000, or a million dollars for each working day 
 in the year. The tax on incomes provided by it 
 yielded $72,982,000, or more than the entire receipts 
 of the United States Government for all purposes in 
 any year of our history prior to the outbreak of the 
 Civil War. 
 
 Perhaps the law encountering greatest resistance was 
 that of 1864. This was determinedly opposed by the 
 Democratic leaders, but passed the House, on June 4th, 
 by a vote of 81 to 26, and the Senate, on June 17th, by 
 22 to 5. The returns from these measures were in the 
 highest degree satisfactory. The receipts from customs 
 from the beginning to the close of hostilities, and for 
 the years immediately succeeding the wai-, were far 
 greater than had been expected. In 1862 they ex- 
 ceeded 149,000,000; in 1863, $69,000,000; in 1864, 
 $102,316,000; and in 1865, about $8.5,000,000. In 
 1866, at the dawn of peace, the customs receipts in- 
 creased to $179,000,000, or more than twice as great a 
 sum as had ever been raised in any year by any pre- 
 vious tariff, revenue or protective, in our entire history. 
 In 1867 the receipts were $176,417,000; in 1868, $164,- 
 464,000 ; in 1869, $180,048,000 ; and in 1870, $194,538,- 
 000. Equally vast or greater sums were collected by 
 the Grovernment from internal taxes, under authority 
 
 32 
 
of these acts, increasing annually from $37,640,000, in 
 1862, to $309,226,000, iu 1866. 
 
 As soon as our great armies had been disbanded, 
 however, the Republican leaders in Congress began at 
 once to discuss measures for reducing the volume of 
 direct taxation, and, as far as possible, to limit the 
 expenditures of the Government to its resources from 
 customs dues and a tax on spirits and tobacco. By the 
 acts of July 13, 1866, and March 2, 1867, reductions in 
 internal taxes were made amounting to $105,000,000. 
 Reductions were made in the taxes upon about four 
 hundred articles of manufacture, on saving banks, and the 
 gross receipts of corporations, the aim being to reduce 
 the total internal revenue to an amount not exceeding 
 $265,000,000 per annum, making due allowance for the 
 increase of business and growth of the countiy. The 
 receijots for 1867 exceeded this amount by but $100,000, 
 yet Congress, by the act of March 2, 1867, removed 
 840,000,000 in taxes: $19,500,000 fi'om incomes, 
 $4,000,000 from clothing, $3,500,000 from woolens, 
 $3,250,000 from leather, $1,000,000 from steam engines, 
 and various other lesser amounts. 
 
 The Fortieth Congress continued the work of reduc- 
 ing the "war taxes" with great alacrity. A tax on raw 
 cotton had been levied in 1863 and was continued 
 until 1868, the Government realizing from it about 
 $68,000,000. This was repealed, and a further reduc- 
 tion of internal revenue ^vas made by the acts of March 
 31, and July 30, 1868. Relief was given to manu- 
 facturers by the abolition of what was known as " the 
 five per. cent tax " on a variety of products, the revenue 
 from which was estimated at $45,000,000. 
 
 33 
 
The financial legislation of the time was comprehen- 
 sive and able. Within four years after the close of 
 the Civil War the National debt was reduced nearly 
 1300,000,000, and steps were taken looking to its 
 speedy payment and extinction, instead of perpetuation, 
 as in the case of the great nations of Europe. This 
 was done, too, notwithstanding a steady and enormous 
 reduction of the internal revenue, which, in 1869, was 
 $151,000,000 less than in 1866. Our j^rotective system 
 remained unimpaired and was fulfilling every expecta- 
 tion of its friends although the free traders were 
 already beginning to assault it. 
 
 The Republican National Convention of 1868 declared 
 that "it is due to the labor of the Nation that 
 taxation should be equalized and reduced as rapidly 
 as the National faitli will permit." The Democratic 
 National Convention, on the other hand, declared, with 
 traditional reverence, in favor of "a tariff for revenue 
 upon foreign imports ; " and then added the anomalous 
 provision, "and such equal taxation under the internal 
 revenue laws as will, without impairing the revenue,, 
 impose the least burden upon and best promote and 
 encourage the great industrial interests of the country." 
 So far as this could be construed into any definite 
 policy it was a preference for internal taxation instead 
 of customs dues. To this the Republicans of the 
 country were decidedly opposed. 
 
 At the first session of the Forty-first Congress, on 
 March 29, 1 869, Hon. George W. Morgan, of Ohio, offered 
 a resolution instructing the Ways and Means Committee 
 of the House to report a bill "to exempt salt, tea, 
 coffee, sugar, matches, and tobacco from every species 
 
 34 
 
of taxation for Federal purposes." Mr. Hooper, of 
 Massachusetts, moved that it be laid on the table, 
 which was agreed to — yeas, 104 ; nays, 40. The 
 affirmative vote was exclusively Republican, and the 
 negative exclusively Democratic, except one. 
 
 At the second session of this Congress, on January 
 31, 1870, Hon. Samuel S. Marshall, of Illiiaois, offered a 
 resolution in the House declaring that "the Constitution 
 does not include or embrace any power to levy duties 
 for any purpose other than the collection of revenue, 
 and that a tarifE levied for any purpose other than 
 revenue is unjust to the body of the American people." 
 On motion of Mr. Kelsey, of New York, the resolution 
 was laid on the table — yeas, 90; nays, 77. The affirmative 
 vote was entirely by Republicans ; the negative. Demo- 
 crats 52, Republicans 25. 
 
 On March 14th, Mr. Marshall again offered a reso- 
 lution declaring " that no duty should be imposed on 
 any article above the lowest rate which will yield the 
 largest amount of revenue." It was referred to the 
 Committee on Ways and Means. 
 
 On June 6th, Hon. Hamilton Ward, of New York, 
 submitted a resolution directing the Committee on 
 Ways and Means "to report a bill abolishing the tariff 
 on coal." This was adopted by a vote of 112 to 78, 
 seventy-six Republicans and thirty-six Democrats voting 
 in the affirmative, and sixty-one Republicans and 
 seventeen Democrats in the negative. 
 
 On June 27th, Hon. Henry A. Reeves, of New York, 
 moved that the Committee be insti'ucted to report a 
 bill "reducing the present duties on all classes of salt 
 fifty per cent." His resolution was adopted by a vote 
 
 35 
 
of 110 to 49 ; fifty-seven Republicans and forty-three 
 Democrats in the affirmative, and forty-nine Republicans 
 in the negative. 
 
 On July 14, 1870, President Grant approved the gen- 
 eral tariff act which was passed by Congress at this ses- 
 sion. It reduced the revenue from customs about $27,- 
 000,000, and from internal revenue some $53,000,000, 
 according to the estimate of Hon. Robert G. Schenck, of 
 Ohio, then Ghairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
 of the House, and one of the most capable and popular 
 leaders in Congress. To his industry, ability and elo- 
 quence the country is especially indebted for the main- 
 tenance of our protective system. Upon few statesmen 
 of the period devolved such weighty responsibilities, 
 cheerfully and creditably l:)orne in every emergency. 
 The bill passed the House, on June 6th, by a vote of 
 152 to 35, fifteen Democrats voting in the affirmative, 
 and two Republicans in the negative. It passed the 
 Senate, as amended, on July 5th, yeas, 43 ; nays, 6 ; two 
 Democrats voted for the bill, and one Republican 
 against it. The House concurred in the Senate amend- 
 ments to abolish all special taxes (such as the tax on 
 passports) and fix the income tax at two-and-a-half per 
 cent. The bill then went to a Conference Committee 
 consisting of Senators Sherman, of Ohio, Morrill, of 
 Vermont, and Hamilton, of Maryland, and Representa- 
 tives Schenck, of Ohio, Kelley, of Pennsylvania, and 
 James Brooks, of New York. Their report was sub- 
 mitted on July 13th, adopted by the Senate without 
 division, and by the House by a vote of 144 to 49. 
 
 The duties on tea, coffee and sugar, and some ai'ticles 
 of steel and iron were reduced, but neither salt nor coal 
 
 36 
 
was put on the free list. The country did not accept 
 the bill without misgivings that Congress, in its haste 
 to reduce taxation, had failed to give sufficient regard 
 to the prospective needs of the Government. 
 
 President Grant, with the common sense for which 
 he was proverbial, promptly announced his opposition 
 to all covert attacks upon our protective system. Dis- 
 cussing the insidious pleas for " revenue reform," which 
 free traders were making, in his annual message to 
 Congress, December 5, 1870, he said: 
 
 " If it (revenue reform) implies a collection of all the 
 revenue for the support of the Government, for the 
 payment of principal and interest of the public debt, 
 pensions, etc., by directly taxing the people, then I am 
 against revenue reform, and confidently believe the 
 people are with me. If it means failure to provide the 
 necessary means to defray all the expenses of the Govern- 
 ment, and thereby the repudiation of the public debt, 
 and of pensions, then' I am still more opposed to any 
 such kind of revenue reform. Revenue reform has not 
 been defined by any of its advocates, to my knowledge, 
 but seems to be accepted as something which is to 
 supply every man's wants without any cost or effort on 
 his part. A true revenue reform can not be made in a 
 clay, but it must be the the work of National legislation, 
 and of time. As soon as the revenue can be dispensed 
 with, all duty should be removed from coffee, tea and 
 other articles of universal use not produced by our- 
 selves. The necessities of the country compel us to col- 
 lect revenue from our imports. An army of assessors 
 and collectors is not a pleasant sight to the citizen, but 
 that, or a tariff for revenue is necessary. Such a tariff, 
 
so far as it acts as an encouragement to home produc- 
 tion, affords employment to labor at living wages, in 
 contrast to the pauper labor of the Old World, and 
 also in the development of home resources." 
 
 Hon. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
 resolution in the House, on December 12, 1870, de- 
 claring that " the true principle of revenue reform 
 points to the abolition of the internal revenue system 
 and retention only of taxes on distilled spirits, tobacco, 
 and malt liquors, so long as the legitimate expenses of 
 the Government require the collection of any smn from 
 internal taxes." He moved a suspension of the rules, 
 which was agreed to, and the resolution was adopted 
 almost unanimously — yeas, 168 ; nays, 6. 
 
 In his third annual message to Congress (December 
 4, 1871), President Grant again discussed the propriety 
 of a revision of the tariff. In this he said : 
 
 " The prosperity and greatness of a nation is to be 
 found in the elevation and education of its laborers. 
 
 In readjusting the tariff I suggest that a 
 
 careful estimate be made of the amount of surplus 
 revenue collected under the present laws, after pro- 
 viding for the current expenses of the Government, the 
 interest account, and a sinking fund, and this surplus 
 be reduced in such a manner as to afford the greatest 
 relief to the greatest number. There are many articles 
 not produced at home, but which may enter largely 
 into general consumption through articles which are 
 manufactured at home, such as medicines compounded, 
 etc., from which very little revenue is derived, but 
 which enter into general use. All such articles, I rec- 
 ommend to be placed on the "free list." Should a 
 
 38 
 
further reductiou prove advisable, I would then recom- 
 mend that it be made upon those articles vi^hich can 
 best bear it without disturbing home production or 
 reducina; the wao-es of American labor." 
 
 On March 13, 1871, in the Forty-second Congress, at 
 its first session, Hon. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, 
 who was afterwards to figure so prominently in tariff 
 legislation, moved to suspend the rules and put upon its 
 passage a bill to comply with the recommendations of 
 President Grant by placing tea and cofl'ee on the free 
 list. This was agreed to, and the bill passed — yeas, 
 140 ; nays, 48, nine Democrats and thirty- nine Repub- 
 licans voting in the negative. The Senate did not act 
 on this bill until more than a year later, when, on April 
 30, 1872, Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, called it up, and 
 submitted an amendment to the effect that " all tea 
 and coffee in public stores or bonded warehouses on 
 July 1st should be free of duty, and that a rebate 
 should be granted on that which had previously paid 
 a duty." This was agreed to, but amendments to 
 further extend the free list, so as to include salt, and 
 other articles, were defeated. The bill was then passed 
 — yeas, 39 ; nays, 10, four Democrats and six Repub- 
 licans voting in the negative. The Senate amendments 
 were concurred in by the House, and the act Avas 
 approved by President Grant on May 1st. The re- 
 duction in revenue by it amounted to §20,000,000 per 
 annum. 
 
 The temper of the times suggested many experiments. 
 On March 13, 1871, Hon. John F. Farnsworth, of Illinois, 
 moved to suspend the rules of the House and pass a 
 bill providing that " no tax or duty shall be levied or 
 
 39 
 
collected upon foreign coal." This was agreed to, and 
 the bill was passed — yeas, 130 ; nays, 57. Twelve 
 Democrats voted in the negative. The Senate took no 
 action on the bill. 
 
 On the following day, Hon. Eugene Hale, of Maine, 
 moved to suspend the rules, and pass a bill " placing 
 salt on the free list." This was agreed to, and the bill 
 was passed — yeas, 147 ; nays, 46. Seven Democrats 
 and thirty-nine Republicans voted in the negative. The 
 Senate did not consider the bill. 
 
 On March 27th, Hon. Ellery A. Hibbard, of New 
 Hampshire, offered a resolution, which was referred to 
 the Committee on Ways and Means, without contest, 
 declaring that " the tariff should be so reformed as to be 
 a tax for revenue only, and not for the protection of 
 class interests at the general expense." On the same daj", 
 Hon. Hosea W. Parker, of the same State, offered a 
 resolution declarins: it the sense of the House " that the 
 tariff should be so reformed as to be a tax for revenue 
 only." This, too, was referred to the Committee on 
 Ways and Means— yeas, 98; nays, 18 — a strict party 
 vote, except seven Democrats voted for the reference, 
 and five Republicans against it. 
 
 On April 10, 1871, Hon. William D. Kelley, as in the 
 previous Congress, offered a resolution declaring that 
 "the true princijjle of i-evenue reform points to the abo- 
 lition of the internal revenue system." It was adopted 
 — yeas, 130; nays, 21, eight Republicans voting in the 
 negative. 
 
 On February 19, 1872, Hon. Eugene Plale moved to 
 suspend the rules and pass a bill placing coal and salt 
 on the free list, but the motion did not receive the 
 
 40 
 
necessary two-thirds vote — yeas, 102 ; nays, 86. Six- 
 teen Democrats voted against, and thirty-seven Repub- 
 licans for suspending the rules. 
 
 On February 26th, Hon. Samuel S. Cox, of New 
 York, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill "re- 
 ducing the tariff on pig-ii-on to five dollars per ton, or 
 less," but the motion was lost — yeas, 74 ; nays, 99. All 
 the affirmative votes but eleven were cast by Democrats- 
 and all the negative but eleven by Republicans. 
 
 At this session, under the act of March 5th, Congress- 
 repealed all internal taxes on canned meats, fish, fruits, 
 and vegetables. By the general tariff act of June 6, 
 1872, also passed at this session, many changes -were- 
 made in existing duties. A reduction of ten per cent, was 
 made in the duties on all importations of cotton, wool, 
 iron, steel, paper, straw, rubber, glass and leather, with 
 numerous specific changes, and a large addition to the 
 free list. This bill passed the House on May 20th — 
 yeas, 149 ; nays, 61 — and the Senate, as amended, on 
 May iJlst, with but three dissenting votes, all Repub- 
 licans. The report of the Committee of Conference was- 
 quickly agreed to, and the bill promj^tly signed by the 
 President. Under these acts, and that of May 1st, the 
 reduction in internal taxes was about $21,131,000, and 
 the decrease in customs about f 44,000,000. 
 
 The Liberal Republican platform of 1872 subse- 
 quently adopted by the Democratic National Conven- 
 tion declared : '■ That reco2:nizino; that there are in our 
 midst honest but irreconcilable differences of opinion 
 with regard to the respective systems of protection and 
 free trade, we remit the discussion of the subject to the 
 people in their Congressional districts, and the decisions 
 
 41 
 
of Congress thereon, wholly free from executive inter- 
 ference, or dictation." 
 
 The Republican National Convention met the issue 
 more boldly. It declared : " That revenue, except so 
 mucli as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco and 
 liquor, should be raised by duties upon importations, 
 the details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in 
 securing remunerative wages to labor, and in promoting 
 the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole coun- 
 try." Upon this jDlatform the Republicans won an unpre- 
 cedented victory, and carried the Forty- third Congress 
 by an overwhelming majority. 
 
 In his fifth annual message to Congress, on December 
 1, 1873, President Grant devoted considerable attention 
 to the consideration of our National finances. His 
 observations, in part, were as follows: 
 
 " The receipts of the Government from all sources for 
 the last fiscal year were i5^3.'^3,738,204, and the expendi- 
 tures on all accounts S290,34r5,245, thus showing an 
 excess of receipts over expenditures of $43,393,959. 
 But it is not probable that this favorable exhibit Avill 
 be shown for the present fiscal year. Indeed, it is ver^" 
 doubtful whether, except with great economy on tho 
 part of Congress in making a2:>propriations and the same 
 ecnnomy in administering the various departments of 
 Government, the revenue will not fall short of meet- 
 ing actual expenses, including interest on the public 
 debt. 
 
 "The revenues have materially fallen off for the first 
 five months of the present fiscal year from Avhat they 
 were expected to produce, owing to the general panic 
 now prevailing, which commenced about the middle of 
 
 43 
 
September last. The full effect of thrs disaster, if it 
 should not prove a " blessing in disguise/' is yet to be 
 demonstrated. In either event it is your duty to heed 
 the lesson, and to provide by wise and well considered 
 legislation, as far as it lies in your power, against its 
 recurrence, and to take advantage of all benefits that 
 may have accrued. My own judgment is that, however 
 much individuals may have suffered, one long step has 
 been taken toward specie payment, that we can never 
 have permanent prosperity until a specie basis is reached, 
 and that a specie basis can not be reached and main- 
 tained until our exports, exclusive of gold, pay for our 
 imports, interest due abroad, and other specie obliga- 
 tions, or so nearly so as to leave an appreciable accum- 
 ulation of the precious metals in the country from the 
 products of our mines. . . . In further connection with 
 the Treasury Department I would recommend a revision 
 and codification of the tariff laws, and the opening of 
 more mints for coining money, with authority to coin 
 for such nations as may apply. " 
 
 In the House of Representatives, on January 12, 187J:, 
 Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, moved to suspend the 
 rules and adopt a resolution declaring " that the taxes 
 which now burden the people should not be increased ; 
 but the support of the Government during the present 
 temporary paralysis in the industries of the country 
 should be met by a temporary loan or loans." The 
 motion was disagreed to, two-thirds not voting in the 
 affirmative — yeas, 154; nays, 83. Fifty-six Democrats 
 and ninety-eight Republicans voted to suspend the 
 rules ; and twenty Democrats and sixty- three Republi- 
 
 cans against it. 
 
 43 
 
On the same day, Hon. William S. Holman, of 
 Indiana, offered the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That in the judgment of this House there 
 is no necessity for increased taxation or for an increase 
 •of the public debt by a further loan if there shall be 
 severe economy in the public expenditures ; and in view 
 ■of the condition of the National finances this House 
 will reduce the appropriations and public expenditures 
 to the lowest point consistent with a proper adminis- 
 tration of public affairs." 
 
 The rules were suspended and it was adopted by 
 a vote of two hundred and twenty -two to three. 
 
 Hon. Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, offered a 
 fitting supplement to this resolution which was also 
 adopted. It declared that — 
 
 "The expenditures of the Nation can and should be 
 so reduced and regulated that they can be met by the 
 existing taxes, and in no event should there be an 
 increase of either interest-bearing or non-interest-bear- 
 ing obligations of the Government." 
 
 These resolutions had reference, of course, to the so- 
 called "panic of 1873," and the financial depression 
 which followed. The causes that produced this 
 financial disturbance were not connected with our 
 revenue system. They were the necessary and 
 logical effects of the war, and the long period of 
 speculation and infiation attendant upon it. Wise 
 financiers foresaw and predicted it, and had the 
 contraction policy been adopted by Congress, the crash 
 would have been precipitated upon the country at an 
 earlier day and with greater severity. The protective 
 policy retarded and mitigated our monetary evils, and 
 
 44 
 
"there were fewer suspensions of factories, lighter re- 
 ductions in wages, less distress on the farm, and a 
 smaller proportionate shrinkage of values, the country 
 over, than had occurred in any of our previous great 
 financial depressions. Moreover, the country emerged 
 from it more promptly, and in a more prosperous con- 
 dition, than in any other panic. Depreciation in values 
 and failures in business were unavoidable, but the 
 expansion and development which followed the resump- 
 tion of specie payment, and the close of the panic, 
 were on a surer and safer basis than ever before had 
 been attained in the fiscal history of the United States. 
 By the acts of May 9, and June 22, 1874, further 
 reductions and modifications in customs duties were 
 made, amounting in the aggregate to from $6,000,000 
 to $10,000,000. The passage of these laws was un- 
 timely and they were evidently not satisfactory, if we 
 may judge from President Grant's sixth annual message 
 to Congress, on December 7, 1874. In this he said : 
 
 " At the last session of Congress a very considerable 
 reduction was made in the rates of taxation and in the 
 number of articles submitted to taxation. The question 
 may well be asked whether or not, in some instances, un- 
 wisely. In connection with this subject,- too, I venture 
 the oj)inion that the means of collecting the revenue, 
 especially from imports, have been so embarrassed by 
 legislation, as to make it questionable whether or not 
 large amounts are not lost by failure to collect, to the 
 direct loss of the Treasury, and to the prejudice of the 
 interests of honest importers and taxpayers." 
 
 In compliance with these suggestions, Congress, by 
 the acts of February 8, and March 3, 1875, increased the 
 
 45 
 
taxes on liquors and tobacco, and the dtities on sugar 
 and molasses. The ten per cent, decrease of duties, 
 provided by the act of June 6, 1872, was repealed. 
 
 The House of Kepresentatives in the Forty-fourth 
 Congi'ess for the first time since the war was strongly 
 Democratic, containing 168 Democrats in a total mem- 
 bership of 293. It organized by electing Hon. Michael 
 C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speakej', who appointed Col. 
 William R. Morrison, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
 Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Kerr's health was so 
 poor, however, that he died a few days after the adjourn- 
 ment of the first session, and was succeeded as Speaker 
 by Hon. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania. The 
 Senate remained Republican by forty-two to thirty-two. 
 
 To this Congress, President Grant addressed his 
 seventh annual message, December 7, 1875. Speaking 
 of the tariff, he said: 
 
 "One measure for increasing the revenue — and the 
 only one I think of — is the restoration of the duty on tea 
 and coffee. These duties would add probably $18,000- 
 000 to the present amount received from imports and 
 would in no way increase the price paid for these 
 articles by the consumers. These articles are the pro- 
 ducts of countries collecting revenue from exports, and 
 as we, their largest consumers, reduce the duties, they 
 proportionately increase them. With this addition to 
 the revenue, many duties now collected, and which give 
 but an insignificant return for the cost of collection, 
 might be remitted, and to the direct advantage of con- 
 sumers at home." 
 
 At the first session of this Congress, on January 31, 
 1876, Mr. Morrison, of Illinois, introduced a bill for the 
 
 46 
 
revision of the tariff. It reduced the lates on almost 
 the entire dutiable list except cigars (on which the duty 
 was increased) and reimposed a duty upon tea and cof- 
 fee. The bill was referred to the Committee ou Ways and 
 Means, and on May 25th, the House, in Committee of the 
 Whole, began its discussion. Mr. Morrison opened the 
 debate, which continued at intervals until June 2d, when 
 it was postponed to the next session, but the bill never 
 came to a direct vote at any stage of the proceedings. 
 
 On May 29th, Hon. Charles H. Adams, of New York,, 
 offered a resolution, declaring it the judgment of 
 the House "that legislation aifecting the tariff is at. 
 this time inexpedient." The main question was ordered,, 
 but Mr. Morrison secured a reconsideration by a vote 
 of 120 to 94, and had the resolution referred to the 
 Committee on Ways and Means. Eight Republi- 
 cans and Independents voted with the Democrats for 
 the reference, and nineteen Democrats and Independ- 
 ents with the Republicans against it. No tariff 
 legislation was further attempted during the session. 
 
 The tariff was a platform issue of the Presidential 
 campaign of 1876, but received comparatively little 
 attention from the press or the masses of the voters of 
 either party. At the Republican National Convention 
 in Cincinnati, on June 14th, it was unanimously resolved: 
 
 " That the revenue necessary for current expenditures, 
 and the obligations of the public debt, must be largely 
 derived from duties upon importations, which, so far as 
 possible, should be adjusted to promote the interests of 
 American labor and advance the prosperity of the whole 
 country," 
 
 At the Democratic National Convention in St. Louis, 
 
 47 
 
June 27tli, the platform was adopted by a vote of 651 
 to 83. The eleventh plank of this lengthy " declaration 
 of principles " is as follows : 
 
 " We denounce the present tariff, levied upon nearly 
 4,000 articles, as a masterpiece of injustice, inequality 
 and false pretence. It yields a dwindling, not a yearly 
 rising, revenue. It has impoverished many industries 
 to subsidize a few. It prohibits imports that might 
 purchase the products of American labor. It has de- 
 graded American commerce from the first to an inferior 
 rank on the high seas. It has cut down the sales of 
 American manufacturers at home and abroad, and 
 , depleted the returns of American agriculture — an in- 
 dustry followed by half our people. It costs the people 
 five times more than it produces to the Treasury, 
 obstructs the processes of production, and wastes the 
 fruits of labor. It promotes fraud, fosters smuggling, 
 enriches dishonest officials, and bankrupts honest mer- 
 chants. We demand that all custom-house taxation 
 shall be only for revenue." 
 
 The House of Representatives of the Forty-fifth Con- 
 gress, elected in 1876, was again Democratic, the 
 majority party electing 153 of the 293 members. The 
 Senate was Republican by the narrow margin of two 
 votes — Republicans, 39 ; Democrats, 36 ; Independents, 
 1. Hon. Samuel J. Randall was re-elected Speaker of 
 the. House, and by his appointment Hon. Fernando 
 Wood, of New York, became Chairman of the Ways 
 and Means Committee. 
 
 On December 1, 1877, at the very beginning of the 
 session, Hon. Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, moved to sus- 
 pend the rules and adopt a resolution " instructing the 
 
 48 
 
Committee on Ways and Means to so revise the tariff as 
 to make it purely and solely a tariff for revenue, and 
 not for protecting one class of citizens by plundering 
 another." The motion was disagreed to — yeas, 67, all 
 Democrats but six; nays, 76, all Republicans but ten. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Committee on Ways and Means 
 promptly reported a tariff bill materially reducing ex- 
 isting duties, and especially crippling the steel and iron, 
 glass and pottery industries. On March 28, 1878, Mr. 
 Wood moved that his bill be made the special order for 
 April 4th, which was objected to, but the motion pre- 
 vailed by a vote of 137 to 114 — fifteen Republicans 
 voting in the affirmative and ten Democrats in the nega- 
 tive. The discussions in the Committee of the Whole 
 were decidedly adverse to the bill. It was shown that 
 there was no popular demand for such legislation, but 
 on the contrary that the workingmen of the country by 
 the thousands had not only remonstrated against the 
 pending measure, but insisted rather on an increase of 
 the duties. There was no plethora in the revenue nor 
 surplus in the Treasury justifying its passage. Indeed, 
 the experts of the Treasury estimated that the revenue 
 to be derived under the bill, on the basis of the importa- 
 tions of 1877, would be insufficient to support the Gov- 
 ernment, and result in a deficiency of at least $9,000,000 
 annually. The Committee of the Whole House there- 
 fore agreed to recommend the defeat of the bill. The 
 question of " striking out the enacting clause " came to a 
 vote in the House on June 5th and the recommendation 
 of the Committee was sustained — yeas, 134; nays, 120. 
 Nineteen Democrats voted in the affirmative and six 
 Republicans in the negative, while fourteen Republicans 
 
 49 
 
It, " th? 
 
 and twenty-two Democrats did not vote. Thus < 
 another assault on our protective system, but, ai 
 Wood declared, in anticipation of an adverse result, 
 fight had only just begun." 
 
 In the election of 1878 the Democrats carried the 
 House of Representatives in the Forty-sixth Congress, 
 and the Senate was also Democratic, that party having 
 succeeded in electing forty-two of the seventy-six mem- 
 bers. In accordance with the call of President Hayes, 
 Congress convened in special session on March 18, 1879. 
 Mr. Randall was again elected Speaker and Mr. Wood 
 re-appointed Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, with such prominent free-trade " tariff reformers " 
 as Messrs. Tucker, of Virginia, Morrison, of Illinois, 
 Mills, of Texas, and Carlisle, of Kentucky, as his asso- 
 ciates. 
 
 On June 30, 1879, Hon. James W. Covert, of New 
 York, moved to suspend the rules of the House and 
 pass a bill " to put salts of quinine on the free list." 
 There was little opposition to the motion, and the bill 
 passed by a vote of 125 to 33. It passed the Senate, on 
 July 1st, without division, and was promptly approved 
 by the President. 
 
 In the House, on January 12, 1880, Hon. William H. 
 Hatch, of Missouri, moved to suspend the rules and pass 
 a bill providing that '' no duty shall be levied or col- 
 lected, directly or indirectly, on the importation of salt," 
 but it was disagreed to — -yeas, 115 ; nays, 116. Sixteen 
 Republicans voted In the affirmative, and fifteen Demo- 
 crats in the negative. 
 
 On March 1st, Hon. William M. Lowe, of Alabama, 
 introduced a bill to provide for refunding the cotton tax,, 
 
 50 
 
coll^fcd (luring the war, to the States from which it 
 ■as CT)Uected. It was referred to the Committee on 
 iVays and Means — yeas, 136 (Republicans 103, Demo 
 crats and Nationalists 33) ; nays, 92, (Democrats 89, 
 Nationalists 3 ) — and was never subsequently re- 
 ported. 
 
 On March 8th, Hon. William J. Samford, of Alabama, 
 introduced two bills affecting the tariff. The first pro- 
 posed a reduction of fifty per cent, on merchandise com- 
 posed of " hemp, metals, wool, wood and cotton ; " the 
 second, the repeal of all duties on ''printing-type and pa- 
 per, and the materials entering into their composition." 
 He asked their reference to the Committee on Revision of 
 Laws, but this was disagreed to, and the bills were sent 
 to the Committee on Ways and Means, by the test vote 
 of 114 to 87. One hundred and seven Republicans and 
 thirty-seven Democrats voted for the latter reference ; 
 and seven Republicans and eighty Democrats against it. 
 On the same day Mr. Hatch's " free salt bill " was re- 
 ferred to the Ways and Means Committee, the Republi- 
 cans generally favoring and the Democrats opposing the 
 reference. 
 
 On March 22nd, Hon. Richard W. Townshend, of 
 Illinois, introduced a bill to abolish " the duty on salt, 
 printing-type, printing-paper, and the chemicals and 
 materials used in the manufacture of printing-paper," 
 and secured its reference to the Committee on Revision 
 of Laws. On the next day General Garfield moved " to 
 amend the journal so as to refer it to the Ways and 
 Means Committee." A bitter parliamentary fight en- 
 sued, lasting several days, in which the opponents of 
 the bill were finally successful, the reference to the 
 
 51 
 
Ways and Means Committee "being ordered by a vote 
 of 142 to 90. All the negative votes were cast by 
 Democrats, with tlie exception of three Nationalists. 
 
 On April 5th, Mr. Townshend moved to suspend the 
 rules and discharge the CoDamittee on Ways and Means 
 from the further consideration of this bill. This ^vas 
 disagreed to by a vote of 112 to 80. 
 
 On May 11th, Mr. Tucker, from the Ways and 
 Means Committee, reported a bill " to regulate the 
 duties on hoop, band, and scroll iron," which, Avith the 
 accompanying report, was referred to the Committee of 
 the Whole House. Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, submitted a 
 minority report, signed by himself and the other 
 Republican members of the Committee. No other 
 action was taken upon the measure. 
 
 Mr. Tucker reported a second bill " to regulate the 
 customs duties on sugar," and it, too, was referred to 
 the Committee of the Whole, without any further 
 action by the House. He also reported a third bill, 
 commonly known as " the general tariff bill," but 
 styled by the Committee as a bill " to regulate the cus- 
 toms duties on certain articles therein named." On 
 May 24th, Mr. Garfield submitted an exhaustive minor- 
 ity report embracing the views of himself and col- 
 leagues not only upon " the Tucker bill," but upon the 
 tariff in general. It was widely circulated in the 
 National campaign of that year as a campaign docu- 
 ment — peculiar interest attaching to its author, then 
 the Republican candidate for the Presidency. 
 
 On June 8th, Mr. Tucker reported a House joint res- 
 olution from the Committee on Ways and Means rela- 
 tive to the duty on hoop-iron, which after some objec- 
 
 53 
 
tion was adopted on a viva voce vote. It w^as reported, 
 on June 10th, by the Finance Committee of the Senate, 
 and adopted by that body, again without division, and 
 by the approval of President Hayes had the force and 
 efPect of law. * 
 
 Pending the resolution for final adjournment, Mr. 
 Mills moved that it be recommended to the Ways and 
 Means Committee with instructions to report a bill 
 providing for the " free importation of salt and printing- 
 paper before they report a resolution for adjournment." 
 This was disagreed to — yeas, 90, all Democrats but 
 eleven ; nays 116, all Republicans but thirty-one. 
 
 The discussions of the Senate were principally over 
 the bill introduced by Hon. William W. Eaton, of 
 Connecticut, " to provide for the appointment of a Com- 
 mission to investigate the tariff, a final report to be 
 made in January, 1881." This was passed on June 3, 
 1880, by a vote of thirty-one to fifteen. The affirmative 
 vote was cast by sixteen Democrats and fifteen Repub- 
 licans; the negative entirely by Democrats. The bill 
 was not considered by the House. 
 
 At the third session of this Congress, on December 6, 
 1880, Hon. Frank H. Hurd, of Ohio, offered a House 
 joint resolution proposing, to the end that the tariff 
 should be for revenue only, the following changes : 
 
 1. " Upon all dutiable articles producing little or no 
 revenue to the Government the duty should be returned 
 to a revenue basis, or they should be placed on the free 
 list." 
 
 2. " The duty on tea and coffee should be restored." 
 The resolution was referred to the Ways and Means 
 
 Committee, but although subsequently supported by 
 
 53 
 
Mr. Hurd in a speech to the House no vote was taken 
 upon it. 
 
 On December 21st, Hon. Hiram Price, of Iowa, 
 moved to suspend the rules of the House and pass a 
 bill repealing the law "requiring stamps on bank 
 checks." The motion was lost — yeas 129, nays 68, not 
 the requisite two-thirds in the affirmative. Seven 
 Republicans voted with the Democrats in the negative.* 
 
 Thus after six years' agitation the situation as to the 
 tariff was practically unchanged. By the acts of June 
 22, 1871, of February 8, and March 3, 1875, of July 1, 
 
 1879, and June 14, 1880, the Income Tax had been 
 abolished, the Match Tax repealed, and various changes 
 made in the assessment and collection of internal 
 revenue, but while this was true the aggregate receipts 
 from customs and internal revenue were practically the 
 the same— $265,513,000, in 1874, and $310,531,000, in 
 
 1880. Meanwhile the country amid unexampled embar- 
 rassments had attained a prosperity greater than it had 
 ever before enjoyed. So great was the prosperity that 
 the Republican party, at its National Convention at 
 Chicago, in June, 1880, could truthfully congratulate 
 the people upon the marvelous success of its fiscal 
 policy. Never before could any political organization, 
 appealing to the record, safely assert that its achieve- 
 ments included such great events as the following, 
 which were enumerated by the platform, subsequently 
 endorsed by the country : 
 
 * Upon the death of Hon. Fernando Wood, Fehmary 14, 1881, Mr. 
 Tucker became Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Hon. 
 James A. Garfield, of Ohio, having been elected to the Presidency, and 
 resigned from the House, Mr. McKinley, of the same State, succeeded him 
 as a member of this Committee in December, 1880. 
 
 54 
 
" It (the Republican party) has raised the value of 
 our paper currency from thirty-eight per cent, to the 
 par of gold. It has restored, upon a solid basis, pay- 
 ment in coin for all the National obligations, and has 
 given us a currency absolutely good and equal in every 
 part of our extended country. It has lifted the credit 
 •of the Nation from the point where six per cent, bonds 
 sold at eighty-six to that where four per cent, bonds 
 are eagerly sought at a premium. Under its administra- 
 tion railways have increased from 31,000 miles in 1860, 
 to more than 82,000 miles in 1879. Our foreign trade 
 has increased from $700,000,000 to $1,150,000,000 in 
 the same time ; and our exports, which were $20,000,- 
 000 less than our imports in 1860 were $264,000,000 
 more than, our imports in 1879. Without resorting 
 to loans, it has, since the war closed, defrayed the ordi- 
 nary exj)enses of the Government, beside the accruing 
 interest on the public debt, and disbursed annually 
 over $30,000,000 for soldiers' pensions. It has paid 
 $888,000,000 of the public debt, and, by refunding the 
 bal.ince at lower rates, has reduced the annual interest 
 ■charge from nearly $151,000,000 to less than $89,000,- 
 000." 
 
 In view of these facts the Republican Convention 
 declared " that the reviving industries should be fur- 
 ther promoted, and that the commerce, already so 
 great, should be steadily encouraged." It also resolved: 
 "We reaffirm the belief, avowed in 1876, that the 
 duties levied for the purpose of revenue should so dis- 
 criminate as to favor American labor." 
 
 The Democratic National Convention, at Cincinnati, 
 on June 22d, declared in favor of " a tariff for revenue 
 
only ;" and then, as if in doubt as to how its position 
 would be construed, added this further declaration : 
 "The Democratic party is a friend of labor and the 
 laboring man, and pledges itself to protect him alike 
 against the cormorants and the commune." 
 
 The tariff issue was destined to receive much atten- 
 tion in the ensuing campaign. After the Republican 
 reverse in Maine in September, it was evident that 
 unless the States of Indiana and Ohio holdino- elec- 
 tions in October could be carried, defeat in the Nation 
 in November was certain. The Democratic declaration 
 in favor of " a tariff for revenue only " was turned with 
 tremendous force against that party, and proved of the 
 greatest advantage in carrying both these States for the 
 Republican ticket. The visit of General Grant and 
 Senator Conkling to Ohio and Indiana was no more 
 effective than the brilliant campaign of Mr. Blaine, 
 who devoted his efforts to a striking and thorough dis- 
 cussion of the tariff issue, of which he was so truly 
 " prophet and master." In the East, the result in New 
 York hinged largely upon its consideration aod the 
 workingmen of the industrial centers were rallied to 
 the standard of* pi^otectiou in immense and decisive 
 numbers. Indeed, that alone saved the State, and 
 secured the election of the Republican National ticket. 
 
 The House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh 
 Congress, elected in 1880, was Republican by seven 
 majo]"ity, It organized by electing Hon. Joseph War- 
 ren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker, ^vho appointed Hon. 
 William D. Kelley, Chairman of the Ways and Means 
 Committee. Neither party had a majority in the 
 Senate, which consisted of thirty-seven Republicans, 
 
 56 
 
thirty-seven Democrats, one Independent and one Eead- 
 juster. Hon. David Davis, of Illinois, was elected 
 President pro tern. 
 
 President Arthur, in his first annual message, Decem- 
 ber 6, 1881, devoted a passage to the tariff. He said: 
 
 " The tariff lav^rs also need revision, but, that a due 
 regard may be paid to the conflicting interests of our 
 citizens, important changes should be made with cau- 
 tion. If a careful revision can not be made at this 
 session, a Commission, such as was lately approved by 
 the Senate, and is now recommended by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, would doubtless lighten the labors of 
 Congress whenever this subject is brought to its con- 
 sideration." 
 
 On March 8, 1882, Hon. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, 
 called up the bill, reported by him for the Committee 
 on Ways and Means, to create a Tariff Commission 
 of nine members, to be appointed by the President. 
 Objections were made, and it was held not to have 
 precedence, although on March 20th Mr. Kelley suc- 
 ceeded in having it made a special order, and it was 
 thereafter the subject of much debate. On May 6th 
 Mr. Mills moved that it be recommitted to the Ways 
 and Means Committee " to report within thirty days a 
 bill framed in compliance with the following instruc- 
 tions : 
 
 " 1. That no more money should be collected than 
 is necessary for the wants of the Government, econom- 
 ically administered, 2. That no duty be imposed on 
 any article above the lowest rate that will yield the 
 largest amount of revenue. 3. That below such rate 
 discrimination may be made descending in the scale of 
 
 57 
 
•duties, or for imperative reasons the article may be 
 placed on the list of those free from all duty. 4. That 
 the maximum revenue duty should be imposed on lux- 
 uries. 5. That all specific duties should be abolished 
 and ad valorem duties substituted in their place, care 
 being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices and 
 undervaluation, and to assess the duty upon the actual 
 market value. 6. That the duty should be so imposed 
 as to operate as equally as possible throughout the 
 Union, discriminating neither for nor against any class 
 or section." 
 
 This resolution embraced the creed of Mr. Mills and his 
 fellow "tariff- reformers," both in Congress and through- 
 out tlie country, but it is safe to say no tariff bill ever 
 was or could be drawn to meet his conditions. The Plouse 
 defeated the motion to recommit by the vote, yeas, 75 — 
 all Democrats ; nays, 152 — all Republicans but twenty- 
 nine, six Nationalists and twenty-three Democrats. 
 
 The bill to create the Commission was then passed 
 by a similar vote — yeas, 151 ; nays, 83. Seven Ee- 
 publicans voted with the Democrats in the negative, 
 and twenty-six Democrats and five Nationalists with 
 the Republicans in the aflSrmative. 
 
 The Senate passed this bill with but little opposition. 
 A similar measure, by Mr. Morrill, had, in fact, been 
 introduced in the Senate on December 5, 1881, and 
 passed on March 28, 1882, by a vote of 38 to 15. The 
 House bill was passed on May 9th — yeas, 35, all Re- 
 publicans but six; nays 19, all Democrats but two. 
 It was approved by President Arthur on May 15th, 
 and the follomng gentlemen were appointed by him 
 io constitute the Tariff Commission, all of whom were 
 
 58 
 
promptly confirmed by tlie Senate: John L. Hayes, of 
 Massachusetts, Chairman ; Henry W. 01i\er, Jr., of Penn- 
 sylvania; Austin M. Garland, of Illinois; Jacob A. 
 Ambler, of Ohio ; Robert P. Porter, of the District of 
 Columbia ; John W. H. Underwood, of Georgia ; Dun- 
 can F. Kenner, of Louisiana ; Alexander R. Boteler, of 
 West Virginia, and William H. McMahon, of New York. 
 
 At this session, on April 3rd, the House, under the 
 leadership of Hon. Mark H. Dunnell, of Minnesota, 
 passed, without division, a bill to amend the laws relat- 
 ing "to the entry of spirits in distilleries and ware- 
 houses, and their withdrawal therefrom." A substitute 
 was reported, by the Committee on Finance, in the 
 Senate, but this was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 
 thirty-two to twenty. 
 
 On June 5 th Hon. Phillip B. Thompson, of Ken- 
 tucky, moved to suspend the rules of the House and 
 pass a bill "to abolish the duty on trace-chains," but 
 the motion was lost — yeas, 73 ; nays, 108. On the 
 same day Mr. Kelley attempted to secure a suspension 
 and the passage of a bill correcting an error in the 
 duties on ready-made clothing and knit goods, affecting 
 the tariff on wool and silk. His motion, too, was lost — 
 yeas, 135; nays, 70 — not two-thirds in the affirmative. 
 
 The most important measure before Congress at this 
 session, in the light of subsequent events, however, was 
 a bill to reduce internal revenue taxation, which was 
 passed in the House on June 27th, by a vote of 127 to 
 80. Twenty-two Democrats united with the Repub- 
 licans in support of this measure, and fifteen Repub- 
 licans voted with the Democrats against it. In the 
 Senate the bill was reported, on July 6th, but was 
 
 59 
 
Tecommitted to the Finance Committee, and when 
 reported by Mr. Morrill, on July 12th, contained 
 numerous important amendments. Its title was changed 
 to "an act to reduce taxation," and the changes included 
 a revision of tariff schedules as well as internal taxes. 
 It was debated at length, from July 19th to 24th, when 
 the Senate voted — by 33 to 26 — to take up the Naval 
 Appropriation Bill, and so it went over until the next 
 session. On July 31st, pending consideration of the 
 Naval Bill, Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, moved to 
 strike the words " of domestic manufacture " from the 
 clause providing for the construction of " two steel 
 steam cruising vessels of war" — thereby permitting 
 them to be built of foreign steel, if the Grovernment 
 should so determine. The motion was defeated — yeas 
 20, all Democrats ; nays 30, all Kepublicaus but five. 
 
 On July 3rd, Mr. Kelley moved to suspend the rules 
 of the House and take up the bill introduced January 
 20th by Hon. John R. Buck, of Connecticut, to 
 correct an error affecting the duty on knit goods. 
 This was agreed to and the bill was passed — yeas, 
 134; nay'!, 49. Three Republicans voted with the 
 Democrats in the negative, while twenty-one Demo- 
 crats voted for the bill. It was passed by the Senate, 
 on August 5th, — yeas 36, all Republicans but seven ; 
 nays 15 all Democrats — and was promptly approved 
 by the President. 
 
 On July 25th the bill by Mr. Kasson relative to the 
 duties " on materials for the construction of vessels, " 
 over which there had been much debate, was recom- 
 mitted to the Committee on Ways and Means — yeas 
 (Republicans), 100 ; nays (Democrats), 71. 
 
 60 
 
In his second annual message, December 4, 1882, 
 President Arthur made the following recommendations 
 on the tariff : " If the tax on domestic spirits is to be 
 retained, it is plain, therefore, that large reductions from 
 the custom revenue are entirely feasible. While recom- 
 mending this reduction, I am far from advising the 
 abandonment of the policy of so discriminating in the 
 adjustment of details as to afford aid and protection 
 to domestic labor." 
 
 At the beginning of the second session of the Forty- 
 seventh Congress, the Tariff Commission submitted an 
 exhaustive report to the House, with the volume of 
 testimony it had taken on the industrial conditions and 
 needs of the country. During the recess of Congress 
 the Commission had made a thorough investigation of 
 our various manufacturing interests, endeavoring to 
 ascertain in what manner and how far the tariff could 
 be reduced without inflicting damage or distress upon 
 any important line of manufactures, or great interest of 
 industry, with a view to preserving intact our protective 
 system, and preventing ruinous competition with foreign 
 labor. It had visited all our great industrial centers 
 and by conscientious, careful and impartial work was 
 enabled to submit a most valuable report. From it the 
 Committee on Ways and Means of the House formu- 
 lated and reported a bill reducing existing duties about 
 twenty per cent. The Commission's schedules were 
 largely followed ; some increases were made, but, in the 
 large majority of cases, where any deviation was made, 
 it was in the direction of a reduction of the duties, and 
 nut of increase. It was estimated that the new bill, on 
 
 61 
 
the basis of the importations of 1882, would decrease 
 the revenue about $22,000,000. 
 
 The bill was reported by Mr. Kelley, on January 
 16th, and debated until January 25th, many amend- 
 ments being agreed to. On the 25th the House voted 
 on the question of giving preference to the consideration 
 of the Internal Revenue Bill, and decided against it — 
 yeas 100, all Democrats; nays 147, all Republicans, 
 except eighteen. On February 19th, Mr. Kelley at- 
 tempted to obtain a suspension of the rules and secure 
 the consideration of an internal revenue bill as an inde- 
 pendent measure. But this was not agreed to by the 
 requisite two-thirds majority — the vote resulting, yeas 
 162, forty-six Democrats voting with the Republicans; 
 nays 97, nineteen Republicans and Nationalists voting 
 with the Democrats. 
 
 Meanwhile the Senate passed the Internal Revenue 
 Bill (which the House had passed during the first ses- 
 sion), but not until after it had made such amendments 
 as to virtually revise the entire tariff. The bill had been 
 recommitted in December, 1882, to the Committee on 
 Finance, and on January 11, 1883, was reported by Mr. 
 Morrill, and its consideration continued until February 
 20th, when the bill was passed — yeas 42, all Repub- 
 licans except eleven; nays 19, all Democrats but one. 
 
 When this bill reached the House, Hon. Thomas B. 
 Reed, of Maine, on February 26th, reported a new rule 
 in order to secure its consideration. Mr. Carlisle raised 
 the (question of ])riority, but the House agreed to con- 
 sider the rule by a vote of 134 to 125, and after a 
 protracted parliamentary contest the I'ule was adopted, 
 and the bill was taken up. On February 27th a motiou 
 
 62 
 
by Mr. Kelley to non-concur in the Senate amendments 
 and ask for a Committee of Conference was asrreed to — 
 yeas, 147; nays, 111. The Speaker announced as con- 
 ferees on part of the House, Messrs. Kelley, j\IcKinley, 
 Haskell, Randall and Carlisle. Mr. Randall asked to 
 to be excused, and after Mr. Morrison and Mr. Tucker 
 had also declined to serve, Mr. Speer, of Georgia, was 
 appointed. The Senate appointed as its conferees 
 Messrs. Sherman, Aldrich, Beck and Baj^ard. The two 
 latter asked to be excused, and after various appoint- 
 ments by the Chair from among the Democratic mem- 
 bers, all of whom declined to serve, Messrs. McDill, 
 of Iowa, and Mahone, of Virginia, were selected. This 
 was on March 1st, so that the session was within two 
 days of its close. On March 3rd the Committee of Con- 
 ference reported, agreeing on the passage of the bill, 
 and this report was adopted by a vote of 152 to 116. 
 Eighteen Democrats voted with the Republicans in the 
 affirmative ; fourteen Republicans with the Democrats 
 in the negative. The meml)ers from the New England 
 States voted almost unanimously for it — twenty-four to 
 one ; those from the Middle States, for it by forty-nine 
 to twenty-two; from the West, for it by sixty-one to 
 thirty-three; from the South, against it by fifteen to 
 fifty-seven ; and from the Pacific States, neither for nor 
 against it, by three to three. A great objection to 
 the bill, from an agricultural standpoint, was the 
 heavy reduction on wool, and this caused a majority of 
 the Ohio delegation, although three to one Kepublican, 
 to vote against it. President Arthur gave it his imme- 
 diate approval, and it went into effect on July 1, 1883. 
 The House of Representatives was strongly Demo- 
 
 63 
 
cratic in the Forty-eiglitli Congress, that party having 
 elected 196 of the 325 members. It organized by elect- 
 ing Mr. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker, and by his 
 appointment Mr. Morrison became Chairman of the 
 Ways and Means Committee, although Mr. Randall had 
 been the ranking Democratic member in the previous 
 Congress. 
 
 On March 11, 1884, Mr. Morrison reported a bill "to 
 reduce import and war tariff taxes," providing a hori- 
 zontal reduction of twenty per cent, upon the list of 
 dutiable articles, except those embraced in two schedules 
 — spirits and silks. It enlai'ged the free list by exempt- 
 ing from duty salt, timber, and certain products of wool. 
 On April 15th, the House, then in Committee of the 
 Whole, on revenue measures, voted — by 140 to 138 — • 
 to take up this bill. General debate continued from 
 day to day until May 6th, when a motion by Hon. 
 George L. Coni'erse, of Ohio, to " strike out the enact- 
 ing clause" was agreed to — j'eas, 156; nays, 151. In 
 this action the House concurred by a vote of 159 to 
 155. But two Republicans voted with the Democrats 
 in the negative, while forty-one Democrats and three 
 Nationalists, under the leadership of Mr. Randall, united 
 with the Republicans to defeat the bill. 
 
 On April 7th, Mr. Converse moved to suspend the 
 rules and pass a bill " to restore the rates of duty on 
 imported wool." This had been demanded by the plat- 
 forms of both parties in Ohio, and by a joint resolution 
 unanimously adopted by the Sixty-sixth General Assem- 
 bly of Ohio, on January 23, 1884. After a brief debate 
 the motion was disagreed to — yeas, 119 ; nays, 126 — 
 not the requisite two-thirds in the affirmative. It 
 
 64 
 
secured the support of seventy-niue Republicans and 
 forty Democrats, and was opposed by twelve Repub- 
 licans and one hundred and fourteen Democrats. Every 
 Ohio member voting, exce2:)t one, gave it his support. 
 Mr. Randall favored the motion, but it was strenuously 
 opposed by Messrs. Morrison, Mills, Blount, Brecken- 
 ridge. Cox, Hurd, and other active "tariff reformers." 
 On the same day the House adopted a resolution by 
 Mr. Thompson, of Kentucky, declaring "it unwise and 
 inexpedient for the present Congress to abolish or re- 
 duce the tax upon spirits distilled from grain " — yeas, 
 179; nays, 83. Later in the session, on June 21st, Mr. 
 Tucker, of Virginia, moved that the House "go into 
 Committee of the Whole to take up revenue bills," the 
 pending measure being a bill " to repeal the tax on fruit 
 brandies." This was agreed to — yeas, 95; nays, 119 — 
 and a similar motion was defeated, on July 3rd, by 80 
 to 132. 
 
 On May 19th, Mr. Hurd moved to suspend the rules 
 and " abolish the discriminating duty on works of art 
 — the production of foreign and of American artists." 
 This was disagreed to — yeas, 52; nays, 178 — but the 
 vote was not on party lines. 
 
 I The House, on the same day, passed without division 
 a bill " to prohibit the importation of contract labor," 
 but it was not considered by the Senate at this session. 
 Constitutional amendments were offered in the House 
 by Hon. William H. Fiedler, of New Jersey, " on prison 
 labor," and by Hon. Robert T. Davis, of Massachusetts, 
 " on the hours of labor in textile-fabric manufactories," 
 but neither was adopted. 
 
 At the Republican National Convention of 1884 the 
 
 65 
 
platform reported by the Committee on Resolutions was 
 unanimously adopted. Four of its planks were devoted 
 to the tariff, as follows : 
 
 4. It is the first dutyof a good government to pro- 
 tect the rights and promote the interests of its own 
 people. The largest diversity of industry is the most 
 productive of general prosperity, and of the comfort and 
 independence of the people. We therefore demand that 
 the imposition of duties on foreign imports shall be 
 made, not for revenue only, but that in raising the 
 requisite revenues for the Government, such duty shall 
 be so levied as to afford security to our diversified 
 industries and protection to the rights and wages of the 
 laborer ; to the end that active and intelligent labor, as 
 well as capital, may have its just reward, and the labor- 
 ing man his full share in the National prosperity. 
 
 5. Against the so-called economic system of the Demo- 
 cratic party, which would degrade our labor to the 
 foreign standard, we enter our most earnest protest. 
 The Democratic party has failed completely to relieve 
 the people of the burden of unnecessary taxation by a 
 wise reduction of the surplus. 
 
 6. The llepublican party pledges itself to coiTect the 
 irregularities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus, not 
 by the vicious and indiscriminating process of horizon- 
 tal reduction, but by such methods as will relieve the 
 taxpayer without injuring the laborer or the great pro- 
 ductive interests of the country. 
 
 7. We recognize the importance of sheep-husbandry 
 in the United States, the serious depression which it is 
 now experiencing, and the danger threatening its future 
 prosperity ; and we therefore respect the demands of 
 
 66 
 
the representatives of this important agricultural inter- 
 est for a readjustment of duties upon foreign wool, in 
 order that such industry shall have full and adequate 
 protection. 
 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, of Maine, in his letter of 
 acceptance of the Republican nomination for the Presi- 
 dency, dated at Augusta, July 15, 1884, discussed the 
 tariff question with his accustomed vigor and brilliancy. 
 He said : 
 
 " Revenue laws are in their very nature subject to 
 frequent revision, in order that they may be adapted to 
 changes and modifications of trade. The Republican 
 party is not contending for the pernjanency of any par- 
 ticular statute. The issue between the two parties does 
 not have reference to a specific law. It is far broader 
 and far deeper. It involves a principle of wide appli- 
 cation and beneficent influence against a theory which 
 we believe to be unsound in conception and inevitably 
 hurtful in pra»ctice. In the many tariff revisions which 
 have been necessary for the past twenty-three years, or 
 which may hereafter become necessary, the Republican 
 party has maintained and will maintain the policy of 
 protection to American industry, while our opponents 
 insist upon a revision which practically destroys that 
 policy. The issue is thus distinct, well-defined, and 
 unavoidable. The pending election may determine the 
 fate of protection for a generation. The overthrow of 
 the policy means a large and permanent reduction in 
 the wages of the American laborer besides involving 
 the loss of vast amounts of American capital invested 
 in manufacturing enterprises. The value of the pres- 
 ent revenue system to the people of the United States 
 
 67 
 
is not a matter of theory, and I shall submit no argu- 
 ment to sustain it. I only in\dte attention to certain 
 facts of official record which seem to constitute a 
 demonstration. 
 
 " In the Census of 1 850 an effort was made, for the 
 first time in our history, to obtain a valuation of all the 
 property in the United States. The attempt was in a 
 large degree unsuccessful. Partly from lack of time, 
 partly from prejudice from many who thought the 
 inquiries foreshadowed a new scheme of taxation, the 
 retui-ns were incomplete and unsatisfactory. Little 
 more was done than to consolidate the local valuation 
 used in the States for purposes of assessment, and that, 
 as everybody knows, differs widely from a complete 
 exhibit of all the property. 
 
 "In the Census of 1860, however, the work was done 
 with great thoroughness — the distinction between 
 ' assessed ' value and ' true ' value being carefully 
 observed. The grand result was that the ' true value ' 
 of all the property in the States and Territories (exclud- 
 ing slaves) amounted to $1-1,000,000,000. This aggre- 
 gate was the net result of the labor and savings of all 
 the people within the area of the United States from 
 the time the first British colonist landed in 1607 down 
 to the year 1860. It re]3resented the fruit of the toil 
 of two hundred and fifty years. 
 
 "After 1860 the business of the country was encour- 
 aged and developed by a protective tariff. At the end 
 of twenty years the total property of the United States, 
 as returned by the Census of 1880, amounted to the 
 enormous aggregate of 114,000,000,000. This great 
 result was attained notwithstanding the fact that 
 
 68 
 
countless millions had in the interval been wasted in 
 the progress of a bloody war. It thus appears that 
 while our population between 1860 and 1880 increased 
 sixty per cent., the aggregate property of the country 
 increased two hundred and fourteen per cent., showing 
 a vastly enhanced wealth per capita among the people. 
 Thirty thousand millions of dollars had been added 
 during these twenty years to the present wealth of the 
 Nation. 
 
 "These results are regarded by the older nations of 
 the world as phenomenal. That our country should 
 surmount the peril and the cost of a gigantic war, and 
 for an entire period of twenty years make an average 
 gain to its wealth of $125,000,000 per month, surpasses 
 the experience of all other nations, ancient or modern. 
 Even the opponents of the present revenue system do 
 not pretend that in the whole history of civilization 
 any parallel can be found to the National progress of 
 the United States since the accession of the Repub- 
 lican party to power. 
 
 "The period between 1860 and to-day has not been 
 one of material prosperity only. At no time in the 
 history of the United States has there been such 
 progress in the moral and philanthropic field. Reli- 
 gious and charitable institutions, schools, seminaries 
 and colleges, have been founded and endowed far 
 more generously than at any previous time in our 
 history. Greater and more varied relief has been 
 extended to human suffering, and the entire progress 
 of the country in wealth has been accompanied and 
 dignified by a broadening and elevation of our National 
 character as a people." 
 
 69 
 
" Our opponents find fault that our revenue system 
 produces a surplus. But they should not forget that 
 the law has given a specific purpose to which all of the 
 surplus is profitably and honorably applied — the 
 reduction of the public debt, and the consequent relief 
 of the burden of taxation. No dollar has been wasted, 
 and the only extravagance with which the party stands 
 charged is the generous pensioning of soldiers, sailors, 
 and their families — an extravagance which embodies 
 the highest form of justice in the recognition and 
 payment of a sacred debt. When reduction of taxation 
 is to be made, the Republican party can be trusted 
 to accomplish it in such form as will most effectively 
 aid the industries of the Nation." 
 
 At the Democratic National Convention of 1884 the 
 platform was adopted without division, after the rejec- 
 tion of a minority report offered by General Benjamin 
 F. Butler, of Massachusetts, by the test vote 714 to 97. 
 The planks relating to the tariff were as follows : 
 
 3. The Democracy pledges itself to purify the 
 Administration from corruption, to restore economy, 
 to revive respect for'law, and to reduce taxation to the 
 lowest limit consistent with due regard to th e preserva- 
 tion of the faith of the Nation to its creditors and 
 pensioners. Knowing full well, however, that legislation 
 affecting the operations of the people should be cautious 
 and conservative in method, not in advance of public 
 opinion, but responsive to its demands, the Democratic 
 party is pledged to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness 
 to all interests. 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 taxes collected at the 
 Custom Houses 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 
 involved. The process of the reform must be subject 
 in the execution to this plain dictate of justice — all 
 taxation shall be limited to the requirements of 
 economical government. The necessary reduction in 
 taxation can and. must be effected without depriving 
 American labor of the ability to compete successfully 
 with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of 
 duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of 
 jDroduction which may exist in consequence of the 
 higher rate of wages prevailing in this country. 
 Sufficient i-evenue to pay all the expenses of the Federal 
 government economically administered, including pen- 
 sions, interest, and principal of the public debt, can be 
 had under our present system of taxation from Custom 
 House taxes upon fewer imported articles, bearing 
 heaviest on articles of luxury, and bearing lightest 
 on articles of necessity. We therefore denounce the 
 abuses of the existing tariff; and subject to the 
 preceding limitations, we demand that Federal taxation 
 shall be exclusively for public purposes, and shall not 
 exceed the needs of the Government economically 
 administered. 
 
 i. The system of direct taxation known as the "in- 
 ternal revenue " is a war tax, and so long as the law 
 continues the money derived therefrom should be 
 sacredly devoted to the relief of the people from the 
 
remaming burdens of the war, and be made a fund tO' 
 defray the expense of the care and comfort of worthy 
 soldiers in line of duty in the wars of the Republic, and 
 for the payment of such ]3ensions as Congress may from 
 time to time grant to such soldiers, a like fund for the 
 sailors having been already provided ; and any surplus 
 should be paid into the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. Grover* Cleveland, of New York, the Democratic 
 candidate for President, in his letter of acceptance, dated 
 at Albany, August 18, 1884, made no reply to the ar- 
 gument of Mr. Blaine that our unparalleled progress as 
 a Nation was in great measure due to the protective sys- 
 tem He merely recited the fact that "true American 
 sentiment recognizes the dignity of labor, and that 
 honor lies in honest toil." There was a marked absence 
 of all reference to the economic policy which at that 
 time Avas becoming so direct an issue between the two 
 great parties. 
 
 Both parties entered upon the campaign with earnest- 
 ness and enthusiasm, but while the Republicans car- 
 ried most of the great States of the North by decisive 
 pluralities, they failed in the pivotal States of Indiana 
 and New York, and Mr. Cleveland was elected. Had 
 any one of a number of misfortunes been averted in the 
 State of New York, where the result hinged upon 1,047 
 votes in a total of 1,171,312, its electoral vote would 
 have been cast for Mr. Blaine, thereby securing his 
 election. It is not our purpose to inquire into the 
 causes of Mr. Blaine's defeat, but it was in no sense due 
 to his masterly advocacy of the doctrine of protection, 
 for in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and other 
 States, the leading orators of the Democratic party 
 
aimed constantly to show that their party and candi- 
 dates were as firmly committed to its support as the 
 Republicans. 
 
 The House of Representatives in the Forty-ninth' 
 Congress, elected in 1884, was strongly Democratic^ 
 that party electing one hundred and eighty-four of the 
 three hundred and twenty-five members. Mr. Car- 
 lisle was elected Speaker, and Mr. Morrison appointed 
 Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The 
 Senate was Republican, by forty-two of the seventy-six 
 members. Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio, was elected 
 President pro tern., and Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, ap- 
 pointed Chairman of the Finance Committee. 
 
 In his last annaal message to Congress, on December 
 1, 1884, President Arthur again recommended "the ab- 
 olition of all excise taxes except those relating to dis- 
 tilled spirits. " On February 18, 1885, the Senate 
 passed the bill, as amended, which had passed the 
 House at the first session, " to prohibit the importation 
 of foreign contract labor." The amendments were con- 
 curred in by the House, without division, on February 
 23rd, and the law was approved by the President on 
 the 26th. This ended a long and somewhat acrimonious 
 contest in favor of the position assumed by the friends 
 of protection. 
 
 In his inaugural address of March 4, 1885, Mr. Cleve- 
 land demanded that our finances should be " established 
 upon such a sound and sensible basis as shall secure the 
 safety and confidence of business interests and make 
 the wages of labor sure and steady ; and that our system 
 of revenue shall be so adjusted as to relieve the people 
 from unnecessary taxation, having a due regard to the- 
 
 73 
 
interests of capital invested and workingmen employed 
 in American industries, and preventing the accumula- 
 tion of a surplus in the Treasury to tempt extravagance 
 and waste." 
 
 There was nothing in this to indicate a departure from 
 the position of any of his Republican predecessors. 
 
 Again, in his first annual message to Congress, on 
 December 8, 1885, he said : 
 
 " The fact that our revenues are in excess of the act- 
 ual needs of an economical administration of the Gov- 
 ernment, justifies a reduction in the amount exacted 
 from the people for its support. Our Government is 
 but the means established by the will of a free people, 
 by which certain principles are applied which they 
 liave adopted for their benefit and protection ; and it 
 is never better administrated, and its true spirit is never 
 better observed, than -^vhen the people's taxation for its 
 support is scrupulously^ limited to the actual necessity 
 of expenditure, and distributed according to a just and 
 equitable plan. The proposition with which we 
 have to deal is the reduction of the revenue received by 
 the Government, and indirectly paid by the people 
 fi'om customs dues. The question of free trade is not 
 involved, nor is there now any occasion for the general 
 discussion of the wisdom or expediency of a protective 
 system Justice and fairness dictate that in any modi- 
 fication of our present laws relating to revenue, the in. 
 dustries and interests which have been encouraged by 
 such laws, and in which our citizens have large invest- 
 ments, should not be ruthlessly injured or destroyed. 
 
 "We should also deal with the subject in such manner 
 as to protect the interests of American labor, which is 
 
 74 
 
the capital of our woi'kingmen ; its stability and proper 
 remuneration furnish the most justifiable pretext for a 
 protective policy. Within these limitations a certain 
 reduction should be made in our customs revenue. The 
 amount of such reduction having been determined, the 
 inquiry follows, where can it best be remitted and what 
 articles can best be released from duty, in the interest 
 of our citizens. I think the reduction should be made 
 in the revenue derived from a tax upon the imported 
 necessaries of life. We thus directly lessen the cost of 
 living in every family of the land, and release to the 
 people in every humble home a larger measure of the 
 rewards of frugal industry." 
 
 On February 15, 1886, Mr. Morrison introduced a 
 bill " to reduce tariff taxes " which was referred to the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, and by it favorably 
 recommended, as amended, on April 12th. By this 
 measure, timber, sawed boards, hubs, staves, lath, 
 shingles, clapboards, logs, salt, fish, wool, flax, tow, 
 hemp, jute and sisal-grass were placed upon the free 
 list, subject to the condition that no export duty should 
 be charged upon them by the country from whence 
 imported. The duties on cotton cloth, thread, cord, 
 stockings, laces, embroideries, flax, hemp, and jute- 
 yarns, linens, cables or cordage, woolen cloth, shawls, 
 flannels, blankets, yarns, clothing of all sorts, carpets, 
 and a great variety of similar domestic products, were 
 lai'gely reduced, and the duty on sugar decreased ten 
 per cent. The bill also included certain modifications 
 of the administrative features of the law of 1883, which 
 had originally been offered as a separate measure by 
 Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York. 
 
On June 17tli, Mr. Morrison moved that the House 
 Tesolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
 consideration of this, the general tariff bill, but his 
 motion was lost — yeas, 140 ; nays, 157. The affirma- 
 tive vote was cast entirely by Democrats except four. 
 The negative vote included thirty-five Democrats, while 
 thirteen Democrats and fourteen Republicans were 
 either paired or did not vote. The opposition forces 
 in the Democratic ranks were led by Mr. Randall to 
 whose influence the summary defeat of the bill was 
 largely attributed. 
 
 On June 28th, Mr. Randall introduced a bill in- 
 tended as a comj)romise between the existing law and 
 the reduction of duties already attempted. It was 
 estimated by its author that this bill would reduce 
 internal revenue taxes $26,407,088 ; customs duties on 
 articles still left dutiable, $7,044,452 ; and add to the 
 free list articles which paid a duty of $1,526,124 an- 
 nually, or a total reduction of $34,977,665. The Com- 
 mittee on Ways and Means reported this bill adversely, 
 on July 10th, and this ended all attempts at tariff 
 changes for the session. 
 
 The Labor Arbitration Bill which had jiassed the 
 House on April 3, 1886, was passed by the Senate on 
 February 28, 1887, without amendment, or division, 
 but failed to become a law because it was not acted 
 upon by the President. On the same day the Senate 
 passed, without opposition, the bill to prohibit the 
 employment of convict labor in the erection or con- 
 struction of public buildings, or other public works 
 or in the preparation of materials to be used in such 
 buildings or works, which had passed the House on 
 
 re 
 
March 9, 1886. This also failed by reason of Presi- 
 dent Cleveland not acting upon it. 
 
 An amendment was offered, and adopted by the 
 Senate, to an appropriation of $94,000 for the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture, on June 10th, which required the 
 purchase and use of American-made machinery in the 
 manufacture of sugar from sorghum and sugar-cane, so 
 far as authorized by that Department. To this the 
 House at first non-concurred ; but, subsequently, on 
 June 29th, the report of the Committee of Conference 
 was agreed to, providing that such machinery should 
 be wholly of domestic material, except so much of it as 
 was then under contract, not exceeding $10,000 in 
 value, or such of it as could not be built in the 
 United States within the period in which it was needed. 
 The amendment was important as establishing a princi- 
 ple which ought never to have been seriously contro- 
 verted. 
 
 At the second session, Mr. Morrison again attempted 
 to have his bill considered by the House in Committee 
 of the "Whole. His motion to that effect, on December 
 18, 1886, was defeated — yeas, 148; nays, 157. Six 
 Republicans voted in the negative ; twenty -six Demo- 
 crats in the affirmative ; and five Republicans and four- 
 teen Democrats did not vote. 
 
 Hon. Frank Hiscock, of New York, on December 
 20th, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill regu- 
 lating the duties on leaf tobacco. The motion was lost 
 — yeas, 90; nays, 164 ; not voting, 67. 
 
 Hon. John S. Henderson, of North Carolina, on 
 March 3, 1887, the closing day of the session, attempted 
 to secure a suspension of the rules and the passage of a 
 
 77 
 
bill modifying the internal revenue laws, relating to 
 the sale of leaf tobacco, and for other purposes. The 
 motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote — 
 yeas 139, all Democrats but nine ; nays, 112, all Repub- 
 licans but five, while sixty-eight members did not vote. 
 
 The Democratic majority in the House of Represen- 
 tatives in the Fiftieth Congress, elected in 1886, was 
 materially reduced, that party electing but 169 of the 
 325 members. Mr. Carlisle was re-elected Speaker, and 
 Mr. Mills became Chairman of the Ways and Means 
 Committee. The Senate remained Republican by two 
 votes, with Hon. John J. Ingalls, of Kansas, as Presi- 
 dent ^ro tern., and Mr. Morrill, Chairman of the Finance 
 Committee. 
 
 The attention not only of this Congress, but of the 
 whole country, was sharply arrested by Mr. Cleveland's 
 third annual message, of December 6, 1887. It was an 
 extraordinary document and in direct contrast to his 
 two preceding annual messages. It was largely devoted 
 to a consideration of the tariff, upon which he was 
 thought to have previously held a conservative posi- 
 tion. In the course of his recommendations, Mr. Cleve- 
 land observed : 
 
 " 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 
 measui-es the tax paid by those who purchase for use 
 these imported articles. Many of these things, however, 
 are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the 
 
 78 
 
duties now levied upou 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 impor- 
 ted goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens 
 that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, 
 millions of our people, who never used 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 Avhich the duty adds- 
 to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay 
 the duty charged thereon into the public Treasury ; but 
 the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic ar- 
 ticles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately 
 equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. This ref- 
 erence 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 im- 
 pose a burden upou those who consume domestic pro- 
 ducts as well as those who consume imported articles, 
 and thus create a tax upon all our people." 
 
 And again : " It is a condition which confronts us 
 — ^not a theory. Relief from this condition may in- 
 volve a slis^ht reduction of the advantao;es which we 
 award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal 
 of such advantages should not be contemplated. The 
 (j[uestion of free trade is absolutely irrelevant ; and the 
 persistent claim, made in certain quarters, that all ef- 
 forts to relieve the people from unjust and unnecessary 
 taxation are schemes of so-called 'free-traders' is mis- 
 chievous and far removed from any consideration for 
 
 79 
 
the public good. The simple and plain duty wMch 
 we owe to tlie people is to reduce taxation to the neces- 
 sary expenses of an economical operation of the Govern- 
 ment, and to restore to the business of the country the 
 money which we hold in the Treasury through the per- 
 version of governmental powers. These things can and 
 should be done with safety to all our industries, with- 
 out danger to the opportunity for remunerative labor 
 which our workingmen have, and with benefit to them 
 and all our people, by cheapening their means of sub- 
 sistence and increasinsc the measure of their comforts." 
 But however much the country was startled at Mr. 
 Cleveland's position, his views were not at once contro- 
 verted by any of the great leaders of Congress, nor did 
 the press challenge the fairness or accuracy of his state- 
 ments in such a way as to command the attention of the 
 public. Indeed, it ^vsLS reserved for Mr. Blaine, then 
 traveling in Europe, to do this in a manner that dis- 
 played all that marvelous brilliancy and sagacity in 
 leaderglaip for which he had so long been distinguished. 
 In a letter to Hon. B. F. Jones, of Pittsburg, then 
 Chairman of the Republican National Committee, dated 
 at Florence, Italy, January 25, 1888, he declined to allow 
 his name to be again presented as a candidate for 
 the Presidency, then hastily but clearly pointed out 
 the vastly improved prospects for party success, and 
 strongly asserted the impregnable position of the Re- 
 publican party upon the tariff question, in the combat 
 h) which the President had so boldly challenged them. 
 He recited but plain historical facts, which were after- 
 ■ward abundantly proven by the testimony of the most 
 prominent Democrats in Congress, when he said : 
 
 so 
 
" Another feature of the political situation should 
 inspire Republicans with irresistible strength. The 
 present National administration was elected with, if not 
 upon, the repeated assertions of its leading supporters 
 in every protection State tliat no issue on the tariff was 
 involved. However earnestly Republicans urged that 
 question as the one of controlling importance in the 
 campaign, they were met by the Democratic leaders and 
 journals with persistent evasion, concealment, and de- 
 nial. This resource the President has fortunately re- 
 moved. The issue which the Republicans maintained 
 and the Democrats avoided in 1884 has been prom- 
 inently and specifically brought forward by the Demo- 
 cratic President, and can not be hidden out of sight 
 in 1888. The country is now in the enjoyment of an 
 industrial system which, in a quarter of a century, has 
 assured a larger National growth, a more rapid accumu- 
 lation, and a broader distribution of wealth than were 
 ever before known to history. The American people 
 will now be openly and formally asked to decide 
 whether this system shall be recklessly abandoned and 
 a new trial be made of an old experiment which has 
 uniformly led to National embarrassment and wide- 
 spread individual distress. On the result of such an 
 issue, fairly presented to the popular judgment, there is 
 no room for doubt. 
 
 " A closer observation of the conditions of life among 
 the older nations gives one a more intense desire that 
 the American people shall make no mistake in choos- 
 ing the policy which inspires with hope and crowns it 
 with dignity, which gives safety to capital and protects 
 its increase, which secures political power to every citi- 
 
 81 
 
zen, comfort and culture to every home. To this end, 
 not less earnestly and more directly as a private citizen 
 than as a public candidate, I shall devote myself, with 
 the confident belief that the administration of the Gov- 
 ernment vrill be restored to the party which has demon- 
 strated the purpose and power to wield it for the unity 
 and the honor of the Republic ; for the prosperity and 
 progress of the people." 
 
 Both parties were now aroused to the most intense 
 earnestness, and, almost as a natural and inevitable con- 
 sequence, what is probably the most remarkable Con- 
 gressional tariff debate in our history was at once begun. 
 A bill entitled "A bill to reduce taxation and simplify 
 the laws in relation to the collection of revenue " was 
 reported to the House by Mr. Mills, Chairman of the 
 Ways and Means Committee, on April 2, 1888. It was 
 accompanied by both majority and minority reports; 
 the former signed by the Democratic members of the 
 Committee and submitted by Mr. Mills, and the latter 
 by the Republican members and submitted by Mr. 
 McKinley. The general debate was opened on April 
 17th by Mr. Mills in support of the bill and he was an- 
 swered by the veteran economist, William D. Kelley, who 
 opposed it. This continued uninteruptedly until May 
 1 9th, when it was closed by arguments in favor of the bill 
 by Speaker Carlisle and against it by Mr. Reed, of Maine. 
 Then came the debate under the five-minute rule, which 
 proceeded, under the inspiration and encouragement of 
 the Presidential campaign then pending, with great 
 vigor and earnestness from May 31st to July 19th. 
 Congress had never before known anything like it. 
 Hon. William M. Springer, of Illinois, stated at its. 
 
 82 
 
close that "twenty-three day and eight evening sessions 
 had been consumed in the debate, during which the 
 bill received the exclusive consideration of the House 
 for one hundred and eleven hours and fifty-four min- 
 utes." The time, it appeared, had been about evenly 
 divided between the speakers of the two great parties — 
 " fifty-six hours and eighteen minutes were allotted to 
 the Democrats and fifty-five hours and thirty-six min- 
 utes to the Republicans." In all some " one hundred 
 and fifty-one speeches were made in the general debate," 
 and in that upon the paragraphs separately, "twenty 
 days, or one hundred and twenty-eight hours and ten 
 minntes " were consumed in fully as many speeches 
 more. In other words, fifty-one days were devoted to 
 the bill from beginning to end of the remarkable de- 
 bate, two hundred and forty hours of actual talk in- 
 dulged in by the members of the House alone. If to 
 this be added the particulars of the debate in the Sen- 
 ate, some faint idea can be formed of the patient, close 
 and searching attention Congress has given to the de- 
 tails of tariff legislation during recent years, and of the 
 immense amount of work involved in their intelligent 
 consideration. No one seems to have calculated the 
 exact volume of the speeches on " the Mills bill, " so 
 called, but it is safe to say that were all printed in full 
 they would easily fill twenty to thirty volumes the size 
 of a quarto or unabridged dictionary. 
 
 It would be impossible to attempt a synopsis of 
 even the principal speeches in this protracted debate. 
 One or two points in a few of the vast number will 
 alone be mentioned. Mr. Mills, in his opening speech, 
 observed that he had " gone through with a number of 
 
 83 
 
articles taken from the reports made by manufacturers 
 thiemselves, and liad shown that the tariff (the protec- 
 tive tariff of 1883) was not framed for the benefit of 
 the laborer, or that if it was so intended by those who 
 framed it, the benefit never reaches the laborer — not a 
 dollar of it. The working-people are hired in the mar- 
 ket at the lowest rates at which their services can be 
 had, and all the boodle that has been granted by these 
 tariff bills goes into the pockets of the manufacturers. 
 It builds up palaces ; it concentrates wealth ; it 
 makes great and powerful magnates; but it distri- 
 butes none of its benificence in the homes of our labor- 
 ing poor." 
 
 In reply to this, the testimony of the workingmen 
 themselves was presented, especially the testimony of 
 those who had worked in the same branches of in- 
 dustry on both sides of the Atlantic, and whose oppor- 
 tunity for information from experience in both 
 countries made their evidence not only interesting and 
 important, but absolutely incontrovertible. The bur- 
 den of such testimony was that the American working- 
 man ^vas from two to four times better paid for the 
 same labor than his European competitor, while 
 as against his Asiatic or Australasian competitor there 
 was scarcely any comparison possible, so great were 
 the advantages in favor of the laborers of the United 
 States. Turning then to the testimony of our manu- 
 facturers, it was shown by a letter from William 
 Barbour, the great thread manufacturer of Paterson, 
 New Jersey, that while he was running factories 
 in both countries, so great was the difference in wages 
 that his 1,400 American laborers were paid, in 1888, 
 
 84 
 
nearly the exact sum whicli his 2,900 laborers 
 were paid for the same work in Ireland. The Singer 
 Sewing Machine Company maintained a factory in 
 Glasgow as well as in ISTew Jersey, and though it em- 
 ployed in Scotland one-third more hands than it 
 did in America, yet its pay-roll in Europe was only 
 half as great as in the United States — the actual 
 figures being in Scotland $18,000 and in New Jersey 
 135,000. The Boston Thread and Twine Company 
 also certified that "they were in the United States 
 paying three times the average wages paid for similar 
 labor throughout Europe." But the most conclusive 
 testimony was a voluntary statement, in a petition to 
 Congress, from the representatives of at least half a mill- 
 ion workmen of the United States, in the Amalgamated 
 Association of Iron and Steel and Glass Workers of 
 America. They said, impressively : " We know that we 
 receive our share of the benefits of protection on 
 the industries we represent. We therefore emphatically 
 protest against any reduction of the duties that Avill 
 bring us on a level ^vith the low price paid for labor in 
 Europe. We insist upon the maintenance of a strong 
 protective tariff, in order to maintain an American 
 standard of wages for American workingmen." 
 
 Hon. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, in an argument, 
 unique, original and effective, gave a new version of a 
 story from J2sop, with which the country was soon 
 familiar. "Where," he asked, "is the best market in 
 the world ? Where the people have the most money 
 to spend. Where have the people the most money to 
 spend? Right here in the United States of America 
 after twenty-seven years of protectionist rule. And 
 
 85 
 
you are asked to give up such a market for the markets 
 of the world. Why, the history of such a transaction 
 was told twenty-four hundred years ago. It is a 
 classic. You will find it in the words of ^sop, the 
 fabulist : 
 
 " Once there was a dog. He was a nice little dog. 
 Nothing the matter with him except a few foolish free- 
 trade ideas in his head. He was trotting along happy 
 as the day, for he had in his mouth a nice shoulder of 
 succulent mutton. By and by he came to a stream 
 bridged by a plank. He trotted along, and, looking 
 over the side of the plank, he saw the markets of the 
 world, and dived for them. A minute after he was 
 crawling up the bank the wettest, the sickest, the nasti- 
 est, and the most muttonless dog that ever swam 
 ashore." 
 
 Mr. Carlisle spoke on the same subject, but in a quite 
 different vein. He addressed himself to the matter of 
 the " home market " as follows : 
 
 "In 1880 there were $215,000,000 invested in cotton 
 manufactures, and there were employed in that industrj^ 
 172,554 hands. To work up our present production of 
 ]"aw cotton would require an investment in the manu- 
 facture of $660,000,000, and the employment of 517,662 
 hands. If we have been more than one hundred years, 
 part of the time under very high tariffs, in so developing 
 our cotton manufactures as to enable them to take one- 
 third of our product at European prices, how 
 many more centuries will be required to enable them to 
 consume the whole product at prices fixed by competi- 
 tion here at home 'i When gentlemen have solved this 
 problem to the satisfaction of the American cotton- 
 
 86 
 
grower, lie may be able to listen with patience to the 
 argument by which they attempt to convince him of 
 the immense advantages of a home market that will 
 never exist." 
 
 Mr. Randall, although in failing health, felt con- 
 strained to speak upon and criticise the pending bill 
 very sharply. It was in the course of these remarks 
 that Mr. Randall made his much quoted and unanswer- 
 able argument in favor of sustaining our home markets. 
 ■"If," he reasoned, "the farmer ceases to buy the pro- 
 duct of the manufacturers, he will certainly cease to sell 
 to them, but must sell his products in the market where 
 he buys what he consumes himself. Suppose last year 
 we had manufactured a thousand millions' worth less 
 than we did and had gone abroad for these products, ex- 
 pecting to pay for them with agricultural products, could 
 a thousand millions more of agricultural products have 
 been sold abroad at the price which products brought 
 here ? We sold all the wheat and corn and meat pro- 
 ducts that Europe could take at the price that pre- 
 vailed. Who can tell at what prices Europe would have 
 taken five hundred millions or even one hundred 
 millions more of our agricultural products than she did 
 take? The mere statement of the proposition is 
 enough to disclose the error on which it is founded, and 
 shows the importance of uniting manufactures with 
 agriculture, or, as Jefferson states it, 'putting the manu- 
 facturer by the side of the farmer.' In fact, both must 
 in our country depend almost exclusively on the home 
 market. It is folly, if not a crime, to attempt to change 
 it in these respects. It would bring ruin and bank- 
 ruptcy without the possibility of having such a result 
 
accomplished. The greater the diversity of industries 
 in any country, the greater the wealth-producing power 
 of the people, and the more there is for labor and 
 capital to divide, and the more independent that 
 country becomes." 
 
 The House came to a vote on July 21st, and the bill 
 was passed — yeas 162, all Democrats but three; nays 
 149, all Republicans but four. Fourteen members did 
 not vote. Amono; these was Mr. Randall, who was 
 paired with a Democrat who favored the bill. The 
 sectional character of the proposed legislation is ap- 
 parent from the vote on its passage. New England 
 cast seven yeas, seventeen nays ; the Middle States, 
 yeas twenty-eight, nays forty-six ; the Western, yeas 
 forty-tvvo, nays sixty-eight; the Southern, yeas eighty- 
 three, nays twelve; and the Pacific, yeas two, nays 
 six. 
 
 The bill was referred in the Senate to the Committee 
 on Finance, which prepared a substitute which was re- 
 ported on October 8th, but no attempt was made to 
 push it to a vote before adjournment. The Senate 
 substitute followed the lines indicated by the Chicago 
 platform very closely. It sought a reduction of the 
 revenue of from §60,000,000 to $70,000,000, but in do- 
 ing this maintained the protective features of the law 
 of 1883. Tobacco was made free; the tax on alcohol 
 used in the arts greatly reduced, and the tariff on sugar 
 cut in two. It has been said that the text of "the 
 Mills bill " formed the main issue in the Presidential 
 canvass of 1888, and its provisions were certainly very 
 fully discussed both in Congress and throughout the 
 country. Congress adjourned on October 20th, after 
 
having been continuously in session for nearly eleven 
 months. 
 
 It was at this session that Congress passed the act of 
 October 1, 1888, to prohibit Chinese immigration — a 
 law of direct and great importance to all American 
 laborers. Hon. William L. Scott, of Pennsylvania, in- 
 troduced the bill on September 3rd, and it was at once 
 passed by the House without a division. The Senate 
 acted with similar promptness. On September 7th,. 
 Hon. Arthur P. Gorman, of Maryland, moved that it be 
 referred to the Committee on Foreign Pelations, but 
 his motion was lost — yeas nineteen. Democrats sixteen. 
 Republicans three; nays twenty. Republicans sixteen. 
 Democrats four. The bill was then passed — yeas thirty 
 seven. Republicans nineteen, Democrats eighteen ; nays 
 three, two Republicans and one Democrat. The meas- 
 ure was probably presented as a matter of party ex- 
 igency in the effort to place the Administration right 
 with the laborers of the country, but if such was its 
 purpose, it f;iiled entirely to injure the Republican 
 minority, or place the party in a false position before 
 the country. 
 
 One of the minor measures affecting labor, passed at 
 this session, was an amendment to the Urgent De- 
 ficiency Bill offered on February 17, 1888, by Hon 
 John J. O'Neill of Missouri, and providing that the 
 Public Printer should rigidly enforce the provisions of 
 the eight-hour law in the department under his charge. 
 This was of importance on account of the value of the 
 example, and as establishing a precedent which would 
 in time be generally respected. The amendment was 
 ordered by the vote, yeas 182, nays 53, all voting in the 
 
negative being without exception Democrats. On 
 March 7th the Senate voted to strike out the clause — 
 yeas 32, nays 20, all of the latter Republicans except 
 one. The House, on March 15th, refused to concur in 
 this action, and in conference the Senate receded from 
 its position and agreed to the amendment. 
 
 In the Senate, on February 17th, pending considera- 
 tion of a bill to incorporate the Washington Electric 
 Railway, in the District of Columbia, an amendment 
 was offered by the Committee requiring that the rails 
 to be used should be " of American manufacture." It 
 was agreed to — -yeas twenty-five, all Republicans but 
 two; nays seventeen. The House did nut consider the 
 bill. 
 
 In the meanwhile the National conventions of the 
 two great parties had been held. The Democrats con- 
 vened at St. Louis on June 5th, and promptly and 
 unanimously renominated President Cleveland, by accla- 
 mation. The ticket was completed with great enthus- 
 iasm and practical unanimity by the nomination of the 
 venerable Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, for Vice-Presi- 
 dent, by 690 votes to 105 for Isaac P. Gray, of Indiana, 
 and twenty-five for John C. Black, of Illinois. On the 
 second day the platform was adopted, with but little 
 opposition. It declared ; 
 
 " All unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation. It is 
 repugnant to the creed of Democracy that by such tax- 
 ation the cost of the necessaries of life should be un- 
 justly increased to all our people. Judged by Demo- 
 cratic principles, the interests of the people are betrayed 
 when, by unnecessary taxation, trusts and combinations 
 are permitted to exist, which, while unduly enriching 
 
 90 
 
the few that combine, rob the body of our citizens by 
 depriving them of the benefits of natural competition. 
 Every Democratic rule of governmental action is vio- 
 lated when, through unnecessary taxation, a vast sum 
 of money, far beyond the needs of an economical ad- 
 ministration, is drawn from the people and the chan- 
 nels of trade, and accumulated as a demoralizing sur- 
 plus in the National treasury. 
 
 " The money now lying in the Federal Treasury, re- 
 sulting from superfluous taxation, amounts to more than 
 $125,000,000, and the surplus collected is reaching the 
 sum of more than $60,00,000 annually. Debauched by 
 this immense temptation, the remedy of the E-epublican 
 party is to meet and exhaust by extravagant appropria- 
 tions and expenses, whether constitutional or not, the 
 accumulation of extravagant taxation. The Democratic 
 policy is to enforce frugality in public expense and 
 abolish unnecessary taxation. Our established domestic 
 industries and enterprises should not and need not be 
 endangered by a reduction and correction of the burdens 
 of taxation. On the contrary, a fair and careful re- 
 vision of our tax laws, with due allowance for the dif- 
 ference between the wages of American and foreign 
 labor, must promote and encourage every branch of such 
 industries by giving them assurances of an extended 
 market and steady and continuous operation. In the 
 interests of American labor, which should in no event 
 be neglected, revision of our tax laws, contemplated by 
 the Democratic party, should promote the advantage of 
 such labor by cheapening the cost of the necessaries of 
 life in the home of every workingman, and at the same 
 time secure to him steady and remunerative eraploy- 
 
 91 
 
ment. " Upon this phase of tariff reform, so closely con- 
 cerning every phase of our National life, and upon every 
 question involved in the problem of good government, 
 the Democratic party submits its principles and profes- 
 sions to the intelligent suffrage of the American peo- 
 ple." 
 
 Hon. William L. Scott, of Pennsylvania, offered and 
 secured the adoption of the following additional resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 " Resolved, That this Convention hereby endorses and 
 recommends the early jDassage of the bill for the reduc- 
 tion of the revenue now pending in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 The Republican National Convention convened in 
 Chicago on June 19th. Its platform, reported on June 
 21st, was unanimously adopted. The planks relating 
 to the tariff were as follows : 
 
 " We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American 
 system of protection ; we protest against its des^iruction 
 as proposed by the President and his party. They serve 
 the interests of Europe ; we will support the interests 
 of America. We accept the issue and confidently appeal 
 to the people for their judgment. The protective sys- 
 tem must be maintained. Its abandonment has always 
 been followed by general disaster to all interests ex- 
 cept those of the usurer and sheriff. We denounce the 
 Mills bill as destructive to the general business, the 
 labor, and the farming interests of the country, and we 
 heartily endorse the consistent and patriotic action of 
 the Republican Representatives in Congress in oppos- 
 ing its passage. We condemn the proposition of the 
 Democratic party to place wool on the free list, 
 
 93 
 
and we insist that tlie duties thereon shall be ad- 
 justed and maintained so as to furnish full and adequate 
 protection to that industry throughout the United 
 States. 
 
 " The Republican party would effect all needed re- 
 duction of the National revenue by repealing the taxes 
 upon tobacco, which are an annoyance and burden to 
 agriculture, and the tax upon spirits used in the arts and 
 for mechanical purposes, and by such revision of the 
 tariff laws as will tend to check imports of such articles 
 as are produced by our people, the production of which 
 gives employment to our labor, and release from import 
 duties those articles of foreign production except lux- 
 uries, the like of which can not be produced at home. If 
 there shall still remain a larger revenue than is requisite 
 for the wants of the Government, we favor the repeal of 
 the internal taxes entirely rather than the surrender of 
 any part of our protective system at the joint behest of 
 the Whisky Ring and the agents of foreign manufac- 
 turers. 
 
 " We declare our hostility to the introduction into 
 this country of foreign contract labor, and of Chinese 
 labor, alien to our civilization and Constitution, and we 
 demand the rigid enforcement of the existing laws 
 against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will 
 exclude such labor from our shores. 
 
 "We declare our opposition to all combinations of 
 capital organized in trusts or otherwise to control arbi- 
 trarily the condition of trade among our citizens ; and 
 we recommend to Congress and the State legislatures, in 
 their respective jurisdictions, such legislation as will 
 prevent the execution of all schemes to oppress the 
 
 93 
 
people by undue charges on their supplies, or by unjust, 
 rates for the transportation of their products to market. 
 We approve the legislation by Congress to prevent 
 alike unjust burdens and unfair discriminations between 
 the States." 
 
 The Convention completed its work on June 25th by 
 the nomination, on the eighth ballot, of General Ben- 
 jamin Harrison, of Indiana, for President, and Hon. Levi 
 P. Morton, of New York, on the first ballot, for Vice- 
 President. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland gave his formal letter of acceptance to 
 the public on September 8th. In this he adhered to his 
 oft-repeated declaration that "the consumer pays the 
 tax," ignoring entirely the well-known fact that not a 
 few articles of common use and American manufacture 
 were then selling in the markets at a less price than the 
 amount of the duty levied upon similar articles made in 
 foreign countries. He said : 
 
 "The cost of the Government must continue to be 
 met by tariff duties collected at our custom houses upon 
 imported goods, and by internal revenue taxes assessed 
 upon spirituous and malt liquors, tobacco, and oleo- 
 margarine. I suppose it is needless to explain that all 
 these duties and assessments are added to the price of 
 the articles upon which they are levied, and thus 
 become a tax upon all those who buy these articles for 
 use and consumption. I suppose, too, it is well under- 
 stood that the ejffect of this tariff taxation is not limited 
 to the consumers of imported articles, but that the duties 
 imposed upon such articles permit a corresponding 
 increase in prices to be laid upon domestic productions 
 of the same kind, which increase, paid by all our people 
 
 94 
 
as consumers of home productions, and entering every 
 American home, constitutes a form of taxation as certain 
 and as inevitable as thougli the amount was annually 
 paid into the hand of the tax-gatherer." 
 
 General Harrison's letter of acceptance was dated at 
 Indianapolis, September 1 1th, and was a model in style, 
 force and pi'opriety. In discussing the tariff he classed 
 those who held to the theory that "the import duty 
 upon foreign goods sold in our markets is paid by the- 
 consumer" as "students of maxims, and not of the 
 markets" — -a phrase that was soon immensely popular 
 wdth the country. 
 
 "The Republican party, said he, "holds that a pro- 
 tective tariff is constitutional, wholesome and necessary. 
 We do not offer a fixed schedule, but a principle. We 
 will revise the schedule, modify the rates, but always 
 with an intelligent provision as to the effect upon 
 domestic production and the wages of our working 
 people. We believe it to be one of the worthy objects 
 of tariff legislation to preserve the American market for 
 American producers and to maintain the American scale 
 of wages by adequate discriminating duties upon foreign 
 competing products. The effect of lower rates and 
 larger importations upon the public revenue is con- 
 tingent and doubtful, but not so the effect upon 
 American production and American wages." 
 
 The campaign resulted in a decisive Republican 
 victory. General Harrison received 233 electoral votes 
 to 168 for Mr. Cleveland. Congress also was Republican 
 in both branches — the Senate, Republicans 47, Demo- 
 crats 37; the House, Republicans 173, Democrats 157. 
 
 In his annual message of December 3, 1888, at the 
 
 95 
 
opening of the second session of the Fiftieth Congress, 
 Mr. Cleveland observed that with its expiration " the first 
 century of our constitutional existence as a Nation will 
 have been completed." Nor could he view the future 
 without fear and dismay, for while we could "view 
 with pride and satisfaction the bright j)icture of our 
 country's growth and prosperity, yet a closer scrutiny 
 develops a sombre shading. Upon more careful in- 
 spection we find the wealth and luxury of our cities 
 mingled with povertj^ and wretchedness and unremun- 
 
 erative toil." "The people must still be 
 
 taxed for the support of the Government under the 
 
 operation of tarifi: laws The farmers were 
 
 forced by the action of the Government to pay for the 
 benefit of others such enhanced prices for the things 
 they need that the scanty returns of their labor fail to 
 furnish their support, or leave margin for accumulation." 
 
 " Our workingmen, too," continued Mr. Cleveland, 
 " enfranchised from all delusions, and no longer fright- 
 ened by the cry that their wages are endangered by a 
 just revision of our tariff laws, will reasonably demand 
 through such revision steadier employment, cheaper 
 means of living in their homes, freedom for themselves 
 and their children from the doom of perpetual servi- 
 tude, and an open door to their advancement beyond 
 the limits of a laboring class. Others of our citizens 
 ^vhose comforts and expenditures are measured by 
 moderate salaries and fixed incomes will insist upon 
 the fairness and justice of cheapening the cost of neces- 
 saries for themselves and their families." 
 
 Such was the fair promise of " tariff reform " — -good 
 wages, steady employment, cheaper living, and indus- 
 
 96 
 
trial, commercial, and social advancement. We shall 
 see how it was kept ia later years after only a partial 
 triumph of the theories and policy it involved. 
 
 The Senate immediately resumed consideration of 
 " the Mills bill," the pending question being on the 
 adoption of the substitute offered by the Finance Com- 
 mitee. The bill was debated from December 5th until 
 January 22nd, when the substitute, as amended in 
 Committee of the Whole, was concurred in and the 
 bill passed by a strictly party vote — yeas, Republicans, 
 thirty -two; nays, Democrats, thirty. When the bill 
 reached the House it Avas referred to the Committee on 
 Ways and Means. On February 15th Mr. Mills re- 
 ported it back as originally passed by the House, with 
 the Senate substitute, and a resolution to the effect 
 that the substitute being in effect " another and differ- 
 ent bill," it was in direct " conflict with the true intent 
 and purpose of Section seven. Article I, of the Con- 
 stitution (which vests in the House the sole power to 
 originate revenue measures) and should be returned to 
 the Senate." No vote was then taken, but on February 
 23rd, Mr. Randall raised the question of consideration. 
 The motion was lost — yeas 89, all Democrats, but two 
 Independents; nays 144, all Republicans, except thirty, 
 while eighty-nine members did not vote at all. 
 
 Hon. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, moved to recon- 
 sider this vote, but Mr. Randall moved to lay that 
 motion on the table, and this was agreed to — yeas 165, 
 all Republicans but forty-two ; nays 83, all Democrats. 
 This ended the fight. No further action or vote was 
 taken, and so the Senate substitute was not considered 
 in the House at all. 
 
 97 
 
Hon. Henry H. Cowles, of North Carolina, introduced 
 a bill in the House on January 14, 1889, to amend the 
 internal revenue laws, being the same as the provisions 
 of that part of the Mills bill. He moved that it be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Appropriations instead of 
 Ways and Means, and it was agreed to — yeas 126, all 
 Republicans but twenty-four; nays 91, all Democrats; 
 not voting 106. Mr. Randall reported the bill favorably 
 on February 16th, and it was referred to the Committee 
 of the Whole. On the 22nd he reported a rule pro- 
 viding for its consideration, from the Committee on 
 Rules, but neither the bill nor rule ever secured further 
 attention. 
 
 On the same day, Hon. John M. Brower, of North 
 Carolina, introduced a bill to repeal the tobacco tax 
 in all its forms, and moved that it be referred to the 
 Committee on War Claims. It was lost — yeas 101, all 
 Republicans but five ; nays 117, all Democrats but five ; 
 and 105 not voting. The bill was then referred to the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, and despite another 
 elEoi't at consideration on January 21st, it was never 
 reported to the House. 
 
 President Harrison made but brief reference to the 
 tariff in his inaugui'al address of March 4, 1889. " It will 
 be the duty of Congress," said he, " wisely to forecast any 
 extraordinary demands, and, having added them to our 
 ordinary expenditures, to so adjust our revenue laws 
 that no considerable annual surplus will remain. We 
 will fortunately be able to apply to the redemption of 
 the public debt any small and unforeseen excess of rev- 
 enue. This is better than to reduce our income below 
 our necessary expenditures, with the resulting choice 
 
between another change of our revenue laws and an in- 
 crease of the public debt. It is quite possible, I am 
 sure, to efEect the necessary reduction in our revenues 
 without breaking down our protective tarifE or seriously 
 injuring any domestic industry." 
 
 The House of Representatives in the Fifty-first Con- 
 gress organized by electing Hon. Tliomas B. Reed, of 
 Maine, Speaker, who appointed the following mem- 
 bers as the Committee on Ways and Means : William 
 McKinley, of Ohio, Chairman, Julius C. Burrows, of 
 Michigan, Thomas M. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, Nelson 
 Dingley, Jr., of Maine, Joseph McKenna, of California, 
 Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Robert M. LaFollette, 
 of Wisconsin, John H. Gear, of Iowa, Republicans; 
 Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, Benton McMillan, of Ten- 
 nessee, Roswell P. Flower, of New York, Henry G. 
 Turner, of Georgia, Democrats. 
 
 Mr. Harrison gave direct, intelligent, and effective 
 consideration to the tarifE in his first annual message to 
 Congress, December 3, 1889. He said : 
 
 " I recommend a revision of our tariff law, both in 
 the administrative features and in the schedules. The 
 need of the former is generally conceded, and an agree- 
 ment upon the evils and inconveniences to be remedied 
 and the best methods for their correction will probably 
 not be difficult. Uniformity of valuation at all our 
 ports is essential, and effective measures should be 
 taken to secure it. It it equally desirable that ques- 
 tions affecting rates and classifications should be 
 promptly decided. The preparation of a new schedule 
 of customs duties is a matter of great delicacy because 
 of its direct effect upon the business of the country, and 
 
 99 
 
of great difficulty by reason of the wide divergence of 
 opinion as to the objects that may properly be pro- 
 moted by such legislation. Some disturbance of busi- 
 ness may, perhaps, result from the consideration of this 
 subject by Congress, but this temporary ill-effect will 
 be reduced to the minunum by prompt action and by 
 the assurance which the country already enjoys tha,t 
 any necessary changes will be so made as not to impair 
 the just and reasonable protection of our home indus- 
 tries. The inequalities of the law should be adjusted, 
 but the protective principle should be maintained and 
 fairly applied to the products of our farms as well as 
 our shops. These duties necessarily have relation to 
 other things beside the public revenues. We can not 
 limit their effects by fixing our eyes on the public Treas- 
 ury alone. They have a direct relation to home pro- 
 duction, to work, to wages, and to the commercial inde- 
 pendence of our country, and the wise and patriotic 
 legislator should enlarge the field of his vision to in- 
 clude all of these. The necessary reduction in our 
 public revenues can, I am sure, be made without mak- 
 ing the smaller burden more onerous than the larger, 
 by reason of the disabilities and limitations which the 
 process of reduction puts upoa both capital and labor. 
 The free list can very safely be extended by placing 
 thereon articles that do not offer injurious competition 
 to such domestic products as our home labor can supply. 
 The removal of the internal tax upon tobacco would 
 relieve an important agricultural product from a burden 
 which \vas imposed only because our revenue from cus- 
 toms duties was insufficient for the public needs. If safe 
 provision against fraud can be devised, the removal of 
 
 100 
 
the tax upoa spirits used in tlie arts and in manufac- 
 tures would also offer an unobjectionable method of 
 reducing the surplus." 
 
 On December 17th, Mr. McKinley introduced the 
 first important tariff measure of the session — a bill " to 
 simplifj^ the laws in relation to the collection of the 
 7'evenue." Its object was to protect the honest im- 
 [lorter in the United States against the unscrupulous 
 and dishonest importer ; to protect American pro- 
 ducers and dealers from the undervaluations and 
 frauds that had long been practiced upon them; to 
 take the business of importing out of the hands of 
 dishonest men and place it, as it once was, in the 
 hands of honest agents, factors, and merchants. It 
 looked strictly to the faithful collection of the im- 
 port duties justly due this country; for it was notori- 
 ous that for years past, by an iniquitous system of 
 consignments and undervaluations, and the establish- 
 ment of foreign agencies on this side the Atlantic, 
 we had not collected by from one-fourth to one-half 
 the duty properly due the United States on the true 
 valuation of the goods and products imported. The 
 bill encountered strong opposition, but passed the House 
 on March 5tli by a party vote — yeas (Republicans) 138, 
 nays (Democrats) 121. It was reported in the Senate, 
 on March 20th, and passed that body, as amended, on 
 May 3rd- — yeas 35, all Republicans; nays 18, all 
 Democrats. The House refused to concur in the 
 Senate amendments, and the bill went to a Committee 
 of Conference consisting of Senators Allison, Aldrich, 
 and McPherson, and Representatives McKinley, 
 Burrows, and Carlisle, who agreed upon a report that 
 
 101 
 
was adopted hj both houses, and the bill became a 
 law by the approval of the President on June 10, 
 1890. It was similar in its provisions to a bill in- 
 troduced in the Fiftieth Congress, as the outgrowth 
 of a carefnl, non-partisan investigation by the Senate 
 Committee on Finance, and proved a wise and sal- 
 iitary measure. 
 
 True to the demand of the Chicago platform, Mr. 
 Sherman introduced, as Senate Bill No. 1 of this Con- 
 gress, on January 14, 1890, a bill declaring the creation 
 of trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and pro- 
 duction was against public policy, and therefore unlaw- 
 ful and void. It was referred to the Committee on Fi- 
 nance, who, on March ISth, reported a substitute, which 
 in turn was much debated and amended, and then re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions 
 to report within thirty days — yeas thirty-one, nine Re- 
 publicans and twenty-two Democrats ; nays twenty- 
 eight, six Democrats and twenty-two Republicans. This 
 substitute was entitled, " A bill to protect trade and 
 commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.'' 
 It was reported to the Senate on April 8th, and passed 
 that body by a vote of fifty-two yeas to one nay — Mr. 
 Blodgett, a Democrat, of New Jersey. The House con- 
 sidered the measure on May 1st, and after adding a sec- 
 tion, proposed by Mr. Bland, of Missouri, relative to 
 agreements to prevent competition, passed it without 
 division. The Senate amended Mr. Bland's amendment, 
 but the House refused to concui- in its change, and Mr. 
 Ezra B. Taylor, of Ohio, Mr. Stewart, of Vermont, and 
 Mr. Bland were appointed a committee of conference on 
 the part of the House, and Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, 
 
 103 
 
Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Vest, of Missouri, 
 on part of the Senate. They reported an amendment 
 on June 11th, Messrs. Bland and Vest not concurring, 
 but the report was rejected by the House— yeas twelve, 
 nays 115. Mr. Stewart moved that the House insist on 
 its disagreement and ask for a second committee of con- 
 ference, which was agreed to — yeas 106, all Republicans, 
 nays 98, all Democrats but one. The new ci)mmittee 
 was the same as the old, except that Mr. Bland was 
 relieved by Hon. David B. Culbertson, of Texas. They 
 recommended that both houses recede from their respec- 
 tive amendments (Senator Vest not signing the report), 
 and the report was adopted by the Senate without a 
 division, and by the House by a vote of yeas 242, nays 
 none, and eighty-five not voting. It was approved by 
 the President on July 2, 1890, and is important for the 
 jjrecedent it established, as the initial legislation by 
 Congress in this field. 
 
 On April 29th, a bill was reported from the Ways 
 and Means Committee, by Mr. Dingley, to provide for 
 the classification of all woi'steds as woolen cloths. It 
 met with but little open opposition and was passed by 
 the House on the day following. In the Senate the bill 
 was taken up on May 8th, and, after several futile at- 
 tempts at amendment, was passed — yeas thirty, all Re- 
 publicans except one ; nay twenty, all Democrats. 
 
 On April 16th, Mr. McKinley, Chairman of the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, introduced the general 
 tariff bill, entitled, " A bill to reduce the revenue and 
 equalize the duty on imports, and for other purposes." 
 He offered the bill with the majority repoi't, while 
 Mr. Mills presented the views of himself and the other 
 
 103 
 
Democratic members of the Committee, and Mr, 
 McKenna submitted his own views upon the bounty 
 on sugar, upon which alone he dissented from his 
 Republican colleagues. 
 
 The bill had been for nearly four months under con- 
 stant consideration by the Ways and Means Committee, 
 during which period every interest in the country that 
 had asked for it had been given a hearing. Manu- 
 facturers, merchants, farmers, Grrangers, members of 
 the Farmers' Alliance, agents, factors, wool-growers, — 
 freetraders and protectionists — all who presented them- 
 selves to the Committee were freely, fully, and patiently 
 heard. The minority party, equally with the majority 
 party, was given every facility to present its views, and 
 both those who opposed and those who advocated the 
 bill were urged to present any testimony they could in 
 support of their respective positions. The measure 
 was brought up for discussion on May 7th, when it 
 was determined to limit general debate to four days, in 
 the Commiatee of the Whole, and then allow eight 
 days for consideration, section by section, under the 
 five-minutes rule. 
 
 It is impossible to attempt to follow this debate, or 
 even to intelligently summarize the numerous speeches 
 made during its progress. Perhaps, however, a fairly 
 good idea of the views of its friends may be gathered 
 from the following extracts from the report of the 
 Committee, namely : 
 
 " The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was 
 referred that part of the message of the President of 
 the United States relating to public revenues, have 
 carefully considered the subject, and report back the 
 
 104 
 
accompanying bill with a favorable recommendation.. 
 We are advised from the annual report of the Secretarj^ 
 of the Treasury that the ordinary revenues of the 
 Government, actual and estimated, for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1890, will be $385,000,000, and that 
 the expenditures for the same period, actual and esti- 
 mated, will be $298,000,000, leaving a surplus of 
 $92,000,000. The estimated amount required for the 
 sinking fund will be $48,321,116, leaving an esti- 
 mated net surplus of $48,678,883. The excess of 
 revenues over expenses estimated for the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1891, we ai'e advised from the same 
 source, will amount to $43,569,522.30, which, with the 
 amount of cash noAV on hand and available, reaching 
 nearly $90,000,000, the Committee believe, will justify a 
 reduction of the revenue in the sum contemplated by 
 this bill. 
 
 "It is framed in the interest of the people of the 
 United States. It is for the better defense of American 
 homes and American industries. While securing the 
 needed revenue, its provisions look to the occupations 
 of our own people, their comfort and their welfare ; to 
 the successful prosecution of industrial enterprises 
 already started, and to the opening of new lines of 
 production where our conditions and resources will 
 admit. Ample revenues for the wants of the Govern- 
 ment are provided by this bill, and every reasonable 
 encouragement is given to prodactive enterprises and to 
 the labor employed therein. The aim has been to 
 impose duties upon such foreign products as compete 
 with our own, whether of the soil or the shop, and to 
 enlarge the free list wherever this can be done without. 
 
 105 
 
injury to any American industry, or wherever an 
 existing home industry can be helped without det- 
 riment to another industry which is equally worthy of 
 the protecting care of the Government. 
 
 "The Committee believe that, inasmuch as nearly 
 $300,000,000 are annually required to meet the ex- 
 penses of the Government, it is wiser to tax those 
 foreign products which seek a market here in competi- 
 tion with our own than to tax our domestic products 
 or the non-competing foreign products. The Committee, 
 responding as it believes to the sentiment of the country 
 and the recommendations of the Pi'esident, submit what 
 they consider to be a just and equitable revision of the 
 tariff, which, while preserving that measure of protec- 
 tion which is required for our industrial independence, 
 will secure a reduction of the revenue both from customs 
 and internal revenue sources. AVe have not looked 
 alone to a reduction of the revenue, but have kept 
 steadily in view the interests of our producing classes, 
 and have been ever mindful of that which is due to our 
 political conditions, our labor and the character of our 
 citizenship. We have realized that a reduction of 
 duties below the difference between the cost of labor 
 and production in competing countries and our own 
 would result either in the abandonment of much of our 
 manufacturing here or in the depression of our labor. 
 Either result would bring disaster the extent of which 
 no one can measure. We have recommended no duty 
 above the point of difference between the normal cost 
 of production here, including labor, and the cost of 
 like production in the countries which seek our mar- 
 kets, nor have we hesitated to give this measure of 
 
 106 
 
duty even thougli it involved an increase over present 
 rates and showed an advance of percentages and ad 
 valorem equivalents. We have not sought to make a 
 uniform rate of duty upon all imported articles. This 
 would have been- manifestly unjust and inequitable. 
 We possess advantages in some branches of production 
 which offset the necessity for the highest duties, and 
 these have been fully recognized in the arrangement 
 and adjustment of rates. The labor cost of any two 
 manufactured products which may be mentioned is not 
 the same, one being largely the product of machinery 
 and the other largely the product of hand labor, and 
 therefore, while one product requires one rate of duty 
 for protection, another product may require another 
 and different one to afford equal protection. AVe have 
 sought to look at the conditions of each industry at 
 home and its relatione to foreign competition, and pro- 
 vide for that duty which would be adequate in each 
 case. 
 
 " The Committee have already reported and the 
 House passed a bill for the revision of the administra- 
 tive features of the customs law, which will remedy 
 many of the evils and inconveniences now existing. 
 For the purpose of convenient reference each distinct 
 paragraph in the schedules of the bill is numbered. 
 This has been done heretofore in the editions of the 
 tariff' issued by the Treasury Department, but has not 
 had legislative sanction. 
 
 " The present provision in the free list for ' articles 
 imported for the use of the United States, provided 
 that the price of the same did not include the duty,' is 
 omitted in the proposed revision. It has been produc- 
 
 107 
 
tive of fraud aod has resulted in other serious abuses. 
 Persons having contracts with the United States, under 
 color of the law, have fraudulently imported large 
 quantities of material for sale with a resulting loss to 
 the revenue. The provision also works injury to our 
 own people by inviting foreign competition in the mat- 
 ter of Government contracts. The. remission of duty 
 in such cases is in effect a premium offered the foreigner 
 to compete with the honest importer who pays duty, 
 as also with the domestic producer. It is unwise to 
 remit duties when the money goes neither into the 
 public treasury nor the pockets of our own people, but 
 to enrich their foreign competitors. The Government 
 ought not to buy abroad what it can buy at home. 
 Nor should it be exempted from the laws it imposes 
 upon its citizens. The United States gains nothing 
 while the citizen loses by this j^rovision. These con- 
 siderations, it is believed, warrant the proposed change. 
 
 " Section five forbids entry to mei'chandise not 
 plainly marked, stamj^ed, branded, or labeled in legible 
 English words, with the name of the country in which 
 it is manufactured, with the purpose of protecting both 
 our own people from the imposition of inferior goods 
 .and the revenue from possible loss through undervalua- 
 tion. 
 
 " Section 17 is a modification of section 2496, Revised 
 Statutes. The present section provides that articles in 
 violation of registered trademark shall not be admitted 
 to entry. It does not prohibit their importation or pre- 
 scribe their forfeiture, and the result is that such goods 
 can only be taken possession of by the collector as un- 
 ■claimed, retained the required length of time, and sold, 
 
 108 
 
which course secures their distribution in this country 
 in direct contravention of the intent of the statute. 
 The domestic interests sought to be protected are thus 
 compelled to buy them up in order to protect them- 
 selves. It is proposed by this amendment to admit 
 such articles to entry for exportation only within three 
 months of their importation ; otherwise that thej^ be for- 
 feited. The admitted superiority of certain lines of 
 American goods has induced the importation of foreign 
 imitations of inferior quality, with American brands, 
 to be put on our market as the superior goods of Amer- 
 ican manufacture. Inferior goods, the manufacture of 
 one country, have also been imported and sold bearing 
 the marks of the superior manufacturers of established 
 reputation of another country. A practice has also 
 grown up of importing goods under invoices authenti- 
 cated in a country other, and in a currency of less 
 value, than of the country of manufacture. 
 
 " Section 22 provides for a uniform rate of drawback 
 on manufactured articles exported or articles on which 
 duty has been paid, of the amount paid less one per 
 cent, for expenses. Heretofore the rate has varied on 
 different articles. In some cases the entire duty has 
 been refunded and in others the duty less ten per cent. 
 The Government ought to be re-imbursed the expenses 
 involved in the transaction, and it is believed this will 
 be done by the retention of one per cent. 
 
 "Section 24 contains an important provision never 
 before enacted in any American tariff law. It declares 
 that all goods, wares, articles and merchandise manu- 
 factured wholly or in part in any foreign country by 
 convict labor shall not be entitled to entry at any 
 
 109 
 
of the ports of the United States, and the imporfation 
 theieof is hereby prohibited, and the Secretary of the 
 Treasury is authorized to prescribe such regulations as 
 may be necessary for the enforcement of this pro- 
 vision. 
 
 "Many drugs and chemicals which are not pro- 
 duced in the United States have been placed on the 
 free list. These chemicals are chiefly used in manu- 
 facturing industries. The recommendation that they 
 be made free will reduce the cost in the manufactures 
 of which they form a part, and it is believed by 
 the Committee will result in a benefit to the consumer. 
 The amount of duty remitted by placing these articles 
 on the free list is the sum of $876,304. 
 
 " The rates of duty upon earthen and China ware have 
 not been materially changed. The existing duties have 
 resulted in the establishment of large manufacturing 
 plants with great benefit to the consumer. This ware 
 has been cheapened to the people under the advance of 
 duty in 1883, and a continuance of the duty is believed 
 to be essential to the maintenance of this industry and 
 will secure still greater benefits to the consumer. An 
 increase of duty has been recommended upon glass- 
 ware. This is believed to be necessary to compensate 
 for the difference in the cost of labor here and in 
 competing countries, and to protect our industries from 
 destructive foreign competition. 
 
 " By the proposed bill the duties on first and second 
 class wools are made eleven and twelve cents a pound,, 
 as asjainst ten and twelve under existinsr law. On 
 third-class wool, costing twelve cents or less, the duty 
 is raised from 2| cents a pound to 3| cents, and 
 
 110 
 
■upon wools of the third class costing above twelve 
 cents, the duty recommended is an advance from five to 
 eight cents per pound. The bill which passed the 
 Senate in 1888 made the dividing line ou third-class 
 wools at twelve cents Avith the same rates of duty upon 
 all classes of wool except third-class costing less 
 than twelve cents, as herein recommended. The Senate 
 fixed the duty upon that grade at four cents, while the 
 Committee recommended 3^ cents. It is believed,, 
 however, that with the restrictions, definitions, and^ 
 classifications, and the addition of port charges to the 
 foreign cost recommended in the proposed bill, this dif- 
 ference will be fully compensated. The United States 
 ought to produce all of the wool it consumes, and will 
 with adequate encouragement and defensive legislation. 
 The amount of wool consumed in all forms and for all 
 purposes, is nearly, if not <|uite, 600,000,000 pounds an- 
 nually. In Januaiy, 1889, there were in the country 
 42,599,079 sheep, producing about 245,000,000 pounds 
 of unwashed wool, while the imports for the last fiscal 
 year in all forms, wool, clothing, and carpet, is estimated 
 at about 350,000,000 pounds. There were imported of 
 clothing wools 29,224,522 pounds ; of combed wools 
 6,871,666 p)0unds, and of carpet wools, so-called, 90,391,- 
 541 pounds ; of waste, 8,662,209 pounds — practically 
 scoured wools ; and the value of woolen and worsted 
 goods imported was $52,564,942, representing about 
 160,000,000 pounds of wool. A considerable amount 
 of wool was imported as carpet wool, at a duty of 
 only 2^ cents a pound, which was used in the manu- 
 facture of clothing, and should have paid the clothing 
 and higher wool duty. There seems to be no doubt 
 
 111 
 
that with the protection afforded by the increased 
 duties recommended in the bill, the farmers of the 
 United States will be able at an early day to supply 
 substantially all of the home demand, and the great 
 benefit such production will be to the agricultural 
 interests of the country can not be estimated. The 
 production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would 
 require about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more 
 than 100 per cent, to the present number. It will be 
 noticed that in 1860, after fouateen years of revenue 
 tariff, the total production of domestic wool was 
 60,264,913 pounds, or 1.7 pounds per capita, while in 
 1884, after twenty-four years of protection, the total 
 production had increased to 308,000,000 pounds, or 5.4 
 pounds per capita. This increase justifies the policy of 
 affording this important agricultural product adequate 
 protection. The bill seeks to stop the frauds which 
 have been so shamelessly practiced in the past in 
 violation not only of the spirit but the letter of the 
 law. The preparation of wools under new names and 
 forms, to avoid legal duties, has been very generally 
 practiced. Noils, ring waste, garneted waste, slubbing 
 waste, carbonated waste, roping and roving, have been 
 imported into this country at the duty on unwashed 
 wool, when they were in fact washed and scoured, 
 partly manufactured and ready to go into our looms. 
 It is believed that if the provisions of this bill be 
 adopted these violations will be prevented and this 
 gross injustice to the wool growers of our country 
 remedied. 
 
 "The increase of the duty on clothing wool and sub- 
 stitutes for wool to protect the wool growers of this 
 
 112 
 
country, and the well understood fact that the tariff of 
 1883, and the construction given to the worsted clause, 
 reduced the duties on many grades of woolen goods to 
 a point that invited increasing importations, to the 
 serious injury of our woolen manufacturers and wool 
 growers, necessitates raising the duties on woolen yarn, 
 cloth, and dress goods to a point which will insure the 
 holding of our home market for these manufactures to a 
 much greater extent than is now possible. The necessity 
 of this increase is apparent in view of the fact already 
 stated that during the last fiscal year there were imports 
 of manufactures of wool of the foreim value of 
 $52,681,482, as shown by the under-valued invoices, 
 and the real value in our market of nearly $90,000,000 
 — fully one-fourth of our entire home consumption — 
 equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000 pounds 
 of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising 
 the woolen goods schedule so as to afford adequate pro- 
 tection to our woolen manufacturers and wool growers, 
 we have continued the system of compound duties 
 which have proved to be so essential in any tariff which 
 protects wool, providing first for a s]D3cific compensatory 
 pound or square yard duty, equivalent to the duty 
 which would be paid on the wool if imported, for the 
 benefit of the wool grower, and an ad valorem duty of 
 from 30 to 50 per cent., according to the proportion of 
 labor required in the manufacture of the several classes 
 of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer again-it 
 foreign competition and ten per cent, additional uj)on 
 ready-made clothing for the protection o'' the clothing 
 manufacturers. The existing tariff gives an ad valorem 
 duty of from thirty-five to forty-five per cent, for the 
 
 113 
 
protection of the woolen manufacturer, and the bill 
 which passed the House at the first session of the 
 Fiftieth Congress which abolished all duties on wool 
 and consequently the equivalent specific compensatory 
 duties on manufactures of wool, gave a uniform duty of 
 forty per cent, on all woolen goods without regard to 
 their character. This duty is more than is required for 
 unfinished goods like cheap blankets and flannels, and 
 less than is requisite for fine finished manufactures of 
 wool, which are being imported in so large quantities. 
 Tor this reason, and to adapt the duties to the compara- 
 tive cost of manufacturing different woolen fabrics, we 
 have given thirty per cent, to the lowest grade of 
 blankets and flannels, thirty-five per cent, to the medium 
 grades, forty per cent, to the highest grades of blankets 
 (flannels valued about fifty cents per pound being 
 classed as "dress goods," which they practically are), 
 carpets and the lower grades of finished cloth and 
 cotton-warp dress goods, and fifty per cent, to the finer 
 grades of finished cloth and to all-wool dress goods, 
 requiring the highest skill and greatest amount of labor. 
 These advanced rates on the better grades of goods for 
 the protection of the manufacturers, with specific duties 
 fully compensatory for the duties on wool, will, it is 
 believed, have the effect to largely diminish importa- 
 tions of manufactures of wool, and consequently to 
 reduce the revenue instead of increasing the revenue as 
 would be the case if the importation should continue 
 the same. From the best information Ave can obtain, it 
 is probable that the increased rates of duty given to 
 manufactures of woolens will reduce, certainly not 
 increase, the revenue from this source, and transfer to 
 
 114 
 
this country the manufacture of from $15,000,000 to 
 $20,000,000 of woolen goods now made abroad. 
 
 " In the metal schedule no change of duty has been 
 recommended upon iron ore or iron in pigs. These 
 duties, it is believed, can not be lowered without detri- 
 ment to existing industries, and we have not felt justi- 
 fied in interfering with the further development of our 
 iron ore resources, now so promising, in the Southern 
 States. "With regard to pig iron, it may be said that it 
 is in no sense a raw material. It is a product of the 
 highest skill, requiring for its manufacture large and 
 expensive plants, tlie capital invested in which in our 
 country to-day more than equals that which is invested 
 in any other branch of our iron and steel industries. 
 Pig-iron is made in twenty-five States of the Union. 
 Its manufacture is increasing rapidly in many States, 
 largely as the result of the protective duty which has 
 long given encouragement to its production. It has 
 had a marvelously rapid gi'owtii in the Southern and 
 Western States in the last ten years, and it is to-day the 
 leading manufacturing industry south of the Potomac 
 and Ohio rivers. It has been the most potent of all 
 inflaences in the industrial rehabilitation of the South. 
 To reduce the duty on pig-iron, and on scrap-iron and 
 scrap-steel, which are substitutes for pig-iron, would an- 
 nually bring into our ports many shiploads of these pro- 
 ducts to take the place of pig-iron which could be pro- 
 duced at home, aad it would correspondingly reduce the 
 demand for coal and iron ore. This is a result which is 
 surely not to be desired. 
 
 " There has bsen an increase of duties upon cutlery, 
 believed by the Committee to be absolutely necessary 
 
 115 
 
to the maintenance of this industry in the United States. 
 The competition from Grermany and other countries has 
 been so ruinous as to have already destroyed some of 
 the manufactures, and threatens without this increased 
 duty to wipe out the remaining ones. 
 
 " It has been demonstrated that we can manufacture 
 tin plate in the United States as successfully as it can 
 be done in England. Its production here suitable for 
 all uses is no longer experimental. We make sheet 
 iron and sheet steel, and it is confidently believed that 
 we have in the Dakotas pig tin in sufficient quantities 
 for use in making all of the tin required for this market; 
 and if this were not so, pig tin is on the free list, accessi- 
 ble to our people for manufacturing purposes. There 
 is no reason except inadequate protection why we are 
 not to-day manufacturing the more than $21,000,000 
 worth of tin now imported into the United States and 
 upon which we pay an annual duty of over $7,000,000. 
 It is estimated that the establishment of an industry 
 which would supply our own market, in this particular 
 would furnish steady employment to at least twenty 
 four thousand men. The bill provides that the in- 
 creased duties shall not go into effect until July 1, 
 1891, audit is believed that manufacturers, encouraged 
 by this proposed legislation in the meantime, will adapt 
 their plants to the new production, and that in the end 
 the advanced duty will not enhance the cost to the con- 
 sumer, but eventuate in lower and steadierprices to the 
 American consumer. To the end that there may be no 
 interruption of our export trade of canned products by 
 reason of the proposed change, the Committee recom- 
 mend that upon tin imported and exported, made up, 
 
 116 
 
the Government shall retain but one per cent, of the 
 duty instead of ten per cent., as provided by existing 
 law. If the recommendation of the Committee is 
 adopted, it is believed a new and important industry 
 will be secured to the United States, with large result- 
 ant benefits to the people. 
 
 " The Committee recommend that sugar up to and in- 
 cluding No. Ifi Dutch standard in color, and molasses, 
 be placed on the free list, with a duty of four-teuths of 
 one cent per pound on refined sugar above No. 1 6 ; and 
 that a bounty of two cents per pound be paid from the 
 Treasury for a period of fifteen years for all sugar 
 polarizing at least 85 degrees, made in this country from 
 cane, beets, or sorgham produced in the United States. 
 In 1888 the consumption of sugar in the United States 
 was 1,469,997 tons, or 53.1 pounds per inhabitant. Of 
 this only 189,814 tons (375,004,197 pounds) were pro- 
 duced in the United States, and 1,280,183 tons, or 
 seven-eighths of our consumption, were imported. We 
 have not at hand the statistics of sugar consumption and 
 production for 1889, but the relative proportion of 
 domestic to foreign production was substantially the 
 same. 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 product, which is not true of duties im- 
 posed 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 domestic 
 sugar arising from the duty, and it is clear that the 
 
 117 
 
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 one dollar 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. Even on 
 the assumption that, with proper encouragement, we 
 shall eventually be able to produce all, or nearly all, 
 the sugar required for the consumption of our people — 
 an assumption which your Committee believes to be 
 sustained by many facts, notwithstanding the slow prog- 
 ress thus far made in sugar culture in this country. 
 This encouragement can be given much more economi- 
 cally and effectively by a bounty of two cents per pound, 
 involving the expenditure of but a little more than 
 17,000,000 per annum with the present production of 
 sugar in this country, than by the imposition of a duty 
 involving the collection of $55,975,610 in duties in the 
 last fiscal year, not to mention the amount directly in- 
 \"olved. When it is considered that this increase in cost 
 due to the duty on sugar falls on an article of prime 
 necessity as food, your Committee are persuaded that 
 justice as well as good policy requires that such an un- 
 necessary burden in the way of a direct tax should be 
 ]"emoved from sugar, and that the encouragement 
 required to induce the production of sugar in the 
 United States should be given through a bounty rather 
 than by an import duty. In providing that not only raw 
 sugar, but also sugar up to and including No. 16 
 shall be admitted fi'ee of duty, an opportunity is given 
 for the free introduction of yellow sugar suited for 
 family use, an arrangement which ^vill secure to our 
 
 118 
 
people sugar at the lowest price existing in the markets 
 of the world, while even imported white refined sugars 
 will be subject to a duty of only four-tenths of one cent 
 per jsound. 
 
 " The free list has been enlarged by the addition of 
 the following articles : Books and pamphlets printed 
 exclusively in languages other than English ; books and 
 music in raised letters printed exclusively for the blind; 
 braids, plaits, laces, flats; bristles, raw ; chicory root, raw, 
 dried, or undried, but unground ; coal tar, crude, and 
 pitch of coal tar ; dandelion roots, raw, dried or unground, 
 acorns, bees wax ; floor matting manufactured from round 
 or split straw, including what is commonly known as 
 Chinese matting; currants, Zante and other; dates; 
 grass and fibers; jute; jute butts; manilla; sisal-grass; 
 Sunn and all other textile grasses of fibrous vegetable 
 substance, unmanufactured ; degras and other grease ; 
 hair, human, raw, uncleaned, and not drawn; molasses; 
 needles, hand, sewing, and darning; nut oil or oil of 
 nuts ; olive-oil for manufacturing and mechancial pur- 
 poses, unfit for eating ; opium, unmanufactured ; ore, 
 nickel ; potash, crude or black salts, chlorate of, nitrate 
 of crude, sulphate of crude ; red earth or raddle, used 
 for polishing lenses; seeds; hemp, rope, bulbs, bulbous 
 roots, not edible; shotguns, barrel or barrels, rough or 
 b)ored ; sponges ; sugar up to and including No. 16 
 Dutch standard in color ; tar and pitch of wood ; tinsel 
 wire, lame or lahn ; tobacco stems ; sulphur ore, as 
 pyrites or sulphuret of iron containing an excess of 
 sulphur; turpentine, spirits of; and briar- wood, manu- 
 factured. 
 
 "The Committee have given months of investigation 
 
 119 
 
to the existing conditions of agriculture and matters 
 connected therewith. This great industry is foremost 
 in magnitude and importance in our country. Its suc- 
 cess and prosperity are vital to the, I^ation. No pros- 
 perity is possible to other industries if agriculture 
 languishes. In so far as the fostering care of the 
 Government can be helpful, it must be faithfully and 
 forcefully exerted to build up and strengthen agri- 
 culture. That there is wide spread depression in this 
 industry to-day can not be doubted. Every remedy 
 within the scope of practical legislation known to your 
 Committee has been recommended in the proposed 
 measure to meet the urgent requirements of the situa- 
 tion. The enemies of the protective system have no 
 word of criticism for the real causes of agricultural de- 
 pression, no suggestion of relief from the real burdens 
 which are weighing it down to-day; but, seizing the 
 present as a favorable time, they solemnly charge that 
 the decline in our market is solely due to the tariff. 
 They are pleased to ignore the fact that one of the 
 purposes of a protective tariff is to hinder a still larger 
 importation of foreign produce, and thus save the 
 market from still greater depression. The friends of 
 larger foreign importations feel no apprehension or 
 alarm at the rapidly increasing volume of foreign agri- 
 cultural produce pouring into our markets. These and 
 all other actual perils they pass by. They are silent to 
 this danger which offers real harm to American agri- 
 culture and clamor against its only safeguard and pro- 
 tection. But your Committee, sensible to the importance 
 of this industry, prompted by the single motive to lift 
 it to the highest level of profitable employment, believe 
 
 120 
 
that they offer in the bill presented, all the relief 
 which tariff legislation can give to it. A critical ex- 
 amination of the subject will show that agriculture is 
 suffering chiefly from a most damaging foreign competi- 
 tion in our home mai'ket. The increase in importations 
 of agricultural products since 1850 has been enormous, 
 amounting from $40,000,000 to more than $356,000,000, 
 in 1889. This is an increase of nearly 900 per cent., 
 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 homegrown product. Upon the prod- 
 ucts of chief reliance to our farmers, competition, not 
 only abroad but at home, with the poorly-paid labor of 
 Europe and cheap labor of Egypt and India, is depriv- 
 ing our produce markets and sweeping the margins of 
 profits from the farmers of the country. The " world's 
 market," to which the advocates of tariff for revenue 
 only invite the farmers of this country, is to-day 
 crowded with the products of the cheapest human labor 
 the earth affords. All over the Old World there is a 
 rush of their surplus to that market, and it is to such a 
 contest as this that free trade would allure American 
 agriculture. With the foreign grain market under the 
 sway of such oppressive competition, with the foreign 
 cattle and pork market depressed and obstructed by 
 various ruinous measures of restriction, with foreign 
 agricultural products crowding our home market, your 
 Committee have recommended an increase of rates upon 
 agricultural products. The establishment of agricul- 
 tural experiment stations under Federal supervision. 
 
 121 
 
the energetic research into the resources of the different 
 sections of the country, the application of scientific 
 principles to agriculture under the efficient administra- 
 tion of the Department of Agriculture, make this a 
 most opportune time to encourage and foster, by the 
 application of the protective principle, the de\^elopment 
 of new industries on the farm. 
 
 " We advance the rates upon the products of the 
 soil vs^hich either do supply or can be brought to sup 
 ply the home consumption. Horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, 
 bacon, barley, beans, peas, beef, mutton, pork, buck 
 wheat, butter, cheese, eggs, hay, hops, milk, poultry 
 flax-seed, vegetables, potatoes, flax, hemp, hides, wool 
 tobacco, and many other products are advanced with a 
 view to save this entire market to the American farmer. 
 As indicating the general line of policy pursued in 
 changing rates in this schedule your Committee can 
 only, in the scope of this repoit, note a few articles 
 illustrative of all. In the last ten years not less than 
 $60,000,000 worth of horses, cattle and sheep, ordinary 
 marketable stock, has be^n imported. A portion of 
 these have paid twenty per cent, ad valorem on a 
 fraudulent undervaluation. A very large proportion 
 have come in free, professedly for breeding purposes, 
 actually for the common markets. The duty has been 
 changed to a specific rate and advanced to a point 
 where it will protect the market, while the paragraph 
 in the free list on animals for breeding purposes is so 
 framed as to only admit animals which are pure bred 
 and properly registered. Ten years ago the cultivation 
 of tobacco suitable for cigars promised one of the most 
 ■certain and profitable investments for agriculture in 
 
 133 
 
many of the Northera States. To-day the industry is 
 crowded from its own market by foreign importations 
 produced by labor costing less than ten cents per day. 
 The value of the tobacco imported from The Nether- 
 lands alone for the six months ending December 31st 
 last was nearly $5,000,000. The duty has been in- 
 creased with a view of protecting the American market 
 for the American grower. Flax and hemp have been 
 advanced upon the positive evidence that the time has 
 come to encourage these two industries from an aoiricul- 
 tural stand point. The farmers themselves are ready 
 to enter largely upon the cultivation of flax and hemp 
 fiber under adequate protection. The diversity of our 
 soil and climate beyond question invites us to the 
 establishment of these industries. Samples of every 
 grade of American grown flax, from the coarsest to the 
 finest, have been examined by your Committee, and 
 they are convinced that if the production of the fiber 
 and the weaving of the fabric be given a fair measure 
 of protection against the low wages paid in the several 
 flax-growing countries of Europe, a few years will build 
 up an immense industry in the United States of in- 
 estimable benefit to agriculture. 
 
 '' The Committee have recommended changes in the 
 internal revenue laws as follows : Abolishing the tax 
 <m dealers in leaf tobacco, which will relieve 4,872 tax- 
 payers and reduce the revenues $48,570.88; abolishing 
 the tax on dealers in manufactured tobacco, which will 
 relieve 590,013 tax-payers from the payment of a small 
 but vexatious tax, and will reduce the revenue $1,280,- 
 015.98 ; abolishing the tax on manufacturei's of tobacco, 
 which will relieve 902 tax-payers and reduce the rev- 
 
 133 
 
■enue $5,128.25; abolishing the tax on manufacturers of 
 cigars, which will relieve 20,684 tax-payers and reduce 
 the revenue $120,195.53 ; abolishing the tax on ped- 
 dlers of tobacco, which will relieve 16,060 tax- payers 
 and reduce the revenue $127,010.88. The Committee 
 recommend a reduction of the tax on smoking and man- 
 ufactured tobacco from eight cents to four cents per 
 pound, which will effect a reduction of the revenue of 
 $8,538,419.97; snuff from eight cents to four cents per 
 pound, which will effect a reduction of the revenue of 
 $322,544.78 ; and the abolition of the tax on retail 
 dealers in leaf tobacco, effecting a reduction of the rev- 
 enue of $270.84. They have recommended that all 
 provisions of the statutes imposing restrictions of any 
 kind whatsoever upon farmers and growers of tobacco, 
 in regard to the sale thereof, be repealed. This will 
 ■enable the farmers and planters to sell their tobacco 
 wherever and to whomsoever they please with the same 
 freedom they now dispose of other agricultural prod- 
 ucts. They have been advised by the Comaaissioner 
 of Internal Revenue that the abolition of the special 
 taxes herein proposed can be made with safety and will 
 ia no way interfere with the administration of the laws 
 which are to remain. 
 
 "The advance of duties on agricultural products, in- 
 cludinsr tobacco and wool and manufactures of wool 
 and sundries, on the supposition that the imports of the 
 next fiscal year would be as large as in the year ending 
 June 30, 1889, would increase the revenue. But the 
 articles on which duties have been increased are for the 
 most part such as we can produce to the extent of our 
 wants, and the increase of duties will have the effect to 
 
 124 
 
diminish the importations to such an extent that the 
 revenue will not be increased. No other result can fol- 
 low. The effect of the advance of duties on agricult- 
 ural products, for example, will be to hold our own 
 markets in larger measure than at present for our own 
 farmers without any increase in the revenue. The same 
 result will follow in other cases of increase, and Avhere 
 the revenue is in special cases increased this increase 
 will be far less than is indicated by a computation 
 based on the theory that importations of such articles 
 will continue as large a-: under lower duties. In the 
 case of manufactures of wool, where the im[)ortations 
 have been enormous because of inadequate duties, there 
 can be no reasonable doubt that the rates of duty pro- 
 ]30sed will diminish rather than increase the revenue. 
 Your Committee conclude, therefore, that the proposed 
 bill, if enacted into law, will certainly reduce the rev- 
 enue from imports at lea^t $60,936,536, and probably 
 more, and from the internal revenue $10,327,878, or in 
 the aggregate $71,264,414." 
 
 In reply to this report, Mr. Mills offered the views of 
 the minority, which were in part as follows : 
 
 " At a time when it is confessed by all parties that 
 the Government does not need additional revenue, but 
 that there ought to be a reduction of its receipts, the 
 bill reported by the majority pi'oposes to levy upon a 
 great many articles of absolute necessity higher rates of 
 duty than were ever heretofore proposed in any meas- 
 ure reported to Congress. These increases of rates are 
 made in every instance for the purpose of restricting 
 trade and thereby affording what is called protection to 
 the producers of similar articles in this country. The 
 
 135 
 
original argument in favor of protective duties wsis that, 
 they were necessary to foster infant industries by pre- 
 venting ruinous competitioa from abroad until they 
 could secure a hold on the home market and thus be- 
 come self-sustaining, and it was again and again pre- 
 dicted by the earlier advocates of the system that a few 
 years of public support would enable them to do this. 
 But the preseat bill is based upon precisely the oppo- 
 site view. It is fraiudd upon the assumption that as 
 our industries grow older they grow weaker and more 
 dependent upon the bounty of the Government and the 
 forced contributions of the people who pui'chase and 
 consume their products ; and accordingly we find that, 
 as a general rule, the important increases in the rates of 
 duty are made with a view of still further protecting 
 the products of our oldest industries, such as manufac- 
 tures of iron and steel, woolen goods, cotton goods, 
 manufactures of flax, hemp, etc. If it be true that these 
 old industries need more protection now than they 
 needed a hundred years ago, it must be because they 
 have been existing under an unnatural and unhealthy 
 system and have lost that spirit of self-reliance and in- 
 dependence which is essential to the permanent growth 
 and prosperity of every business enterprise. Thirty 
 years ago, after a considerable period of low taxes upon 
 imported goods, when it was proposed to increase rates 
 in order to secure revenue, it was not suggested by the 
 most extreme advocates of the protective system that 
 our industries required anything like such high rates of 
 duty as are imposed by this bill. 
 
 " For instance, there are a few persons in this country 
 who believe that they could manufacture tin or terue 
 
 126 
 
plate if those who use that necessary article were com- 
 pelled by law to pay a higher tax upon it, and accord- 
 ingly the bill now reported proposes to more than 
 double the duties. This will injuriously affect the 
 interests of thousands of laborers now engaged in the 
 manufacture of tin cans and other vessels used in 
 canning fruit, vegetables, meats, and fish, in nearly 
 every part of the country, and it will constitute a direct 
 charge upon the producers and consumers of those 
 various kinds of food ; but the theory upon which this 
 bill is based takes no account of the welfare of this 
 great mass of American citizens so long as two or 
 three firms or corporations insist that the tax will be 
 beneficial to them. 
 
 " At the same time the bill proposes to make enor- 
 mous increases in the rates on woolen goods, which all 
 our people are compelled to purchase and use, and very 
 large increases in the rates on some kinds of cotton and 
 linen goods which are absolutely necessary for the 
 health and comfort of all classes. The increase of 
 taxes on wool and woolen and worsted goods, including 
 carpets, amounts to about $15,500,000 per annum, esti- 
 mated upon the importations of the last fiscal year ; but 
 in fact it will be many times that amount by reason 
 of the enhanced prices which consumers will be com- 
 pelled to pay for the domestic product. While the bill 
 proposes to make this large addition to the tax on woolen 
 •clothing and carpets, it also proposes to abolish the 
 internal revenue taxes to the amount of $8,860,994.75 
 on manufactured chewing and smoking tobacco and 
 .snuff, articles which certainly can not be classed among 
 the necessaries of life. While we would be willing 
 
 137 
 
to repeal the internal revenue taxes on tobacco in con- 
 nection with the reductions upon other articles which 
 the people are obliged to use, as was proposed in the 
 bill which passed the last House, we can not agree to a 
 measure which provides for the abolition of any part of 
 such taxes and ab the same time increases the rates of 
 duty of cotton, woolen, and linen clothing, and on 
 earthenware, glassware, table cutlery, and many forms 
 of iron and steel which can not be dispensed with. 
 " We can not undertake here to point out in detail the 
 numerous increases in the rates of duty on imported 
 goods which this bill proposes to make, but a few will 
 suffice to show the general character of the measure 
 and the purpose of its authors and supporters. The 
 lowest grades of woolen yarn, worth not over 30 cents 
 per pound, are to be subjected to a duty of 112 per 
 cent, while the most costly yarn will pay 72 per cent. 
 One grade of coarse, cheap blankets will be required to 
 pay 106 per cent, but the finest blankets will pay 72 
 per cent. The coarsest and cheapest woolen hats will 
 be subject to a duty of 111 per cent, and the finest 
 to 66 per cent. Women's and children's cheapest dress 
 goods with cotton warp are to be taxed 106 per cent, 
 and the finest 73 per cent. The lowest grade of woolen 
 cloths will pay 125 per cent, and the highest grade 
 86 per cent. The cheapest qualities of knit goods for 
 underwear range from 112 to 138 per cent, but the 
 finest and most expensive will pay 78 percent Woolen 
 shawls of the coarest and lowest grade used by the 
 poorest people, will pay 185 per cent, duty, and worsted 
 goods of the lowest grade will pay 130 per cent, while 
 the highest grade will pay 90 per cent. 
 
 138 
 
" There are many increases of tlie rates on iron and 
 steel and scarcely any reduction on articles which can 
 be imported at all under the existing rates. The re- 
 ductions in this schedule, as a general rule, will not 
 diminish taxation to any appreciable extent, while all 
 the increases are so arranged as to obstruct importations 
 and enhance the prices of the domestic articles of the 
 same kind. On common table cutlery the new rates of 
 duty imposed by this bill are very largely in excess of 
 the old ones under which our manufacturing establish- 
 ments have been successfully carried on for many years, 
 and on the cheaper grades of pocket knives, and razors 
 especially, the rates are greatly increased. 
 
 " When the existing tariff was enacted in 1883, 
 large increases were made in the rates of duty on earth- 
 enware and glassware, and this was justified upon the 
 ground that the law then passed abolished the duty 
 upon the packages in which these articles were shipped 
 into this country ; and it was contended that in view of 
 this fact the actual net increase of duty would be com- 
 paratively small. Experience has shown, however, that 
 notwithstanding the abolition of the duty on packages 
 there was a large increase of taxation in this schedule 
 under that act, and therefore there ought now to be a 
 reduction even if the packages remain free. But at the 
 present session of Congress a bill has passed the House, 
 and is now pending in the Senate, reimposing the du- 
 ties on the packages, and the bill reported by the major- 
 ity proposes to make still further inci'eases in the rates 
 of duty upon the goods, especially upon glass and glass- 
 ware. Common window glass, not exceeding 16 by 24 
 inches square, is increased to 123 per cent.; not exceed- 
 
 129 
 
ing 24 by 30 inches square is raised to over 135 per 
 cent, and all sizes aV)ove that are raised to over 138 per 
 cent, while there are very large increases upon bottles 
 and various other manufactures of glass. 
 
 " Camel's hair, a raw material extensively used in this 
 country in the manufacture of certain kinds of goods, 
 and which has been admitted free of duty for a great 
 many years, is by this bill taken from the free list and 
 subjected to a tax of twelve cents per pound, which is 
 equivalent to 77 per cent, ad valorem. During the last 
 fiscal year Ave imported, free of duty, 6,648,097 pounds 
 of this material, which is absolutely necessary to enable 
 some of our manufacturing establishments to carry on 
 their business and supply the goods they are now mak- 
 ing for their customers ; but if this bill passes and the 
 same quantity is imported next year it will cost tho. 
 people $797,771.64 in addition to the value of the hair 
 itself. 
 
 "The bill proposes to make large increases in the 
 duties on carpel wools, and take silver ores containing 
 lead from the free list and subject the lead contained in 
 the silver ore to a duty of 1^ cents per pound, not 
 because we need the revenue, but for the sole purpose 
 of preventing these articles from being imported into 
 this country. Last year we imported direct from the 
 States and Republics of Central and South America 
 and the Republic of Mexico many million pounds of 
 this wool, and still more by way of London and other 
 European ports, and from Mexico silver ores bearing 
 lead of the value of $6,779,160. Our total importations 
 of carpet wools from all countries amounted to 96,556,- 
 466 pounds, and our total importation of this kind of ore 
 
 130 
 
was $6,951,719, All this wool has been converted into 
 carpets and other fabrics, and all these ores have been 
 smelted in the United States by American workmen, 
 and their importation has been of great benefit to our 
 people, in addition to the profit realized from the trade 
 between the different countries. The free admission of 
 fluxing ores from Mexico has enabled our citizens to 
 establish and maintain large smelting works at El Paso, 
 Texas, Argentine, Kansas, Newark, N. J., Kansas City, 
 Mo., and a great many other places. If this bill passes 
 the tax upon 66,000 tons of silver ore, the amount im- 
 ported last year, will be over $672,000, which the Gov- 
 ernment does not need and which will benefit nobody 
 in this country. The bill in fact increases the rates of 
 duty on all classes of wool imported into this country. 
 " For the further purpose of inducing the far- 
 mers of the country to believe that they can and 
 will derive some benefit from the protective policy, 
 this bill imposes various rates of duty upon certain 
 important agricultural products, which it is well 
 known could not be imported to any material extent 
 with or without duty. For instance, com is subjected 
 to a duty of 15 cents a bushel; corn meal, 20 cents per 
 bushel; oats, 15 cents per bushel; rye, 10 cents per 
 bushel; wheat, 25 cents j)er bushel; wheat flour, 25 
 per cent, ad valorem ; apples, green or ripe, 25 cents 
 per bushel ; apples, dried, 2 cents per pound ; bacon 
 and hams, 5 cents per pound ; beef, mutton, and pork, 
 2 cents per pound ; lard, 2 cents per pound, and tallow, 
 1 cent per pound. We produce a great surplus of all 
 these articles and many others every year, which we are 
 compelled to send abroad and sell in the free markets 
 
 131 
 
of the world in competition witli similar products of 
 other countries. It is impossible to protect the farmer 
 against foreign competition in his home market, for he 
 has no such competition, and the insertion or retention 
 of these articles in a tariff bill is a device which will de- 
 ceive no one who gives a moment's thought to the 
 subject. 
 
 " Under the existing law animals for breeding pur- 
 poses are admitted free of duty and all others are sub- 
 ject to a tax of 20 per cent, ad valorem ; but the bill re- 
 ported proposes largely to increase this tax and make it 
 specific. It is proposed to levy an import duty of $30 
 per head on all horses and mules; $10 per head on all 
 cattle over one year old, and $2 per head on all under 
 that age, and $1.50 per head on hogs and sheep. 
 Horses, valued at $150 and over, will pay a duty of 30 
 per cent., and all animals imported especially for breed- 
 ing purposes will still be admitted free, but they must 
 be of pure blood, of a recognized breed, and must have 
 been duly registered abroad in the book of records es- 
 tablished for that breed. All these increases of duties 
 are claimed to be in the interest of farmers, but in fact 
 they will be vastly more injurious to them and to dairy- 
 men than to any other class of our people. Last year 
 we imported dutiable horses to the number of 52,454, 
 of the average value of $42.81 ; cattle, 62,380, of the 
 average value of $9.68; hogs, 2,396, of the average 
 value of $3.28; and sheep, 454,010, of the average 
 value of $2.98. These animals were brought here 
 mainly, if not entirely, by the farmers themselves, or on 
 their account, to replenish their stock of work beasts, 
 milch cows, and sheep herds. This is evident, we 
 
 133 
 
think, from the low prices of the animals and the 
 localities from which they were imported. For in- 
 stance, nearly all the horses imported came from Mex- 
 ico and from Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and the 
 Northwest Territory, and the average value of the 
 29,590 brought from Mexico Avas $8.80, while the aver- 
 age value of the 17,470 brought from the Dominion was 
 only a little over $100. These were not expensive ani- 
 mals imported for racing purposes, or for use in 
 j^leasure carriages, but ordinary stock such as is used 
 upon our farms ; and it is evident that the importations 
 from Mexico w^ere ponies for use on the sheep and cat- 
 tle ranches of the West. The duty on these Mexican 
 horses last year amounted to |52,369, but if this bill 
 passes, and the same number is imported next year, the 
 duty will amount to $887,700, or nearly three and a 
 half times their value. The farmer or dairyman who 
 hereafter imj^orts common cattle for his own use will 
 be required to pay a duty of over 100 per cent., ac- 
 cording to the average value of the importations of last 
 year, and he can not import an ordinary animal of any 
 kind for breeding purposes free of duty, as fine stock 
 may be imported, because such an animal is not pure 
 bred, and is therefore not registered abroad. How the 
 farmers are to be helped by the increased duties on live 
 animals we are wholly unable to see, and, in our opin- 
 ion, if this bill passes, they will be the first to demand 
 a restoration of the old rates, or that these importations 
 may be free. 
 
 " The bill proposes to admit, free of duty, all sugar 
 up to and including No. 16 Dutch standard in color, 
 and pay to the sugar producers in this country a bounty 
 
 133 
 
of two cents per pound each year until July 1, 1905, on 
 their product. Last year these grades of sugar which 
 are now made free, yielded to the Government |54,- 
 894,181, all of which is now to be surrendered, and the 
 sugar industry is to become an annual charge upon all 
 the people who are engaged in other occupations, some 
 of which are far more important and all of which are 
 fully as meritorious as this one. In 1888, which is the 
 last year for which we have complete returns, the sugar 
 product in this country was 375,855,877 pounds, so 
 that even should there be no increased production 
 under the bounty system the sum which the people are 
 to be compelled to donate each year for the supjaort of 
 this favorite industry will be $7,520,000, or $113,000,- 
 000 during the fifteen years. But the very object of 
 the bounty is to encourage the production of this ar- 
 ticle, and its advocates claim that in a few years it will 
 result in a domestic supply equal to the whole demand 
 for home consumption, In addition to the home prod- 
 uct we imported and consumed during the last fiscal 
 year 2,700,421,302 pounds of sugar not above No. 16 in 
 color, making a total annual consumption, including 
 domestic and imported, of 3,076,277,079 pounds, and 
 therefore, if the system results as its advocates predict, 
 the annual payment out of the Treasury will be $61,- 
 528,426, even without any increase in the amount now 
 consumed. We protest against the gross favoritism 
 and injustice of such a policy, and we deny the moral 
 or constitutional right of the Government to tax the 
 people who grow corn, wheat, cotton, rye, oats, and 
 other agricultural products for the purpose of raising 
 money to be given to those who produce sugar or any 
 other article. 
 
 134 
 
" It is impossible to state with entire accuracy how 
 much the bill increases taxes upon imported goods, for 
 the reason that there are many large increases of taxa- 
 tion made by it which are not exhibited in the table 
 submitted by the Committee. This table shows that, 
 omitting the sugar schedule, there has been added to 
 the duties on the articles still remaining on the dutia- 
 ble list the sum of $4:0,055,152.33; but in addition to 
 this, after January 1, 1894, the duties on brown and 
 bleached linens, ducks, canvas, handkerchiefs, or other 
 woven fabrics, composed of flax, hemp, jute, or of 
 which flax, hemp, or jute, or either of them, shall be 
 the component material of cheap value, containing one 
 hundred or more threads to the square inch, counting 
 either the Avarp or filling, will be increased to the 
 amount of $1,574,954.57 more than is shown by the 
 tables ; and after July 1, 1891, the duty on tin or terne 
 plate will be $8,371,378.67 greater than it was last year 
 upon the same importation, and the increase in the 
 tobacco schedule is, as nearly as we can calculate it, 
 $6,551,855.41 more than the tables show. In our opin- 
 ion the increase in the tobacco schedule, resulting 
 mainly from the imposition of a duty of $2 per pound 
 on unstemmed leaf for cigar wrappers, will be $16,305,- 
 925 instead of $9,754,069.59, as shown by the tables, 
 and we are confident that an analysis of our importa- 
 tions of that article for a series of years past will sus- 
 tain our position. Even the comparatively brief exami- 
 nation we have been able to make has disclosed other 
 increases not shown by the calculations contained in 
 the tables, amounting to the sum of over $8,000,000,, 
 and there are many others which can not be accurately 
 
 135 
 
■ascertained for the want of sufficient data as to prices 
 and quantities of importations of last year. Adding 
 these amounts to the $40,055,152.33, shows a total in- 
 crease of duties on articles still dutiable, outside of the 
 sugar schedule, of about $65,000,000, and we are satis- 
 fied it is more than that. We do not mean to assert 
 that the bill actually increases the customs revenue 
 $65,000,000 over what it is under existing law, but 
 that it proposes to impose upon the articles it leaves 
 upon the dutiable list, except sugar and molasses, that 
 sum in excess of the amount collected on the same 
 schedules last year. It places upon the free list articles 
 which yielded a revenue of $6,039,969 during the last 
 fiscal year, and it makes a reduction of $54,922,110.56 
 on sugar and molasses, and these two sums, amounting 
 to $60,962,079.63, being deducted from the $65,000,000 
 leave a net increase of more than $4,000,000 in tariff 
 taxation under this bill. While the bill proposes to 
 transfer from the dutiable schedules to the free list arti- 
 cles which last year yielded a revenue of $6,039,969.07, 
 it proposes also to transfer from the free list to the 
 •dutiable list certain articles, principally raw materials 
 used in manufactures, which, according to the importa- 
 tions during the last fiscal year, will yield a revenue of 
 nearly $3,500,000." 
 
 The bill came to a vote, on the question of passage, 
 on May 21st, its opponents making a final effort at 
 its defeat on the following motion : Mr. Carlisle moved 
 that "the pending bill be recommitted to the 
 ■Committee on Ways and Means, with instructions to 
 report the same back to the House at the earliest 
 possible day so amended by substitute or otherwise as 
 
 136 
 
1)0 reduce the revenues of the Government by reducing 
 the burdens of taxation upon the people, instead of 
 reducing the revenues by imposing prohibitory rates 
 of taxation upon imported goods," — which was 
 disagreed to, yeas 140, all Democrats; nays 164, 
 all Republicans. The bill was then passed — yeas 164, 
 all Republicans ; nays 142, all Democrats but two, one 
 Republican and one Independent, while twenty-one 
 members, six Republicans and fifteen Democrats did 
 not vote. New England cast twenty-one votes for the 
 bill and three against it; the Middle States, yeas 
 forty-eight, nays twenty-eight ; the Western and North- 
 western States, yeas seventy -five, nays thirty-one ; the 
 Southern and Southwestern, yeas eleven, nays seventy- 
 eight, and the Pacific, yeas nine, nays two. 
 
 The bill was reported by Mr. Morrill from the 
 Senate Finance Committee on June 18th, and was 
 constantly considered, with various intervals, in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, until September 8th. An interest- 
 ing colloquy occurred between Senators McPherson and 
 Sherman on July 25th, occasioned by the motion 
 of the former to recommit the bill to the Finance 
 Committee with instructions to prepare a bill which 
 would " reduce the average ad valorem rate of duty on 
 dutiable articles, based upon the importations of 1889, 
 so as not to exceed the average ad valorem war tariff 
 rate of 1864," which he stated to be 39.69 per cent. 
 To this Mr. Sherman replied, " that while the rate of 
 duty on dutiable articles is a little less than 52 per 
 <:ent. under the pending bill, yet on the whole list of 
 articles taken together the average rate of duty is only 
 about 2 7 per cent. Nearly fifty per cent., or half our 
 
 137 
 
importations under the proposed act, are entirely free 
 of duty, while under the act of 1864 only fifteen 
 to eighteen per cent, of the articles were free 
 of duty. The value of the goods that have heretofore 
 paid duty that are made free by this bill is $108,919,- 
 907 ; which added to the value of those free now makes 
 the grand aggregate of |365,'494,573 as the value of all 
 of the articles that will be admitted free of duty under 
 the new law. This is much the largest free list ever 
 known in the history of the country, and almost equals 
 the value of the articles on which duties will be levied 
 by this bill, for while $365,494,537 of imported goods 
 are admitted free of duty, according to the figures of 
 last year, $390,437,117 are subjec*- to duty." 
 
 " Now, the striking difference between the tariff 
 policy of 1864 and 1890," said Mr Sherman, "is this : 
 In 1864 we were involved in war; we levied tariff 
 duties on almost every article of necessity, as well as 
 those articles that we manufacture in this country, and 
 therefore we levied duties not only on sugar, but on 
 tea, coffee, and almost everything else, and when at 
 that time the duties amounted to 46 per cent, on the 
 average, they were upon all articles imported practi- 
 cally. The free list was then only 10, or 12, or 15 per 
 cent., but now on account of the change of con- 
 ditions, from the fact that we wish to admit duty free 
 all articles that we can not produce in this country, we 
 admit substantially one-half of all imported goods 
 into this country free of duty, and we propose an 
 average duty of 52 per cent, upon those articles that 
 we think we ought to make and can make in this 
 country, and for which we seek by these duties not 
 
 138 
 
only to get sufficient revenue to carry on the Govern- 
 ment, but also to protect and foster and build up 
 American industry at the same time." 
 
 The motion to recommit was lost — yeas nineteen, all 
 Democrats ; nays twenty-nine, all Republicans. 
 
 On September 8th, what was known as " the Reci- 
 procity Amendment," by Mr. Aldrich, of Rhode Island, 
 was agreed to — yeas 37, all Republicans ; nays 28, all 
 Democrats but two. This policy had been recom- 
 mended by the International American Conference then 
 in session in this country, and was in keeping with the 
 long cherished policy of Mr. Blaine and the recommen- 
 dations of President Harrison in his special message to 
 Congress of June 19, 1890, in which he said: 
 
 " It has been so often and so persistently stated that 
 our tariff laws offer an insurmountable bairier to a 
 large exchange of products with the Latin-American 
 nations that I deem it proper to call especial attention 
 to the fact that more than 87 per cent, of the products 
 of these. nations sent to our ports are now admitted 
 free. If sugar is placed upon the free list, practically 
 every important article exported from those states will 
 be given untaxed access to our markets, except wool. 
 The real difficulty in the way of negotiating profitable 
 reciprocity treaties is that we have given freely so much 
 that would have had value in the mutual concessions 
 which such treaties imply. I cannot doubt, however, 
 that the present advantages which the products of these 
 near and friendly states enjoy in our markets — though 
 they are not by law exclusive — will, with other consid- 
 erations, favorably dispose them to adopt such meas- 
 ures, by treaty, or otherwise, as will tend to equalize 
 and greatly enlarge our mutual exchanges." 
 
 139 
 
The Aldricli amendment was also agreed to in opert. 
 Senate — yeas 38, nays 29; and the bill was passed, as 
 amended, on September 11th — yeas 40, all Republicans, 
 nays, 29, all Democrats. On September 15th the 
 House declined to agree to the Senate amendments and 
 a Committee of Conference was appointed — Messrs. 
 Aldrich, Sherman, Allison, Hiscock, Vorhees, Vance,, 
 and Carlisle, for the Senate, and Messrs. McKinley, 
 Burrows, Bayne, Dingley, McMillan, Flower, and 
 Turner, of Greorgia, for the House. The bill as it 
 passed the House contained nearly 4,000 items and was 
 amended by the Senate in 445 particulars, more than a 
 hundred of which were purely verbal, and most of the 
 others so slight and unimportant that an agreement 
 was quickly reached. The changes by the Senate in 
 the metal schedule were important, and for the most 
 part acceded to by the House conferees, while in 
 woolens, silks, flax, wood, and paper the Senate con- 
 ferees conceded the demands of the House. Sugar 
 evoked the most serious contention, and in this sched- 
 ule a compromise was effected ; sugar up to No. 16 
 Dutch standard was made free, and that above this 
 grade dutiable at a half cent per pound, with an addi- 
 tional rate of one-tenth of a cent upon all sugars comino- 
 from countries where an export bounty is paid to the 
 domestic producers. Binding twine, after much dispu- 
 tation, was finally made dutiable at seven-tenths of a 
 cent a pound, and sulphuric acid, for agricultural pur- 
 poses, was made free. The Aldrich reciprocity amend- 
 ment was accepted by the House conferees ; while the 
 internal revenue sections were in the main accepted by 
 the Senate Committee as the House had passed them^ 
 
 140 
 
The bill, as finally agreed upon, was protective in 
 every paragraph, and American in every line and word. 
 It recognized and fully enforced the economic principle 
 of protection, which the Republican party from its birth 
 had steadfastly advocated, and that had always secured 
 to the country the greatest prosperity. 
 
 The Democratic members of the Conference Com- 
 mittee declined to unite in the report, but it was 
 nevertheless accepted by both branches of Congress. 
 The House concurred in it on September 27th — yeas 
 152, all Republicans ; nays 81, all Democrats but two. 
 Thirty-eight members were paired and fifty-five Demo- 
 crats did not vote. In the Senate the report was 
 adopted on September 30th — yeas 33, all Republicans ; 
 nays 27, all Democrats, except three ; and twenty-two 
 Senators were paired and did not vote. The law was 
 approved by President Harrison on the following day, 
 and, except where otherwise especially provided, went 
 into effect on October 6, 1890. 
 
 But its passage was hardly effected before the general 
 election "Occurred, and at this the Republicans were 
 badly defeated. The House of Representatives of the 
 Fifty-second Congress, elected in 1890, was overwhelm- 
 ingly Democratic, that pai'ty electing 235 of the 332 
 members. 
 
 President Harrison gave the tariff due and careful 
 consideration in his second annual message at the begin- 
 ning of the second session of the Fifty-first Congress, 
 December 1, 1890. In the course of his suggestions he 
 said : 
 
 " The general trade and industrial conditions through- 
 out the country during the year have shown a marked 
 
 141 
 
improvement. For many years prior to 1888 the mer- 
 chandise balances of foreign trade have been largely in 
 our favor, but during that year and the year following 
 they turned against us. It is very gratifying to know 
 that the last fiscal year again shows a balance in our 
 favor of over $68,000,000. There were three hundred 
 less failures reported in October, 1890, than in the 
 same month of the preceding year, with liabilities dimin- 
 ished by about $5,000,000. The value of our exports 
 of domestic merchandise during the last year was over 
 $115,000,000 greater than the preceding year, and was 
 only exceeded once in our history. About $100,000,000 
 of this excess was in agricultural products. The pro- 
 duction of pig iron — always a good gauge of general 
 prosperity — is shown by a recent census bulletin to have 
 been 153 per cent, greater in 1890 than in 1880, and the 
 jjroduction of steel 290 per cent, greater. Mining in 
 coal has had no limitation except that resulting from 
 deficient transportation. The general testimon}' is that 
 labor is everywhere fully employed, and the reports for 
 the last year show a smaller number of employes 
 affected by strikes and lockouts than in any year since 
 1884. The depression in the prices of agricultural 
 products has been greatly relieved, and a buoyant and 
 hopeful time was beginning to be felt by all our people. 
 "The general tariff act has only partially gone into 
 operation, some of its important provisions being limited 
 to take effect at dates yet in the future. The general 
 prfjvisions of the law have been in force less than sixty 
 days. Its permanent effect upon trade and prices still 
 largely stands in conjecture. It is curious to know that 
 the advance in the prices of articles wholly unaffected 
 
 142 
 
by the tariff act was* by many tastily ascribed to that 
 act. There is neither wisdom nor Justice in the sugges- 
 tion that the subject of tariff revision shall be again 
 opened before this law has had a fair trial. It is quite 
 true that every tariff schedule is subject to objections. 
 No bill was ever framed, I suppose, that in all of its 
 rates and classifications had the full approval even of a 
 party caucus. Such legislation is always and neces- 
 sarily the product of compromise as to details, and the 
 present law is no exception. But in its general scope' 
 and effect I think it will justify the support of those' 
 who believe that American legislation should conserve 
 and defend American trade and the wages of American- 
 workmen. 
 
 " The criticisms of the bill that have come to us from 
 foreign sources may well be rejected for repugnancy. 
 If these critics really believe that the adoption by us of 
 a free trade policy, or of tariff rates having reference 
 solely to revenue, would diminish the participation of 
 their own countries in the commerce of the world, their 
 advocacy and promotion by speech and other forms of 
 organized effort of this movement among our people is a 
 rare exhibition of' unselfishness in trade. And on the 
 other hand, if they sincerely believe that the adoption 
 of a protective-tariff policy by this country inures to 
 their profit and our hurt, it is noticeably strange that 
 they should lead the outcry against the authors of a 
 policy so helpful to their countrymen, and crown with 
 their favor those who would snatch from them a sub- 
 stantial share of a trade with other lands already in- 
 adequate to their necessities. There is no disposition 
 among any of our people to promote prohibitory or 
 
 143 
 
retaliatory legislation. Our policies are adopted not to 
 tlie hurt of others, but to secure for ourselves those 
 advantages that fairly grow out of our favored position 
 as a nation. Our form of government, with its incident 
 of universal suffrage, makes it imperative that we shall 
 save our working people from the agitations and dis- 
 tresses which scant work and wages that have no 
 margin for comfort always beget. But after all this is 
 done it will be found that our markets are open to 
 friendly commercial exchanges of enormous value to 
 the other great powers. From the time of my induc- 
 tion into office the duty of using every power and 
 influence given by law to the Executive Department 
 for the develojoment of larger markets for our products, 
 especially our farm products, has been kept constantly 
 in mind, and no effort has been or will be spared to 
 promote that end. We are under no disadvantage in 
 any foreign market, except that we pay our workmen 
 and workwomen better wages than are paid elsewhere 
 — better abstractly, better relatively to the cost of the 
 necessaries of life. I do not doubt that a very largely 
 increased foreign trade is accessible to us without 
 bartering for it either our home market for such pro- 
 ducts of the farm and shop as our own jaeople can 
 supply, or the wages of our working people." 
 
 Several labor bills were considered by the Fifty-first 
 Congress. On August 29, 1890, Hon. W. J. Connell, 
 of Nebraska, reported a bill to the effect that eight 
 hours should constitute a day's work for all employes 
 of the Government, reference being especially had to 
 the District of Columbia, and providing severe penal- 
 ties for all violations of the law. The House rejected 
 
 144 
 
a motion (by Hon. William J. Mutchler, Dem., of 
 Pennsylvania) to strike out tlie section relating to 
 penalties by the vote yeas 38, nays 107 and passed 
 tlie bill witliout a division. It was favorably reported 
 by the Committee on Labor in the Senate, but failed 
 because a vote upon it was not reached. 
 
 On August 30th, Hon. William H. Wade, of Mis- 
 souri, reported an important bill providing for the 
 adjustment of the accounts of laborers, workmen and 
 mechanics arising under the eight-hour law. An 
 amendment by the Hon. Mark kS. Brewer, of Michigan, 
 was agreed to — yeas 57, nays 53 — and the bill was 
 passed by the House without a division. 
 
 In the Senate, on September 27th, the proviso by Mr. 
 Brewer was stricken from the bill by the vote, yeas 37, 
 nays 12, but the bill was not further considered at the 
 first session. On February 7, 1891, however, it was 
 again taken up and several amendments agreed to 
 when, on motion of Mr. Wolcott, of Colorado, it was 
 recommitted to the Committee on Labor. On February 
 28th, Mr. Blair, of New Hampshire, reported a substi- 
 tute for the House bill, but in the hurry and rush of 
 the close of the session no vote was had upon it. 
 
 On August 30, 1890, Mr. Wade reported a bill from 
 the Committee on Labor " to prohibit the importation 
 and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or 
 agreement to perform labor " in this country. There 
 was but little opposition to the measure and after the 
 I'ejection of an amendment (offered by Hon. John Dal- 
 zell, of Pennsylvania) to the fifth section providing for 
 the importation of skilled laborors in certain cases on the 
 approval of the Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney 
 
 145 
 
General, it was passed by the House without a division. 
 The bill was considered by the Senate on September 
 27th, and various amendments were agreed to, but no 
 decisive action was ever taken upon it. 
 
 On the same day, August 30th, Mr. Wade reported 
 a second bill, from the Committee on Labor, to prevent 
 the employment of convicts on Government work, and 
 it, too, was passed by the House without amendment or 
 division. It was reported favorably in the Senate, but 
 a vote was not taken upon it. 
 
 A third bill was reported to the House the same day 
 by Mr. Wade, which made it unlawful for any agent or 
 officer of the Government to purchase, or permit to be 
 purchased for the Government, any supplies of any des- 
 cription whatever, which were in whole or in part the 
 product of convict labor. It was passed by the House 
 without change or dissent but met with the same fate 
 as its predecessors in the Senate. 
 
 We have seen that in 1862 Congress levied a direct 
 tax upon the realty of the country, apportioned among 
 the several States according to population. The States 
 themselves were authorized to assume the collection: 
 and payment of this tax, less fifteen per cent, for the 
 expense and trouble of collecting it. Nearly all the 
 Northern States assumed the tax and paid it over to the 
 Treasury of the United States, but in all of the eleven 
 seceding States no assumption of it was made. The 
 collectors, however, proceeded as far as practicable to 
 levy and enforce the tax, and in this way they gathered 
 in about $2,250,000 in round numbers, from individual 
 citizens of the seceding States. The balance assessed 
 against these States, amounting to about $2,500,000,, 
 
 146 
 
was never recovered, and up to this time (1891) still 
 stood against them. In the Fiftieth Congress a bill 
 was passed restoring to all the States which had paid this 
 tax the amount they had paid the Government and re- 
 lieving the States from which the tax was still due the 
 amount charged against them. It was vetoed by Presi- 
 dent Cleveland, and the Senate, on March 2, 1889, 
 passed the bill over his veto. But the bill was not 
 reached in the House and therefore failed. In the 
 Fifty-first Congress, the Senate again passed a bill at 
 the first session, but the House did not reach it until 
 the next session. On February 24, 1891, however, the 
 House agreed to aa amendment by Hon. Lucian B. 
 Caswell, of Wisconsin, and passed the bill by a vote of 
 172 to 101. The Senate agreed to the amendment by 
 the House, and President Harrison approved the law on 
 March 2d. Under its provisions $15,227,632 were dis- 
 tributed among the several States and Territories, of 
 which sum three States received over five million dol- 
 lars ; New York $2,213,330, Pennsylvania $1,634,711, 
 and Ohio $1,332,025. 
 
 One of the most important acts passed at the second 
 session of the Fifty-first Congress — affecting as it did 
 every laborer in the country — was familiarly known as 
 " the Owen Immigration Law," from its author, Hon. 
 William D. Owen, of Indiana. It was an amendment to 
 the various acts relating to immigration, and to the 
 importation of aliens under contract or agreement to 
 perform labor. It provided a new method for the 
 inspection of emigrant ships, agencies, offices, and 
 stations, and fixed more definitely the responsibility of 
 steamship or transportation companies, and the owners 
 
 147 
 
of vessels, or their agents, with heavier penalties for 
 the violation of the law. Mr. Owen reported the bill 
 from the Select Committee to which it had been 
 referred at the first session, on February 24, 1891, and 
 Hon. William C. Gates, of Alabama, offered a sub- 
 stitute amending existing statutes but making less 
 radical changes. This substitute was rejected — yeas 
 41, Eepublicans 24, Democrats 17; nays 209, Re- 
 publicans 114, Democrats 95; while 39 Republicans 
 and 45 Democrats were absent or did not vote. The 
 bill was then passed without division and went to the 
 Senate. Here it was passed unanimously on February 
 27th, and became a law by the approval of President 
 Harrison on March 3rd. 
 
 What was known as "the Hawaiian Treaty Bill," 
 was reported from the Ways and Means Committee on 
 February 28, 1891, and passed by the House without 
 division. It was considered in the Senate on March 
 2nd and passed without opposition and on the day 
 following was approved by President Harrison. A 
 treaty of reciprocity had been entered into between the 
 United States and Hawaii on January 13, 1875, and ex- 
 tended by the convention pi'oclaimed November 9, 
 1887, and this law simply provided that nothing in the 
 act of October 6, 1890, should be held to repeal or 
 impair the provisions of the foregoing agreement. 
 
 The House in the Fifty-second Congress organized 
 by electing Hon. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker, 
 and Hon. William M. Springer, of Illinois, was 
 appointed by him Chairman of the Ways and Means 
 Committee. The Senate remained Republican by forty- 
 seven of the eighty-eight members. Hon. Charles F. 
 
 148 
 
Manderson, of Nebraska, was elected President pro 
 tern., and Mr. Morrill continued as Chairman of the 
 Finance Committee. 
 
 In his third annual message at the beginning of the 
 first session of the Fifty-second Congress, December 9, 
 1891, President Harrison wrote at some length of the 
 operations of the new tariff law. He was gratified at 
 the prospect, and observed, with force and clearness: 
 
 "Rarely, if ever before in the history of the country, 
 has there been a time when the proceeds of one day's 
 labor or the product of one farmed acre Avould purchase 
 so large an amount of those things that enter into the 
 living of the masses of the people. I believe that a full 
 test will develop the fact that the tariff act of the Fifty- 
 first Congress is very favorable in its average effect 
 upon the prices of articles entering into common use. 
 During the twelve months from October 1, 1890, to 
 September 30, 1891, the total value of our foreign 
 commerce (imports and exports combined) was $1,747,- 
 806,406, which was the largest of any year in the his- 
 tory of the United States. The largest in any previous 
 year was in 1890, when our commerce amounted to 
 $1,647,139,093, and the last year exceeds this enormous 
 aggregate by over one hundred millions. It is interest- 
 ing, and to some will be surprising, to know that during 
 the year ending September 30, 1891, our imports of 
 merchandise amounted to $824,715,270, which was an 
 increase of more than eleven million dollars over the 
 value of the imports of the corresponding months of the 
 preceding year, when the imports of merchandise were 
 unusually large in anticipation of the tariff legislation 
 then pending. The average annual value of the imports 
 
 149 
 
of mercliandise for the ten years from 1881 to 1890 was 
 $692,186,522, and during the year ending September 30, 
 1891, this annual average was exceeded by $132,528,469. 
 The value of free imports during the twelve months 
 ending September 30, 1891, was $118,092,387 more 
 than the value of free imports during the corresponding 
 twelve months of the preceding year, and there was 
 during the same period a decrease of $106,846,508 in 
 the value of imports of dutiable merchandise. The jjer- 
 centage of merchandise admitted free of duty during the 
 year to which I have referred, the first under the new 
 tariff, was 48.18, while during the preceding twelve 
 months, under the old tariff, the percentage was 34.27, 
 an increase of 13.91 per cent. If we take the six months 
 ending September 30th last, which covers the time 
 during which sugars have been admitted free of duty, 
 the per cent, of value of merchandise imported free of 
 duty is found to be 55.37, which is a larger percentage 
 of free -imports than during any prior fiscal year in the 
 history of the Government. If we turn to exports of 
 merchandise, the statistics are full of gratification. The 
 value of such exports of merchandise for the twelve 
 months ending September 30, 1891, was $923,0^1,136, 
 while for the corresponding previous twelv^e months it 
 was $860,177,115, an increase of $62,914,021, which is 
 nearly three times the average annual increase of ex- 
 ports of merchandise for the preceding twenty years; 
 this exceeds in amount and value the exports of mer- 
 chandise during any year in the history of the Govern- 
 ment. The increase in the value of exports of agri- 
 cultural products during the year referred to over the 
 corresponding twelve months of the prior year was 
 
 150 
 
$45,846,197, while the increase in the value of exports 
 of manufactured products was $16,838,240. There is 
 certainly nothing in the condition of trade, foreign or 
 domestic, there is certainly nothing in the condition of 
 our people of any class, to suggest that the existing 
 tariff and revenue legislation bears oppressively upon 
 the people or retards the commercial development of 
 the Nation. It may be argued that our condition would 
 be better if tariff legislation were on a free-trade basis ; 
 but it can not be denied that all the conditions of 
 prosperity and of general contentment are present in a 
 larger degree than ever before in our history, and that, 
 too, just when it was prophesied they would be in the 
 worst state. Agitation for radical changes in tariff and 
 financial legislation can not help, but may seriously 
 impede, business, to the prosperity of which some degree 
 of stability in legislation is essential. I think there are 
 conclusive evidences that the new tariff has created 
 several great industries which will, within a few years, 
 give employment to several hundred thousand American 
 working men and women. In view of the somewhat 
 overcrowded condition of the labor market of the 
 United States every patriotic citizen should rejoice at 
 such a result. The report of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury shows that the total receipts of the Govern- 
 ment, from all sources, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1891, were $458,544,233.03, while the expenditures for 
 the same period were $421 304,470.46, leaving a surplus 
 :of $37,239,762.57." 
 
 During the recess of Congress treaties of reciprocity 
 had been entered into between the United States and 
 the following countries, and were duly proclaimed by 
 
 151 
 
President Harrison on the dates given: Brazil, Feb- 
 ruary 5, 1891 ; Spain, July 31, 1891 ; and San Domingo, 
 August 7, 1891. Other treaties are as follows : Sal- 
 vador, December 31, 1891 ; Grermany, February 1, 1892, 
 Great Britain, February 1, 1892, applicable to British 
 Guiana, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, the Leeward. 
 Islands, and the Windward Islands, except Grenada ; 
 Nicaragua, March 12, 1892 ; Honduras, April 30, 1892 ; 
 Guatemala, May 18, 1892 ; Austria-Hungary, May 26, 
 1892. A proclamation was also issued by President 
 Harrison, on March 15, 1892, suspending the free ad- 
 mission in the United States of the sugar, molasses, 
 coffee and tea produced in Hayti. The articles which 
 were benefited by these treaties were about 292 in num- 
 ber and consisted in part of agricultural implements, live 
 stock, clocks and watches, cotton yarns and goods, meat 
 extracts, condensed milk, iron and steel manufactures, 
 tools, leather, resin, tar, paraffine, cheese, pianos, car- 
 riages, flour, oils, barks and extracts, and brass and its 
 manufactures. 
 
 On February 9, 1892, the House passed a bill to 
 amend the internal revenue laws, as to violations, 
 penalties, and other particulars. Mr. Bynum, of 
 Indiana, moved the previous question and the bill was 
 passed — yeas 173, nays 39. In the Senate it was re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Judiciar^^ 
 
 On April 4th, Hon. Thomas J. Geary, of Califor- 
 nia, secured the consideration in the House of his bill 
 to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese into the 
 United States. The rules were suspended and it was 
 passed — yeas 179, uays 43. In the Senate, a substitute 
 was reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
 
 152 
 
on April 25tli, and accepted by a vote of 43 to 14.. 
 The bill was then passed but the House refused to con- 
 cur, and a Committee of Conference was appointed con- 
 sisting of Senators Dolph, Sherman, and Morgan, and 
 Kepresentatives Geary, Chipman, and Hitt. They re- 
 ported an amended bill (Messrs. Sherman and Hitt not 
 signing the report) which was accepted and passed by 
 the Senate on May 3rd — yeas 30, nays 15, and by the 
 House on May 4th — yeas 186, nays 27 — and approved 
 by the President on May 5, 1892. 
 
 The House at this session passed a series of'tariff bills,, 
 which were derisively styled by the press as '-pop gun 
 bills," probably because it was well known in advance 
 that they would avail nothing, neither pass the Senate 
 nor be approved by the President. On April 4th a bill 
 was reported " to place wool on the free list and reduce 
 the duties on woolen goods." It passed the House, on 
 April 7th, by a vote of 1 94 to 60 — two Democrats vot- 
 ino- with the Republicans in the negative. The Senate 
 referred this bill to the Committee on Finance. 
 
 On April 9th, a bill " to admit free of duty bagging 
 for cotton, machinery for manufacturing bagging, cotton- 
 ties, and cotton-gins," was passed by the House by the 
 vote — yeas (Democrats) 167 ; nays (Republicans) 46. 
 In the Senate it was referred to the Committee on 
 Finance. 
 
 On May 2nd, Hon. William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, 
 moved to suspend the rules and pass his bill to place 
 binding twine on the free list. This was agreed to — 
 yeas 183, nays 47, two Republicans voting in the affir- 
 mative and three Democrats in the negative. The Senate 
 referred it to the Committee on Finance. 
 
 153 
 
Hon. Samuel Fowler, of New Jersey, on May 2nd, 
 moved to suspend the rules of the House and pass his 
 bill to encourage American shipping — that is, grant 
 registers as vessels of the United States to the steam- 
 ships " City of New York," " City of Paris," and such 
 other foreign-built steamships as were then or might 
 thereafter be engaged in the freight and passenger 
 business in any established line from a port in the 
 United States. The motion was agreed to and the bill 
 j)assed without division. In the Senate the bill was 
 favorably reported and passed on May 9th — yeas forty- 
 one. Republicans twenty-four, Democrats seventeen; 
 nays ten, Republicans four, Democrats six. It was ap- 
 proved by President Harrison, May 11, 1892. A similar 
 bill by Ml-. Fowler to grant a register to the steamship 
 " China " was defeated by the House on July 20th. 
 It was laid on the table, by a vote of 107 to 8i. 
 
 On July 1st, the House Committee on Labor 
 reported a bill " to enforce the eight-hour law," which 
 was passed under suspension — yeas 166, nays, all 
 Democrats, 31. In the Senate, it ^vas passed on July 
 SSth, without division, and was approved by the 
 President on July 30th. 
 
 On July 8th, Hon. Benjamin F. Shively, of Indiana, 
 moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill to reduce 
 the duty on tin and tin-plate to one cent per pound. 
 This was agreed to and the bill j)assed — yeas 207, nays 
 61, a strict party vote. No action was taken on the bill 
 in the Senate. 
 
 Hon. Justin R. Whiting, of Michigan, on July 8th, 
 moved to suspend the rules and pass his bill reducing 
 the duty on lead ores to one and a half or one and a 
 
 154 
 
third cents per pound, which was agreed to — yeas 196y 
 nays 63, including three Democrats. The Senate took 
 no action upon it. 
 
 On the same day the same gentleman secured a 
 suspension and the passage of a bill to reduce the duty 
 on the wearing apparel of tourists from the United 
 States to Europe ; also on other personal effects. The 
 Senate, however, did not consider it. 
 
 On July 28th, pending consideration of the Senate 
 amendments to the Sundry Civil Bill, the House 
 adopted an amendment against the employment of 
 Pinkerton detectives in any Government service or by 
 any officer of the District of Columbia — yeas 159, nays 
 34. In the Senate, this and other House amendments 
 were not concurred in, and the matter was referred to a 
 Committee of Conference — Senators Allison, Cullom, 
 and Grorman, and Representatives Holman, Sayres, and 
 Bingham. On April 5th this Committee reported by 
 favor of retaining the clause, and it was agreed to by 
 the House — yeas 169, nays 4 — and by the Senate with- 
 out a division. 
 
 The tenth Republican National Convention as- 
 sembled in Minneapolis, Minn., June Y, 1892. The 
 platform was unanimously adopted on June 10th, and 
 in its treatment of the tariff it declared : 
 
 "We reaffirm the American doctrine of protection. 
 We call attention to its growth abroad. We maintain 
 that the prosperous condition of our country is largely 
 due to the wise revenue legislation of the Republican 
 Congress. We believe that all articles which can not 
 be produced in the United States, except luxuries, 
 should be admitted free of duty, and that on all ini- 
 
 155 
 
;ports coming into competition with the products of 
 American labor there should be levied duties equal to 
 the difference between washes abroad and at home. 
 We assert that the prices of manufactured articles of 
 general consumption have been reduced under the 
 operations of the tariff act of 1890. We denounce the 
 efforts of the Democratic majority of the House of 
 Representatives to destroy our tariff laws by piecemeal, 
 as manifested by their attacks upon wool, lead and lead 
 ores, the chief products of a number of States, and we 
 ask the people for their judgment thereon. We point 
 to the success of the Republican jDolicy of reciprocity, 
 under which our export trade has vastly increased, and 
 new and enlarged markets have been opened for the 
 products of our farms and workshops. We remind the 
 people of the bitter opposition of the Democratic party 
 to tbis practical business measure, and claim that, ex- 
 ecuted by a Republican Administration, our present 
 laws will eventually give us control of the trade of the 
 world. We reaffirm our opposition, declared in the 
 Republican platform of 1888, to all combinations of 
 capital organized in trusts, or otherwise, to control 
 arbitrarily the condition of trade among our citizens. 
 We heartily indorse the action already taken upon this 
 subject, and ask for such further legislation as may be 
 required to remedy any defects in existing laws and to 
 render their enforcement more complete and effective." 
 
 Mr. Harrison was renominated on the first ballot for 
 President, and Hon. Whitelaw Reid, of l^ew York, on 
 the first ballot for Vice-President. 
 
 The Democratic National Convention met in Chicago 
 •on June 21st. The platform as reported the next day 
 
 156 
 
contained the following declaration on the subject of 
 " revenue tariffs," as its second plank, namely : 
 
 " We reiterate the oft-repeated doctrines of the Dem- 
 ocratic party that the necessities of the Government is 
 the only justification for taxation, and whenever a tax 
 is unnecessary it is unjustifiable ; that when custom- 
 house taxation is levied upon articles of any kind pro- 
 duced in this country, the difference between the cost 
 of labor here and labor abroad, when such a difference 
 exists, fully measures any possible benefits to labor, and 
 the enormous additional impositions of the existing tariff 
 fall with crushing force upon our farmers and working- 
 men, and for the mere advantage of the few whom It 
 enriches, exact from labor a gi'ossly 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 domes- 
 tic industries, but rather to promote their healthy 
 growth. From the foundation of this Government 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 legis- 
 lation for successful continuance, so that any change of 
 law must be at every step regardful of the labor and 
 capital thus involved. The process of reform must be 
 subject in its execution to the plain dictates of justice." 
 
 Although this breathed the spii'it of the Democratic 
 tariff resolutions of 1S84, on which Mr. Cleveland had 
 been elected to the Presidency, it encountered most 
 determined opposition. Hon. Lawi'ence T. Neal, of 
 
 157 
 
Ohio, on behalf of himself and other members of the 
 Committee on Resolutions, moved that this paragraph 
 be stricken from the platform, and the following sub- 
 stitute be adopted : 
 
 " 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 fun- 
 damental principle of the Democratic party that the 
 Federal Government has no constitutional power to im- 
 pose and collect tariff duties, except for the purpose 
 of revenue only, and we demand that the collection of 
 such taxes shall be limited to the necessities of the Gov- 
 ernment 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 indorse the efforts made by the Dem- 
 ocrats of the present Congress to modify its most op- 
 pressive feature in the direction of free raw materials 
 and cheaper manufactured goods that enter into general 
 consumption, and we promise 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 the wages of the laboring man to 
 one increase. We deny that there has been any increase 
 of prosperity to the country since the tariff went into 
 operation, and we point to the dullness and distress, the 
 wage reductions and strikes in the iron trade, as the best 
 possible evidence that no such prosperity has resulted 
 from the McKinley act. We call the attention of 
 thoughtful Americans to the fact that after thirty years, 
 of restrictive taxes against the importation of foreign 
 
 158 
 
wealth, in exchange for our agricultural surplus, the 
 homes and farms of the country have become burdened 
 Avith a real estate mortgage debt of over $2,500,000,000, 
 exclusive of all other forms of indebtedness ; that in one 
 of the chief agricultural States of the West there ap- 
 pears a real estate mortgage debt averaging $165 per 
 capita of the total population, and that similar condi- 
 tions and tendencies are shown to exist in other agri- 
 cultural exporting States. We denounce a policy which 
 fosters no industry so much as it does that of the sheriff.'' 
 
 After a brief but spirited debate the motion by Mr. 
 Neal was agreed to — yeas 564, nays 342. Eighteen; 
 States (Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Mich-- 
 igan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, 
 North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Washing- 
 ton, West Virginia, and Wyoming) voted unanimously 
 in favor of the substitute, and thirteen (Arkansas, Cali- 
 fornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, 
 New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Khode 
 Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) solidly against it. 
 Fifteen delegates in Illinois opposing the substitute, 
 five in Minnesota favoring it, and fifteen in Pennsylvania 
 opposing it, were deprived of the expression of their 
 individual views, since, under the unit rule, their votes 
 were counted with the majority of their respective del- 
 egations. The following additional planks on "reci- 
 procity " and " trusts " were agreed to, and the platform 
 as amended was unanimously adopted : 
 
 " Trade interchange on the basis of reciprocal advant- 
 ages to the countries participating is a time-honored 
 doctrine of the Democratic faith, but we denounce the 
 sham reciprocity which juggles with the people's desire 
 
 259 
 
for enlarged foreign markets and freer exchanges by 
 pretending to establish closer trade relations for a 
 country whose articles of export are almost exclusively 
 agricultural products with other countries that are also 
 agricultural, while erecting a custom-house barrier of 
 prohibitive tariff taxes against the rich and the coun- 
 tries of the world that stand ready to to take our entire 
 surplus of products and to exchange therefor commodi- 
 ties which are necessaries and comforts of life among 
 our people. 
 
 "We recoojnize in the trusts and combinations which 
 are designed to enable capital to secure more than its 
 just share of the joint product of capital and labor, a 
 natural consequence of the prohibitive taxes which 
 prevent the free competition which is the life of honest 
 trade; but we believe their worst evils can be abated 
 by law, and we demand 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." 
 
 The Convention completed its labors by nominatino- 
 Grover Cleveland, of New York, for President, for a 
 third time in succession, despite the united opposition of 
 the delegation from his own State, by 617 votes out of 
 a total of 909. A ballot was taken for Vice-President 
 resulting : Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, 402 votes, 
 Isaac P. Gray, of Indiana, 343, and 164 for some five or 
 six other favorites — and upon its conclusion Mr, Ste- 
 venson was nominated by acclamation. 
 
 President Harrison devoted about half of his masterly 
 letter of acceptance — dated at Washington, September 
 3rd — to an able and comprehensive discussion of the 
 
 160 
 
tariff law of 1890. Speaking of the substitute of the 
 minority of the Committee on Resolutions adopted by 
 the Democracy at Chicago, he said : 
 
 "The substitute declares that protective duties are un- 
 constitutional — high protection, low protection — all 
 unconstitutional. A Democratic Congress holding this 
 view can not enact, nor a Democratic Pi'esident ap- 
 prove, any tariff schedule the purpose or effect of which 
 is to limit importations, or to give any advantage to an 
 American workman or producer. A bounty might, I 
 Judge, be given to the importer under this view of the 
 constitution, in order to increase importations, and so 
 revenue for " revenue only " is the limitation. Reci- 
 procity, of course, falls under this denunciation, for its 
 object and effect are not revenue but the promotion of 
 commercial exchanges, the profits of which go wholly to 
 our producers. This destructive un-American doctrine 
 was not held or taught by the historic Democratic 
 statesmen, whose fame as patriots has reached this gen- 
 eration — certainly not by Jefferson or Jackson. This 
 mad crusade against American shops, the bitter epithets 
 applied to American manufactui'ers, the persistent dis- 
 belief of every report of the opening of a tin-plate mill, 
 or of an increase in our foreign trade by reciprocity, are 
 as surprising as they are discreditable. There is not a 
 thoughtful business man in the country who does not 
 know that the enactment into law of the declaration of 
 the Chicago convention upon the subject of the tariff 
 would at once plunge the country into a business con- 
 vulsion such as it has never seen ; and there is not a 
 thoughtful workingman who does not know that it 
 would at once enormously affect the amount of work to 
 
 161 
 
be done in this country, by the increase of importations 
 that would follow, and necessitate a reduction of his 
 wages to the European standard. If any one suggests 
 that this radical policy will not be executed if the 
 Democratic party attains power, what shall be thought 
 of a party that is capable of thus trifling with great in- 
 terests ? The threat of such legislation would be only 
 less hurtful than the fact. A distinguished Democrat 
 rightly described this movement as a challenge to the 
 protected industries to a fight of extermination, and an- 
 other such rightly expressed the logic of the situation 
 when he interpreted the Chicago platform to be an invi- 
 tation to all Democrats holding then the most moderate 
 protection views to go into the Republican party. 
 
 "And now a few words in regard to the existing 
 tariff law. We are fortunately able to judge of its 
 influence upon production and prices by the market re- 
 j)orts. The day of the prophet of calamity has been 
 succeeded by that of the trade reporter. An examina- 
 tion into the effects of the law upon the prices of pro- 
 tected products, and of the cost of such articles as enter 
 into the living of people of small means, has been made 
 by a Senate Committee, composed of leading Senators 
 of both parties, with the aid of the best statisticians, and 
 the report, signed by all the members of the Committee, 
 has been given to the public. No such wide and care- 
 ful inquiry has ever before been made. These facts 
 appear from the report : 
 
 "First. — The cost of articles entering into the use of 
 those earning less than $1,000 per annum has decreased, 
 up to May, 1892, 3.4 per cent., while in farm products 
 there has been an increase in prices, owing, in part, to 
 
 168 
 
an increased foreign demand and opening of new mar- 
 kets. In England, during the same period, the cost of 
 living increased 1.9 per cent. Tested by their power to 
 purchase articles of necessity, the earnings of our work- 
 ing people have never been as great as they are now. 
 
 "Second. — There has been an average advance in the 
 rates of wages of .75 of 1 per cent. 
 
 " Third. — There has been an advance in the price of 
 all farm products of 18.67 per cent., and of all cereals 
 33.59 per cent. 
 
 "The act of 1890 gives to the miners protection 
 against foreign silver-ljearing lead ores, the free intro- 
 duction of which threatened the great mining industries 
 of the Rocky Mountain States, and to the wool-growers 
 protection for their fleeces and flocks, which has saved 
 them from a further and disastrous decline. The House 
 of Representatives, at its last session, passed bills plac- 
 ing these ores and wool upon the free list. The people 
 of the West well know how destructive to their pros- 
 perity these measures will be. The tariff law has given 
 employment to many thousands of American men and 
 women, and will each year give employment to increas- 
 ing thousands. Its repeal would throw thousands out 
 of employment, and give work to others only at reduced 
 wages. The appeals of the freetraders to the working- 
 man are largely addressed to his prejudices or to his 
 passions, and not infrequently are pronouncedly com- 
 munistic. The new Democratic leadership rages at the 
 employer, and seeks to communicate this rage to the 
 employe. I regret that all employers of labor are not 
 just and considerate, and that capital sometimes takes 
 too large a share of the profits, but I do not see that 
 
 163 
 
these evils will be ameliorated by a tariff policy 
 the first necessary effect of which is a severe wage 
 cut, and the second a large diminution of the aggre- 
 gate amount of work to be done in this country. 
 If the injustice of the employer tempts the work- 
 man to strike back, he should be very sure that 
 his blow does not fall upon his own head or upon 
 his wife and children. The workmen in our great 
 cities are, as a body, remarkably intelligent, and 
 are lovers of home and country. They may be roused 
 by injustice, or what seems to them to be such, or be 
 led for the moment by others into acts of passion, but 
 they \vill settle the tariff contest in the calm light of 
 their November firesides, and with sole reference to the 
 prosperity of the country of which they are citizens, 
 and of the homes they have founded for their wives 
 and children. No intelligent advocate of a 'protective 
 tariff claims that it is able of itself to maintain a uni- 
 form rate of wages without regard to fluctuation in the 
 supply of, and demand for, the products of labor. But 
 it is confidently claimed that protective duties strongly 
 tend to hold up wages, and are the only barrier against 
 reduction to the European scale. The Southern States 
 have had a liberal participation in the benefits of the 
 tariff law, and, though their representatives have gen- 
 erally opposed the protective policy, I rejoice that their 
 sugar, rice, coal, ores, iron, fruits, cotton cloths and 
 other products have not been left to the fate which the 
 votes of their representatives would have brought upon 
 them. In the construction of the Nicaragua Canal, in 
 the new trade with South and Central America, in the 
 establishment of American steamship lines, these States, 
 
 164 
 
have also special interests, and all these interests will 
 not always consent to be without representation at 
 Washington. 
 
 " Shrewdly, but not quite fairly, our adversaries speak 
 only of the increased duties imposed on linen, pearl 
 buttons, and other articles by the McKinley bill, and 
 omit altogether any reference to the great and bene- 
 ficial enlargement of the free list. During the last fiscal 
 year $456,000,772 worth of merchandise, or 59.36 per 
 cent, of our total imports came in free (the largest per- 
 centage in our history), while in 1889 the percentage 
 of importations was only 34.42 per cent. The placing of 
 sugar on the free list has saved the consumer in duties in 
 thirteen months, after paying the bounties provided for, 
 $87,000,000. This relief has been substantially felt in 
 every household, upon every Saturday's purchase of the 
 workingman. One of the favorite arguments against a 
 protective tariif is that it shuts us out from a participa- 
 tion in what is called with swelling emphasis 'the 
 markets of the world.' If this view is not a false one, 
 how doth it happen that our commercial competitors 
 are not able to bear with more serenity our supposed 
 surrender to them of the ' markets of the world ? ' 
 And how does it happen that the partial loss of our 
 market closes foreign tin plate mills and plush factories 
 that still have all other markets ? Our natural ad- 
 vantages, our protective tariff, and the reciprocity 
 policy, make it possible for us to have a large partici- 
 pation in the i' markets of the world,' without opening 
 oar own to a competition that would destroy the com- 
 fort and independence of our people." 
 
 Mr. Raid responded in a letter of great strength and 
 
 165 
 
force, dated at OpMr Farm, N. Y., October 18th. In 
 speaking of the magnificent results wMcli had accrued 
 to the American people under a protective tariff, he 
 observed : 
 
 " The expediency of a protective tariff has been vin- 
 dicated by the experience of the past thirty years — the 
 most wonderful period of financial success over un- 
 heard-of difiicul ties in the record of modern civilization. 
 Under it, and by its aid, the Republican management 
 of our finances has resulted in the largest payment of a 
 National debt in the shortest time known to history, 
 and in the simultaneous development of the industries of 
 the country and the prosperity of the people on a scale 
 without a parallel. Eight years ago, in a masterly joub- 
 lic paper, James G. Blaine called attention to the revela- 
 tions of the United States census as to the net results 
 of the labor and savings of the American people under 
 the system of a protective tariff. The 'true value' of 
 all the property in the United States, excluding slaves, 
 was set down in the census of 1860 at fourteen thou- 
 sand millions oE dollars — that being what there was to 
 show for the toil of 250 years. With the success of 
 the Eepublican party that year, the Republican pro- 
 tective policy which has since prevailed was introduced. 
 In the census of 1880, the tnie value of the property in 
 the United States was set down at fortj^-four thousand 
 millions of dollars — making an increase in those twenty 
 years of Republican protection of thirty thoiisand mil- 
 lions, or over double the entire growth in the previous 
 250 years. We are now able to carry the comparison 
 ten years further, through the disclosures of another 
 decennial census. It appears that the property of the 
 
 166 
 
United States lias been still further increased in the last 
 ten years by fourteen thousand millions of dollars — 
 making a total increase in the thirty years of Repub- 
 lican rule and a Republican protective tariff of forty- 
 four thousand millions of dollars, against the fourteen 
 thousand millions earned in the previous 250 years." 
 
 Mr. Cleveland, writing from Gray Gables, Mass., Sep- 
 tember 26th, devoted a third of his letter to a disserta- 
 tion upon what he termed " the exploded theories of 
 protection," and the advantages of " tariff reform as a 
 National necessity." He said : 
 
 " Tariff legislation presents a familiar form of Federal 
 taxation. Such legislation results as surely in a tax 
 upon the daily life of our people as the tribute paid 
 directly into the hand of the tax-gatherer. We feel the 
 burden of these tariff taxes too palpably to be per- 
 suaded by any sophistry that they do not exist, or are 
 paid by foreigners. Such taxes, representing a diminu- 
 tion of the property rights of the people, are only justi- 
 fiable when laid and collected for the purpose of main- 
 taining our Government, and furnishing the means for 
 the accomplishment of its legitimate purposes and func- 
 tions. This is taxation under the operation of a tariff 
 for revenue. It accords with the professions of Ameri- 
 can free institutions, and its justice and honesty answer 
 the test supplied by a correct appreciation of the prin- 
 ciples upon which these institutions rest. This theory 
 of tariff legislation manifestly enjoins strict economy in 
 public expenditures and their limitation to legitimate 
 public uses, inasmuch as it exhibits as absolute extor- 
 tion any exaction, by way of taxation, from the sub- 
 stance of the people, beyond the necessities of a careful 
 and proper administration of Govei^nment. 
 
" Opposed to this theory, the dogma is now boldly- 
 presented that tariff taxation is justifiable for the ex- 
 press purpose and intent of thereby promoting special 
 interests and enterprises. Such a proposition is so 
 clearly contrary to the spirit of our Constitution, and so 
 directly encourages the disturbance by selfishness and 
 greed of patriotic sentiment, that its statement would 
 rudely shock our people if they had not already been 
 insidiously allured from the safe landmarks of prin- 
 ciple. Never have honest desire for National growth, 
 patriotic devotion to country, and sincere regard for 
 those who toil, been so betrayed to the support of a per- 
 nicious doctrine. In its behalf the plea that our infant 
 industries should be fostered did service until discred- 
 ited by our stalwart growth ; then followed the exigen- 
 cies of a terrible war, which made our people heedless 
 of the opportunities for ulterior schemes afforded by 
 their willing and patriotic payment of unprecedented 
 tribute ; and now, after a long period of peace, when 
 our overburdened countrymen ask for relief and a 
 restoration to a fuller enjoyment of their incomes and 
 earnings, they are met by the claim that tariff taxation 
 for the sake of protection is an American system, the 
 continuance of which is necessary in order that high 
 wages may be paid to our workingmen and a home 
 market be provided for our farm products. These pre- 
 tenses should no lon2;er deceive. The truth is that 
 such a system is directly antagonized by every senti- 
 ment of justness and fairness of which Americans are 
 pre-eminently proud. It is also true that while our 
 workingmen and farmers can, the least of all our peo- 
 ple, defend themselves against the harder home life 
 
 168 
 
wtich sucli tariff taxation decrees, the workingman suf- 
 fering from the importation and employment of pauper 
 labor, instigated by his professed friends, and seeking 
 security for his interests in organized co-operation, still 
 waits for a division of the advantages secured to his em- 
 ployer under cover of a generous solicitude for his 
 wages, while the farmer is leai'ning that the prices of 
 his products are fixed in foreign markets, where he 
 suffers from a competition invited and built up by the 
 system he is asked to support. The struggle for un- 
 earned advantage at the doors of the Government 
 tramples on the rights of those who patiently rely upon 
 assurances of American equality. Every governmental 
 concession to clamorous favorites invites corruption in 
 political affairs by encouraging the expenditure of 
 money to debauch suffrage in support of a policy 
 directly favorable to private and selfish gain. This in 
 the end must strangle patriotism and weaken popular 
 confidence in the rectitude of republican institutions. 
 Though the subject of tariff legislation involves a 
 question of markets, it also involves a question of 
 morals. We can not with impunity permit injustice to 
 taint the spirit of right and equity -which is the life of 
 our Republic ; and we shall fail to reach our National 
 destiny if greed and selfishness lead the way. 
 
 " Recognizing these truths, the National Democracy 
 will seek to equalize to our people the blessings due 
 them from the Government they support, to promote 
 among our countrymen a closer community of interests 
 cemented by patriotism and National pride, and to point 
 out a fair field where prosperous and diversified Ameri- 
 can enterprise may grow and thrive in the wholesome 
 
 166 
 
atmosphere of American industry, ingenuity, and in- 
 telligence. Tariff reform is still our purpose. Though 
 we oppose the theory that tariff laws may be passed 
 having for their object the granting of discriminating 
 and unfair governmental aid to private ventures, we 
 wage no exterminating war against any American 
 interests. We believe a readjustment can be accom- 
 plished, in accordance with the principles we pro- 
 fess, without disaster or demolition. We believe 
 that the advantages of freer raw material should be 
 accorded to our manufacturers, and we contemplate 
 a fair and careful distribution of necessary tariff 
 burdens rather than the precipitation of fi-ee trade. 
 We anticipate with calmness the misrepresentation 
 of our motives and purposes, instigated by a sel- 
 fishness which seeks to hold in unrelenting grasjj its 
 unfair advantage under present tariff laws. We will 
 rely upon the intelligence of our fellow-countrymen to 
 reject the charge that a party comprising a majority of 
 our people is planning the destruction or injury of 
 American interests ; and we know they can not be 
 frightened by the spectre of impossible free trade." 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, writing from Bloomiugton, Illinois, 
 October 29th, gave his "unqualified approval" to the 
 views of his associate on the Democratic National 
 ticket, and added : 
 
 "The greatest power conferred ujDon human govern- 
 ment is that of taxation. All the great struggles of the 
 past for a broader political liberty have looked towards 
 the limitation of this power by right to tax — a right 
 which should always be limited by the necessities of 
 the Grovernment, and the benefits of which may be 
 
 170 
 
shared by all. Whenever this power is used to draw 
 tribute from the many for the benefit of the tew, or 
 when part of the people are oppressed in order that the 
 remainder may prosper unduly, equality is lost sight of. 
 It is plain that our present inequitable system of tariff 
 taxation has promoted the growth of such conditions in 
 our land, favored though it has been by an industrious 
 and enterprising people, a productive soil, and the 
 highest development of political liberty. If the benefi- 
 ciaries of this system shall be able to add a new tenure 
 of power to those they have already enjoyed, the de- 
 velopment of these unfavorable conditions must continue 
 until the power to tax will be lodged in those who are 
 willing and able to pay for the perpetuation of privi- 
 leges originally conferred by a confiding people for the 
 preservation inviolate of their own Government. There 
 is no longer pretext or excuse for the maintenance of a 
 war tariff in times of peace, and more than a quarter of 
 a century after armed conflict has ceased. The platform 
 of the National Democracy demands the reform of this 
 system and the adoption in its place of one which will 
 insure equality to all our people. I am in full and 
 _hearty a.ccord with these purposes." 
 
 Still the serious discussion or sober consideration of 
 the issues raised by the platforms of the two parties 
 was not the determining causfe of the campaign. For 
 great as was the prosperity of the country and excellent 
 as was the administration of President Harrison, other 
 and extraneous matters contributed to, if they did not 
 directly cause, the Republican defeat. Cleveland and 
 Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, to 145 for Har- 
 rison and Reid, and 22 for Weaver and Field, the 
 
 in 
 
candidates of tlie People's party. The Government, for 
 the first tiaie in forty years, was Democratic in both 
 Executive and Legislative branches. This had been 
 generally expected so far as the House of Represent- 
 atives was concerned, of which the Democrats elected 
 216 of the 356 members. But to the surprise of the 
 country, the Senate also passed into the hands of that 
 party, it having succeeded in electing forty-four mem- 
 bers, to thirty-six Republicans and five Populists. 
 
 President Harrison devoted a large part of his fourth 
 annual message to Congress, on December 6, 1892, to an 
 able and comprehensive review of the tariff of 1890. 
 His party had been voted out of power, but he never- 
 theless could truthfully observe that " the general con- 
 ditions affectino- the commercial and industrial interests 
 of the United States are in the highest degree favorable. 
 A comparison of the existing conditions with those of 
 the most favored period in the history of the country 
 will, I believe, show tha^" so high a degree of prosperity 
 and so general a diffusion of the comforts of life were 
 never before enjoyed by our people.'' 
 
 " The total wealth of the cuuntry in 1860," he con- 
 tinued, "was $16,159,616,068. In 1890 it amounted 
 to $62,610,000,000, an increase«of 287 per cent. The 
 total mileage of railways in the United States in 1860 
 was 30,626 ; in 1890 it was 167,741, an increase of 448 
 per cent.; and it is estimated that there will be about 
 4,000 miles of track added by the close of the year 
 1892. The ofl&cial returns of the Eleventh Census and 
 those of the Tenth Census for seventy -five leading cities 
 furnish the basis for the following comparisons : In 
 1880 the capital invested in manufacturing was $1,232,- 
 
 172 
 
839,670. In 1890 tlie capital invested in manufactur- 
 ing was $2,900,735,884. In 1880 the number of em- 
 ployees was 1,301,388. In 1890 the number of em- 
 ployees was 2,251,134. In 1880 the wages earned were 
 $501,965,778. In 1890 the wages earned were $1,221,- 
 170,454. In 1880 the value of the product was $2,711,- 
 579,899. In 1890 the value of the product was $4,- 
 860,286,837. I am informed by the Superintendent of 
 the Census that the omission of certain industries in 
 1880, which were included in 1890, account in part for 
 the remarkable increase thus shown. But, after mak- 
 ing full allowance for differences of method and deduct- 
 ing the returns for all industries not included in the 
 census of 1880, there remains in the reports from these 
 seventy-five cities an increase in the capital employed 
 of $1,522,745,604 ; in the value of the product of $2,- 
 024,236,166 ; in wages earned of $677,943,929, and in 
 the number of wage earners employed of 856,029. The 
 wage earnings not only show an increased aggregate, 
 but an increase per capita from $386 in 1880 to $547 
 in 1890, or 41.71 percent. The new industrial plants 
 established since October 6, 1890, and up to October 
 22, 1892, as partially reported in the American Econo- 
 mist, number 345, and the extension of existing plants, 
 108 ; the new capital invested amounts to $40,449,050, 
 and the number of additional employees to 37,285. 
 
 " The Textile World iov July, 1892, states that dur- 
 ing the first six months of the present calendar year 
 135 new factories were built, of which 40 are cotton 
 mills, 48 knitting mills, 26 Avoolen mills, 15 silk mills, 
 4 plush mills and 2 linen mills. Of the 40 cotton mills 
 21 have been built in the Southern States. Mr. A. B. 
 
 173 
 
Shepperson, of the New Yo7-k Cotton Exchange, esti- 
 mates the number of working spindles in the United 
 States on September 1, 1892, at 15,200,000, an increase 
 of 600,000 over the year 1891. Tlie consumption of 
 cotton by American mills in 1891 was 2,396,000 bales,, 
 and in 1892 2,584,000 bales, an increase of 188,000^ 
 bales. From 1869 to 1892, inclusive, there has been an 
 increase in the consumption of cotton in Europe of 92 
 per cent., while during the same period the increased 
 consumption in the United States has been about 150 
 per cent. 
 
 "The report of Ira Ayer, Special Agent of the Treas- 
 ury Department, shows that at the date of September 
 30, 1892, there were thirty-two companies manufacturing 
 tin and terne plate in the United States, and fourteen 
 companies building new Avorks for such manufacture. 
 The estimated investment in buildings and j)lants at the 
 close of the fiscal year, June 30, 1893, if existing condi- 
 tions were to be continued, was $5,000,000, and the 
 estimated rate of production 200,000,000 pounds per 
 annum. The actual 2:)roduction for the quarter ending 
 September 30, 1892, was 10,952,725 pounds. 
 
 "The report of Labor Commissioner Peck, of New 
 York, shows that during the year 1891, in about 6,000 
 manufacturing establishments in that State embraced 
 within the special inquiry made by him, and represent- 
 ing 67 different industries, there was a net increase over 
 the year 1890 of |31,315,130.68 in the value of the 
 product, and of $6,377,925.09 in the amount of wages 
 paid. The report of the Commissioner of Labor for the 
 State of Massachusetts shows that 8,745 industries in 
 that State j)aid $129,416,248 in wages during the year 
 
 174 
 
1891, against $126,030,303 in 1890, an increase of 
 $3,335,945, and that there was an increase of $9,932,490 
 in the amount of capital and of 7,346 in the number of 
 persons employed in the same period. 
 
 "During the last six months of the year 1891 and the 
 first six months of 1892 the total production of pig iron 
 was 9,T10,819 tons, as against 9,202,703 tons in the year 
 1890, which was the largest annual production ever 
 attained. For the same twelvemonths of 1891-92 the 
 production of Bessemer ingots was 3,878,581 tons, an 
 increase of 189,710 gross tons over the previously un- 
 precedented yearly production of 3,688,871 gross tons 
 in 1890. The production of Bessemer steel rails for the 
 first six months of 1892 was 772,436 gross tons, as 
 against 702,060 gross tons during the last six months of 
 the year 1891. 
 
 "The total value of our foreign trade (exports and 
 imports of merchandise) during the last fiscal year was 
 $1,857,580,610, an increase of $128,283,604 over the 
 previous fiscal year. The average annual value of 
 our imports and exports of merchandise for the ten 
 fiscal years j)rior to 1891 was $1,457,322,019. It will 
 be observed that our foreign trade for 1892 ex- 
 ceeded this annual average by $400,358,591, an increase 
 of 27.47 per cent. The significance and value of this 
 increase are shown by the fact that the excess in the 
 trade of 1892 over 1891 was wholly in the value 
 of exports, for there was a decrease in the value of 
 imports of $17,513,754. The value of our exports 
 during the fiscal year 1892 reached the highest figure in 
 the history of the Government, amounting to $1,030,- 
 278,148, exceeding by $145,797,338 the exports of 
 
 175 
 
1891 and exceeding the value of the imports by 
 $202,875,686. A comparison of the value of our 
 exports for 1892 with the annual average for the ten 
 years prior to 1891 shows an excess of $265,142,651 or 
 34.65 per cent. The value of our imports of mer- 
 chandise for 1892, which was $829,402,462, also 
 exceeded the annual average value of the ten years 
 prior to 1891 by $135,215,940. During the fiscal year 
 
 1892 the value of imports free of duty amounted to 
 $457,999,658, the largest aggregate in the history of 
 our commerce. The value of the imports of merchan- 
 dise entered free of duty in 1892 was 55.35 percent of 
 the total A^alue of imports, as compared with 43.35 
 percent, in 1891 and 33.66 per cent, in 1890. In our 
 coastwise trade a most encouraging development is in 
 progress, there having been in the last four years 
 an increase of sixteen per cent. In internal commerce 
 the statistics show that no such period of prosperity has 
 ever before existed. The freight carried in the coast- 
 wise trade of the Great Lakes in 1890 aggregated 
 28,295,959 tons. On the Mississippi, Missouri and 
 Ohio Rivers and tri butaries in the same year the trafl&c 
 aggregated 29,405,046 tons, and the total vessel 
 tonnage passing through the Detroit River during that 
 year was 21,684,000 tons. The vessel tonnage entered 
 and cleared in the foreign trade of London during 1890 
 amounted to 13,480,767 tons, and of Liverpool 10,941,800 
 tons, a total for those two great shipping ports of 24,422,- 
 568 tons, only slightly in excess of the vessel tonnnage 
 passing through the Detroit River. And it should be 
 said that the season for the Detroit River was but 228 
 days, while, of course, in London and Liverpool the 
 
 176 
 
season was for the entire year. The vessel tonnage 
 passing through the St. Mary's Canal for the fiscal year 
 1892 amounted to 9,828,874 tons, and the freight 
 tonnage of the Detroit River is estimated for that year 
 at 25,000,000 tons, against 23,209,619 tons in 1891. 
 The aggregate traffic on our railroads for the year 
 
 1891 amounted to 704,398,609 tons of freight, com- 
 pared with 691,344,437 tons in 1890, an increase of 
 13,054,172 tons. 
 
 " Another indication of the general prospority of the 
 country is found in the fact that the number of depos- 
 itors in savings banks increased from 693,870 in 1860 
 to 4,258,893 in 1890, an increase of 513 per cent., and the 
 amount of deposits from $149,277,504 in 1860 to $1,524,- 
 844,506 in 1890, an increase of 921 per cent. In 1891 
 the amount of deposits in savings banks was $1,623,- 
 079,749. It is estimated that 90 per cent, of these de- 
 posits represent the savings of wage earners. The bank 
 clearances for nine months ending September 30, 1891, 
 amounted to $41,049,390,808. For the same months in 
 
 1892 they amounted to $45,189,601,947, an excess for 
 the nine months of $4,140,211,139. 
 
 " There has never been a time in our history when 
 work was so abundant or when wages were as high, 
 whether measured by the currency in which they were 
 paid or by their power to supply the necessaries and 
 comforts of life. It is true that the market prices of 
 cotton and wheat have been low. It is one of the unfa- 
 vorable incidents of a2;riculture that the farmer can not 
 produce upon orders. He must sow and reap in igno- 
 rance of the aggregate production of the year, and is 
 peculiarly subject to the depreciation which follows 
 
 177 
 
over-production. But, while the fact I have stated is 
 true as to the crops mentioned, the general average of 
 prices has been such as to give agriculture a fair par- 
 ticipation in the general prosperity. The value of our 
 total farm products has increased from $1,363,646,866 
 in 1860 to $4,500,000,000 in 1891, as estimated by 
 statisticians, an increase of 230 per cent. The number 
 of hogs January 1, 1891, was 50,625,106 and their value 
 $210,193,925 ; on January 1, 1892, the number was 
 52,398,019 and the value $241,031,415. On Jan- 
 uary 1, 1891, the number of cattle was 36,875,648 
 and the value $544,127,908 ; on January 1, 1892, the 
 number was 37,651,239 and the value $570,749,155. 
 If any are discontented with their state here ; if any 
 believe that wages or prices, the return for honest toil, 
 are inadequate, they should not fail to remember that 
 there is no other country in the world where the condi- 
 tions that seem to them hard would not be accepted as 
 highly prosperous. The English agriculturist would be 
 glad to exchange the returns of his labor for those of 
 the American farmer, and the Manchester workmen 
 their wages for those of their fellows at Fall River. I 
 believe that the protective system, which has now for 
 something more than thirty years continuously prevailed 
 in our legislation, has been a mighty instrument for the 
 development of our National wealth and a most power- 
 ful agency in protecting the homes of our worldngmen 
 from the invasion of want. I have felt a most solicitous 
 interest to preserve to our working-people rates of 
 wages that would not only give daily bread, but supply 
 a comfortable margin for those home attractions and 
 family comforts and enjoyments without which life is 
 
 178 
 
neither hopeful nor sweet. They are American citizens 
 — a part of the great people for whom our Constitution 
 and Government were framed and instituted — and it 
 can not be a perversion of that Constitution to so legis 
 late as to preserve in tlieir homes the comfort, inde 
 pendence, loyalty and sense of interest in the Grovern' 
 ment which are essential to good citizenship in peace 
 and which will bring this stalwart throng, as in 1861 
 to the defense of the flag wben it is assailed. It is not 
 my purpose to renew here the argument in favor of a 
 protective tariff. The result of the recent election must 
 be accepted as having introduced a new policy. We 
 must assume that the present tariff, constructed upon 
 tbe lines of protection, is to be repealed, and that there 
 is to be substituted for it a tariff law constructed solely 
 v^itli reference to revenue ; that no duty is to be higher 
 because the increase will keep open an American mill 
 or keep up the wages of an American workman, but 
 that in every case such a rate of duty is to be imposed 
 as will bring to the Treasury of the United States the 
 largest returns of revenue. The contention has not 
 been between schedules, but between principles, and it 
 would be offensive to suggest that the prevailing party 
 will not carry into legislation the principles advocated 
 by it and the pledges given to the people. The tariff 
 bills passed by the House of Representatives at the last 
 session were, as I suppose, even in the opinion of their 
 promoters, inadequate and justified only by the facts 
 that the Senate and the House of Representatives were 
 not in accord, and that a general revision could not, 
 therefore, be undertaken. 
 
 "I recommend that the whole subject of tariff revision 
 
 179 
 
be left to the incoming Congress. It is matter of re- 
 gret that this work must be delayed for at least three 
 months ; for the threat of great tariff changes introduces 
 so much uncertainty that an amount, not easily esti- 
 mated, of business inaction and of diminished production 
 will necessarily result. It is possible also that this un- 
 certainty may result in decreased revenues from customs 
 duties, for our merchants will make cautious orders for 
 foreign goods in view of the prospect of tariff reduction 
 and the uncertainty as to when it will take effect. Those 
 who have advocated a protective tariff can well afford 
 to have their disastrous forecasts of a change of policy 
 disappointed. If a system of customs duties can be 
 framed that will set the idle wheels and looms of Europe 
 in motion and crowd our warehouses with foreign-made 
 goods, and at the same time keep our own mills busy ; 
 that will give us an increased participation in the 
 ' markets of the world ' of greater value than the home 
 market we surrender ; that will give increased work to 
 foreign workmen upon products to be consumed by our 
 people without diminishing the amount of work to be 
 done here ; that will enable the American manufacturer 
 to pay to his workmen from fifty to a hundred per cent, 
 more in wages than is paid in the foreign mill and yet 
 to compete in our market and in foreign markets with 
 the foreign producer ; that will further reduce the cost 
 of articles of wear and food without reducing the wages 
 of those who produce them; that can be celebrated, 
 after its effects can be realized, as its expectation has 
 been, in European as well as in American cities, the authors 
 and promoters of it will be entitled to the highest praise. 
 We have had in our history several experiences of the 
 
 180 
 
contrasted effects of a I'eveuue and of a protective tariff ; 
 but this generation has not felt them, and the experience 
 of one generation is not highly instructive to the next. 
 The friends of the protective system, with undiminished 
 confidence in the principles they have advocated, will 
 await the results of the new experiment. The strained 
 and too often disturbed relations existing between the 
 employes and the employers in our great manufacturing 
 establishments have not been favorable to a calm con- 
 sideration by the wage earner of the effects upon wages 
 of the protective system. The facts that his wages were 
 the highest paid in like callings in the world and that a 
 maintenance of this rate of wages, in the absence of protec- 
 tive duties upon the product ofhis labor, was impossible, 
 were obscured by the passion evoked by these contests 
 He may now be able to review the question in the light 
 of his personal experience under the operation of a tariff 
 for revenue only. If that experience shall demonstrate 
 that present rates of wages are thereby maintained or 
 increased, either absolutely or in their purchasing power, 
 and that the aggregate volume of work to be done in this 
 country is increased, or even maintained, so that there 
 ^re more, or as many days' work in a year at as good or 
 better wages for the American workman as has been the 
 case under the protective system, every one will rejoice. 
 A general process of wage reduction can not be con- 
 templated by any patriotic citizen without the gravest 
 apprehension. It may be, indeed I believe is, possible 
 for the American manufacturer to compete successfully 
 with his foreign rival in many branches of production 
 without the defense of protective duties, if the pay rolls 
 are equalized ; but the conflict that stands between the 
 
 181 
 
producer and that result and the distress of our working- 
 people when it is attained are not i3leasant to contem- 
 plate. The Society of the Unemployed, now holding 
 its frequent and threatening parades in the streets of 
 foreign cities, should not be allowed to acquire an Am- 
 erican domicile. 
 
 "Public revenues amounting to $1,414,079,292.28 have 
 been collected and disbursed without loss from mis- 
 appropriation, without a single defalcation of such im- 
 portance as to attract the public attention, and at a 
 diminished per cent, of cost for collection. There have 
 been negotiated and concluded, under Section 3 of the 
 tariff' law, commercial agreements relating to reciprocal 
 trade with the following countries : Brazil, Dominican 
 Republic, Spain for Cuba and Puerto Rico, Guatemala, 
 Salvador, the German Empire, Great Britain for certain 
 West Indian colonies and British Guiana, Nicaragua, Hon- 
 duras, and Austria-Hungary. Of these, those with Guate- 
 mala, Salvador, the German Empire, Great Britain, 
 Nicaragua, Honduras, and Austria- Hungary have been 
 concluded since my last annual message. Under these 
 trade arrangements a free or favored admission has been 
 secured in every case for an important list of American 
 products. Especial care has been taken to secure mar- 
 kets for farm products in order to relieve that great 
 underlying industry of the depression which the lack of 
 an adequate foreign market for our surplus often brings. 
 An opening has also been made for manufactured prod- 
 ucts that will undoubtedly, if this policy is maintained, 
 greatly augment our export trade. The full benefits of 
 these arrangements can not be realized instantly. New 
 lines of trade are to be opened. The commercial traveler 
 
 183 
 
must survey the field. The manufacturer must adapt 
 Lis goods to the new markets, and facilities for exchange 
 must be established. This work lias been well begun, 
 our merchants and manufacturers having entered the 
 new fields with courage and enterprise. In the case of 
 food products, and especially with Cuba, the trade did 
 not need to wait, and the immediate results have been 
 most gratifying. If this policy and these trade arrange- 
 ments can be continued in force and aided by the estab- 
 lishment of American steamship lines, I do not doubt 
 that we shall, within a short period, secure fully one- 
 third of the total trade of the countries of Central and 
 South America, which now amounts to about $600,000,- 
 000 annually. In 1885 we had only eight per cent of 
 this trade. 
 
 " The following statistics show the increase in our 
 trade with the countries with which we have reciprocal 
 trade agreements from the date when such agreements 
 went into effect up to September 30, 1892, the increase 
 being in some almost wholly and in others in an impor- 
 tant degree the result of these agreements. The domes- 
 tic exports to Grermany and Austria- Hungary have- 
 increased in value from $47,673,756 to $57,993,064, an 
 increase of $10,453,313, or 23.67 percent. The total 
 increase in the value of exports to all the countries with 
 which we have reciprocity agreements has been $20,772,- 
 621. This increase is chiefly in wheat, flour, meat and dairy 
 products, and in manufactures of iron and steel and 
 lumber. There has been a large increase in the value of 
 imports from all these countries since the commercial 
 agreements went into effect, amounting to $74,294,525, 
 but it has been entirely in imports from the Americau 
 
 183 
 
•coTintries, consisting mostly of sugar, coffee, india rubber 
 ^nd crude drugs. The alarmed attention of our Euro- 
 pean competitors for the South American market has 
 been attracted to this new American policy, and to our 
 acquisition, and their loss, of South American trade. 
 
 " During the past year, a suggestion was received 
 through the British minister that the Canadian Govern- 
 ment would like to confer as to the possibility of enlarg- 
 ing, upon terms of mutual advantage, the commercial 
 exchanges of Canada and of the United States, and a 
 conference was held at Washington, with Mr. Blaine 
 acting for this Go'^ernment, and the British minister at 
 this capital and three members of the Dominion Cabinet 
 acting as Commissioners on the part of Great Britain. 
 The conference developed the fact that the Canadian 
 government was only prepared to offer to the United 
 ■States in exchange for the concessions asked, the admis- 
 sion of natural products. The statement was frankly 
 made that favored rates could not be given to the 
 United States as against the mother country. This ad- 
 mission, which "was foreseen, necessarily terminated the 
 conference upon this question. The benefits of an ex- 
 change of natural products would be almost wholly 
 with the people of Canada. 
 
 " The report of the Secretary of the Treasury will 
 attract especial interest in view of the many misleading 
 statements that have been made as to the state of the 
 public revenues. Three preliminary facts should not 
 ■only be stated, but emphasized, before looking into de- 
 tails : First, that the public debt has been reduced since 
 March 4, 1889, $259,074,200, and the annual interest 
 charge $11,684,496 ; second, that there have been paid 
 
 184 
 
out for pensions during this administration, up to No- 
 vember 1, 1892, $432,564,178.70, an excess of $114,- 
 466,386.09 over the sum expended during the period 
 from March 1, 1885, to March 1, 1889 ; and third, that 
 under the existing tariff, up to December 1, about $93,- 
 000,000 of revenue, which would have been collected 
 iTpon imported sugars if the duty had been maintained, 
 has gone into the pockets of the people and not into 
 the public treasury, as before. If there are any who 
 still think that the surplus should have been kept out 
 of circulation by hoarding it in the Treasury, or depos- 
 ited in favored banks without interest while the Gov- 
 ernment continued to pay to these very banks interest upon 
 the bonds deposited as security for the deposits, or who 
 think that the extended pension legislation was a public 
 robbery, or that the duties upon sugar should have been 
 maintained, I am content to leave the argument where it 
 now rests, while we wait to see whether these criticisms 
 will take the form of legislation. The revenues for the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, from all sources, were 
 $425,868,260,22, and the expenditures for all purposes 
 were $415,953,806.56, leaving a balance of $9,914,- 
 453.66. There were paid during the year upon the pub- 
 lic debt $40,570,467.98." 
 
 In his inaugural address of March 4, 1893, President 
 Cleveland did not question the accuracy and force of 
 the conclusions of Mr. Harrison, nor offer any except 
 the most general criticisms upon the tariff legislation of 
 the retiring Administration. His only allusion to the 
 subject was in the following passage : 
 
 " Closely related to the exaggerated confidence in 
 our country's greatness which tends to a disregard of 
 
 185 
 
the rules of National safety, another danger confronts: 
 us not less serious. I refer to the prevalence of a pop- 
 ular disposition to expect from the operation of the 
 Government especial and direct individual advantages. 
 The verdict of our voters, which condemned the in- 
 justice of maintaining protection for protection's sake, 
 enjoins upon the people's servants the duty of exposing 
 and destroying the brood of kindred evils which are 
 the unwholesome progeny of paternalism. This is the 
 bane of republican institutions and the constant peril of 
 our Government by the people. It degrades to the 
 purposes of wily craft the jDlan of rule our fathers 
 established and bequeathed to us as an object of our 
 love and veneration. It perverts the patriotic senti- 
 ment of our countrymen, and tempts them to pitiful 
 calculation of the sordid gain to be derived from their 
 Government's maintenance. It undermines the self- 
 reliance of our people, and substitutes in its place de- 
 pendence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the 
 spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every enno- 
 bling trait of American citizenship. The lessons of 
 paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson 
 taught that, while the people should patriotically and 
 cheerfully support their Government, its functions do 
 not include the support of the people. The acceptance 
 of this piinciple leads to a refusal of bounties and sub- 
 sidies, which burden the labor and thrift of a portion 
 of our citizens, to aid ill-advised or languishing enter- 
 prises in which they have no concern. It leads also to 
 a challenge of wild and reckless pension expenditure, 
 which overleaps the bounds of grateful recognition of 
 patriotic service and prostitutes to vicious uses the^ 
 
 186 
 
people's prompt and generous impulses to aid those 
 disabled in their country's defense. Every thoughtful 
 American must realize the importance of checking at 
 its beginning any tendency in public or private station 
 to regard frugality and economy as virtues which we 
 may outgrow. The toleration of this idea results in the 
 waste of the people's money by their chosen servants, 
 and encourages prodigality and extravagance in the 
 home life of our countrymen. Under our scheme of 
 government, the waste of public money is a crime 
 against the citizen ; and the contempt of our people for 
 economy and frugality in their personal affairs deplor- 
 ably saps the strength and sturdiness of our National 
 character. It is a plain dictate of honesty and good 
 government that public expenditures should be limited 
 by public necessity, and that this should be measured 
 by the rules of strict economy ; and it is equally clear 
 that frugality among the people is the best guarantee 
 of a contented and strong support of free institutions." 
 
 Mr. Cleveland convened Congress to meet in extra- 
 ordinary session on August 7th. The House organized 
 by re-electing Hon. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, as 
 Speaker, and Hon. William L. Wilson, of West Vir- 
 ginia, became Chairman of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee. The Senate also reorganized its committees, 
 Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees, of Indiana, succeeding Mr. 
 Morrill as Chairman of the Finance Committee. In 
 his message of August 8th, Mr. Cleveland stated his 
 object in assembling Congress to be an earnest desire 
 for " the prompt repeal of the provisions " of the 
 so-called Sherman law of July 14, 1890, "authorizing 
 the purchase of silver bullion, and that other legislative 
 
 187 
 
action may put beyond all doubt or mistake the inten- 
 tion and the ability of the Government to fulfill its 
 pecuniary obligations in money universally recognized 
 by all civilized countries." His only reference to the 
 tariff question, or the serious distress that the threatened 
 repeal of the tariff law of 1890 had visited upon our 
 manufacturing interests, is found in a brief passage im- 
 mediately preceding the conclusion of his message. He 
 said : 
 
 " It was my purpose to summon Congress in special 
 session early in the coming September that we might 
 enter promptly upon the work of tariff reform, which 
 the true interests of the country clearly demand, which so 
 large a majority of the people, as shown by their suffrages, 
 desire and expect, and to the accomplishment of which 
 every effort of the present Administration is pledged. 
 But while tariff reform has lost nothing of its immediate 
 and permanent importance, and must, in the near 
 future, engage the attention of Congress, it has seemed 
 to me that the financial condition of the country should 
 be at once, and above all other subjects, considered by 
 your honorable body." 
 
 Although from the following passage, it appears that 
 Mr. Cleveland was himself in doubt as to what was the 
 real cause of the trouble, he used words truly pro- 
 phetic when he said : " It may be true that the embar- 
 rassments from which the business of the country is 
 suffering arise as much from evils apprehended as from 
 those actually existing." Subsequent events have fully 
 corroborated the»truth of this observation. 
 
 In their devotion to the supposed best interests of 
 the country, the Republicans of both houses of Con- 
 
 188 
 
gress for the most part joined in complying with the 
 demand for the repeal of the act of July 14, 1890, and 
 none more zealously than its reputed author, Senator 
 Sherman, of Ohio, without the aid of whose command- 
 ing influence the silver purchase clause would probably 
 not have been repealed. A bill by Mr. Wilson, of 
 West Virginia, for that purpose, passed the House on 
 August 28th by the vote— yeas 239, nays 109. The 
 affirmative vote was cast by one hundred and forty-one 
 Democrats and ninety-eight Republicans ; the negative- 
 by seventy-four Democrats, twenty-four Republicans, 
 and eleven Populists, with four Democrats and one Re- 
 publican no*" voting. 
 
 The action of Congress brought no perceptible relief 
 to the disturbed business interests of the country, and 
 the November elections demonstrated that "the large- 
 majority of the people," to whom Mr. Cleveland had so 
 confidently referred, were still firm supporters of our- 
 protective system. Even amid embarrassments so- 
 great, the tariff act of 1890 produced sufficient revenue 
 for the support of the Government. This was shown 
 by the message of President Cleveland at the opening 
 of the first regular session of the Fifty-third Congress, 
 on December 4, 1893, in which he said : 
 
 " The Secretary of the Treasury reports that the re- 
 ceipts of the Government from all sources during the 
 fiscal year ended June 30, 1893, amounted to $461,716,- 
 561.94, and its expenditures to $459,374,674.29. There 
 was collected from customs $205,355,016.73, and from 
 internal revenue $161,027,623.93. Our dutiable im- 
 ports amounted to $421,856,711, an increase of $52,- 
 453,907 over the preceding year, and importations free- 
 
 189 
 
-of duty amounted to $444,544,211, a decrease from the 
 preceding year of $13,455,447. Internal revenue re- 
 ceipts exceeded those of the preceding year by $7,147,- 
 445.32." 
 
 His recommendations upon the tariff are especially 
 noteworthy because of the endorsement he gave in ad- 
 vance to a bill which had not yet been introduced in 
 Congress; perhaps the first instance of the Mod in the 
 history of the Government. It had been j)repared by 
 the Democratic majority of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee of the House during its vacation, after the ad- 
 journment of the special session on October 5th. The 
 bill as a whole had not yet been given to the press, 
 nor had any comprehensive analysis of it been pre- 
 sented, but still tlie President heartily endorsed it in 
 the followiufr confident strains : 
 
 " After a hard struggle tariff reform is directly be- 
 fore us. Nothing so important claims our attention 
 and nothing so clearly presents itself as both an op- 
 portunity and a duty — an opportunity to deserve the 
 gratitude of our fellow-citizens and a duty imposed 
 upon us by our oft-repeated professions and by the 
 emphatic mandate of the people. After full discus- 
 sion, our countrymen have spoken in favor of this re- 
 form, and they have confided the work of its accom- 
 plishment to the hands of those who are solemnly 
 pledged to it. If there is anything in the theory of 
 a representation in public places of the people and 
 their desires, if public officers are really the servants 
 of the people, and if political promises and professions 
 have any binding force, our failure to give the relief 
 so long awaited will be sheer recreancy. Nothing 
 
 190 
 
should intervene to distract our attention or disturb 
 our effort until tHs reform is accomplished by wise 
 and careful legislation. While we should staunchly ad- 
 here to the principle that only the necessity of revenue 
 justifies the imposition of tariff duties and other Federal 
 taxation, and that they should be limited by strict 
 economy, we can not close our eyes to the fact that con- 
 ditions have grown up among us which in justice and 
 fairness call for discriminating care in the distributiom 
 of such duties and taxation as the emergencies of our 
 Government actually demand. Manifestly, if we are to" 
 aid the people directly through tariff reform, one of its: 
 most obvious features should be a reduction in present 
 tariff charges upon the necessaries of life. The benefits 
 of such a reduction would be palpable and substantial, 
 seen and felt by thousands who would be better fed 
 and better clothed and better sheltered. These gifts 
 should be the willing benefactions of a Government 
 whose highest function is the promotion of the welfare 
 of the people. Not less closely related to our people's 
 prosperity and well-being is the removal of restrictions 
 upon the importation of the raw materials necessary to 
 our manufactures. The world should be open to our 
 National ingenuity and enterprise. This can not be 
 while Federal legislation, through the imposition of a 
 high tariff, forbids to American manufacturers as cheap 
 materials as those used by their competitors. It is 
 quite obvious that the enhancement of the price of our 
 manufactured products resulting from this policy not 
 only confines the market for these products within our 
 own borders, to the direct disadvantage of our manu- 
 facturers, but also increases their cost to our citizens. 
 
 191 
 
The interests of labor are certainly, though indirectly, 
 involved in this feature of our tariff system. The sharp 
 competition and active struggle among our manufac- 
 turers to supply the limited demand for their goods 
 soon fill the narrow market to which they are confined. 
 Then follows a suspension of work in mill and factories, 
 a discharge of employes, and distress in the homes of 
 our workingrnen. Even if the often-disproved assertion 
 could be made good that a lower rate of wages would 
 result from free raw materials and low tariff duties, the 
 intelligence of our workingmen leads them quickly to 
 discover that their steady employment, permitted by 
 free raw materials, is the most important factor in their 
 relation to tariff legislation. A measure has been pre- 
 pared by the appropriate Congressional Committee em- 
 bodying tariff reform on the lines herein suggested, 
 which will be promptly submitted for legislative action. 
 It is the result of much patriotic and unselfish work, 
 and I believe it deals with its subject consistently and 
 as thoroughly as existing conditions permit. I am satis- 
 fied that the reduced tariff duties provided for in the 
 proposed legislation, added to existing internal-revenue 
 taxation, will, in the near future, though perhaps not 
 immediately, produce sufficient revenue to meet the 
 needs of the Government. The Committee, after full 
 consideration, and to provide against a temporary de- 
 ficiency which may exist before the business of the 
 country adjusts itself to the new tariff schedules, have 
 Avisely embraced in their plan a few additional in- 
 ternal-revenue taxes, including a small tax upon in- 
 comes derived from certain corporate investments. 
 These new assessments are not only absolutely just 
 
 192 
 
and easily borne, but they have the further merit of 
 being such as can be remitted without unfavorable 
 business disturbance whenever the necessity of their 
 imposition no longer exists. In my great desii'e for 
 the success of this measure, I can not restrain the sug- 
 gestion that its success can only be attained by means 
 of unselfish counsel on the part of the friends of tariff 
 reform, and as a result of their willingness to sub- 
 ordinate personal desires and ambitions to the general 
 good. The local interests affected by the proposed re- 
 form are so numerous and so varied that if all are 
 insisted upon the legislation embodying the reform 
 must inevitably fail. In conclusion, my intense feeling 
 of responsibility impels me to invoke for the manifold 
 interests of a generous and confiding people the most 
 scrupulous care, and to pledge my willing support to 
 every legislative effort for the advancement of the 
 greatness and prosperity of our beloved country." 
 
 On December 19, 1893, Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, introduced the general 
 tariff bill of the session — entitled " a bill to reduce 
 taxation, to provide revenue for the Grovernment, and 
 for other purposes." He submitted with it an explana- 
 tory statement of the purposes of the majority, from 
 which the following clauses are taken : 
 
 " This bill, on which the Committee has expended 
 much patient and anxious labor, is not offered as a com- 
 plete response to the mandate of the American people. 
 It no more professes to be purged of all protection than 
 to be free of all error in its complex and manifold de- 
 tails. However we may deny the existence of any 
 legislative pledge or the right of any Congress to make 
 
 193 
 
such pledge for the continuance of duties that carry 
 with them more or less acknowledged protection, we are 
 forced to consider that great interests do exist whose 
 existence and prosperity it is no part of our reform 
 either to imperil or to curtail. We believe, and we have 
 the warrant of our own past experience for believing, 
 that reduction of duties will not injure, but give more 
 abundant life to all our great manufacturing industries, 
 however much they may dread the change. But in 
 dealing with the tariff, as with every other long-standing 
 abuse that has interwoven itself with our social or in- 
 dustrial system, the legislator must always remember 
 that in the beginning temperate reform is safest, having 
 in itself ' the principle of growth.' 
 
 " When Congress began to repeal war burdens and to 
 relieve manufacturers of the internal taxes, which they 
 had used to secure compensating duties on like foreign 
 products, there arose a demand throughout the country,, 
 without respect to party, for a reduction of the war 
 tariff. Unable to resist this demand, the protected in- 
 dustries baffled and thwarted any reduction of con- 
 sequence until 1872, when they defeated a House bill 
 that did make a substantial reduction by substituting a 
 Senate bill which carried a horizontal cut of ten per 
 cent. As soon, however, as the elections of 1874 gave 
 the next House to the Democratic party, that reduction 
 was repealed by the outgoing Republicans, and rates re- 
 stored to what they were before 1872. 
 
 " The history of American industry shows that during 
 no other period has there been a more healthy and 
 rapid development of our manufacturing industry than 
 during the fifteen years of low tariff from 1846 to 1861, 
 
 194 
 
nor h more liealtliy and harmonious growth of agricul- 
 ture and all the other great industries of the country. 
 No chapter in our political experience carries with it a 
 more salutary lesson than this, and none could appeal 
 more strongly to law makers to establish a just and 
 rational system of public revenues, neither exhausting 
 agriculture by constant blood-letting nor keeping manu- 
 facturers alternating between chills and fevers by arti- 
 ficial pampering. In this direction alone lies stability, 
 concord of sections, and of great industries. We have 
 already said that public discussion may disclose errors 
 of minor detail in the schedules of our bill. To escape 
 such errors -^vould require so thorough and minute a 
 knowledge of all the divisi(uas, sub-divisions, complex 
 and manifold mazes and involutions of our chemical, 
 textile, metal, and other industries that no committee of 
 Congress, no matter how extended the range of their 
 personal knowledge or how laborious and jaainstaking 
 their efforts, could ever hope to possess. We have not 
 forgotten that we represent the people, who are the 
 many, as well as the protected interests, who are the 
 few, and while we have dealt with the latter in no spirit 
 of unfriendliness, we have felt that it was our duty, and 
 not their privilege, to make the tariff schedules. Those 
 who concede the right of beneficiaries to fix their own 
 bounties must necessarily commit to them the framing 
 and verbiage of the laws by which those bounties are 
 secured for them. A committee of Congress thus be- 
 comes merely the amanuensis of the protected interests. 
 "We have believed that the first step toward a reform 
 of the tariff should be a release of taxes on the materi- 
 als of industry. There can be no substantial and bene- 
 
 195 
 
ficial reduction upon the necessary clotting and other 
 comforts of the American people, nor any substantial 
 and beneficial enlargement of the field of American la- 
 bor as long as we tax the materials and processes of pro- 
 duction. Every tax upon the producer falls with in- 
 creased force upon the consumer. Every tax on the 
 producer in this country is a protection to his competit- 
 ors in all other countries, and so narrows his markets as 
 to limit the number and lessen the waa:es of those to 
 whom he can give employment. Every cheapening in 
 the cost or enlargement of the supply of his raw materi- 
 als, while primarily inuring to the benefit of the manu- 
 facturer himself, passes under free competition immedi- 
 ately and passes entirely to the consumer, who very soon 
 gets even more benefit out of it than such reductions 
 seem to carry, because with the rapid widening of his 
 market the manufacturer is able to sell at a smaller pro- 
 fit. It is therefore a very narrow and short-sighted view 
 which supposes that we release the duties on iron ore, 
 coal, wool, and other like articles, solely for the benefit 
 of those who manufacture our iron, steel, woolen, and 
 other fabric s. 
 
 " This House in two Congresses in recent years hav- 
 ing, after full debate, passed laws putting wool upon the 
 free list, it is not deemed necessary in this report to at- 
 tempt a re-statement of the reasons for doing so. It is 
 enough to say that the tariff upon wool, while bringing 
 no real benefit to the American wool-grower, least of all 
 to the American farmer, who, in any balancing of ac- 
 counts, must see that he yearly pays out a good dollar 
 for every doubtful dime he may receive under its opera- 
 tion, has disastrously hampered our manufacturing in- 
 
 196 
 
dustry and made cruel and relentless war upon the 
 health, the comfort, and the productive energy of the 
 American people. Logs are already on the free list. 
 We have gone a step further and put undressed lumber 
 generally on that list. This may serve to cheapen and 
 improve the dwelling houses of some of our people, but 
 it is ] ustified if it shall accomplish nothing more than to 
 delay the rapid destruction of American forests. We have 
 also placed flax and hemp, unshackled, on the free list, for 
 the reasons stated above, that we may give to the Amer- 
 ican workingman untaxed material to work with, and 
 that we may give the finished product as far as possible 
 to the consumer with but a single tax, and that a moder- 
 ate one, instead of a medley and cumulation of taxes 
 gathered during the process of production. In addition 
 to these so-called raw materials, we have released from 
 tariff duties certain important articles and manufactures 
 which we have shown our capacity to produce more 
 cheaply than any other country, such as pig copper and 
 the important agricultural implements. Any article of 
 manufacture which can sustain the competition of like 
 foreign articles in other markets can defy such competi- 
 tion in the home market, and is not protected by the 
 duty, but by its own intrinsic superior cheapness or 
 quality. In the earthenware schedule we have made 
 substantial reductions, still leaving rates as high as were 
 deemed necessary in the war tariff. In common window 
 glass, where close combinations have kept up the prices 
 to consumers under a scale of duties averaging more than 
 one hundred per cent., we have made a reduction of 
 about one-half. Upon the larger sizes of plate glass, 
 where the duties were even higher, we have made a re- 
 
 197 
 
duction of about one-third. In the iron and steel sched- 
 ule, beginning with free ore, and a duty of 22^ per cent, 
 on pig iron, we have reported a scale of duties consider- 
 ably below those of the existing law, graduated accord- 
 ing to the degree of manufacture which should bring 
 benefit to the consumer without calling for any halt in 
 the imperial progress of that great industry in our coun- 
 try. The duty upon steel rails has been put at twenty- 
 five per cent, which, according to the reports of our De- 
 partment of Labor, quite compensates for all difference in 
 the cost of production in this country and abroad. There 
 seems to be an authentic report that the pool of Amer- 
 ican rail-makers which, under the shelter of the present 
 duty of $13.44 per ton, has kept up prices to the 
 American consumer far beyond the cost of production 
 and legitimate profits, has been reorganized to continue 
 the regulation of their prices above the proper market 
 rates. As all shippers, and especially American farm- 
 ers, are vitally interested in cheapening the cost of 
 transportation, rates of duty upon steel rails should be 
 adjusted so as to protect them from monopoly prices 
 and monopoly combinations. Upon tin plate the duty 
 has been gauged with reference to the revenue it will 
 bring into the Treasury, and the difference between this 
 duty and that upon the black plate has been lessened 
 with a view to discourage what may not unjustly 
 be called the bogus industry of making American tin 
 plate by the mere dipping in this country of the im- 
 ported black plate. In the sugar schedule we should 
 have preferred to wipe out at a single legislative stroke 
 the existing bounty system. We believe it to be con- 
 trary to the spirit of our institutions, and can conceive 
 
of no circumstances under which we should have 
 advocated or approved its introduction into our laws. 
 We have found it existing there, as we find it virtually 
 ■existing in every other schedule of the tariff, and deal- 
 ing with it in its more open and offensive form, in the 
 same spirit we have dealt with other schedules where 
 large property interests are at stake, we have reported 
 a provision for its repeal by such stages as shall 
 gradually obliterate it from our laws, w^hile permitting 
 those who have invested large means, under the ex- 
 pectation of its continuance, I'easonable time in which 
 they may prepare to take th-ir stand with the other 
 industries of the country. 
 
 " Duties upon imported tobacco leaf suitable for cigar 
 wrappers, which were so advanced by the act of 1890, 
 have been placed at such figures, as, after careful in- 
 vestigation, were deemed likely to produce most 
 revenue to the Treasury, but while revenue alone has 
 been the object sought, their amount is so high that no 
 domestic producer need claim that there is not abun- 
 dant protection and to spare for his product an them. 
 Of the staple agricultural products, including meats 
 and provisions, we are such large exporters and must 
 continue to be such large exporters that any duties 
 upon them are useless for protection and fruitless 
 for revenue, and generally can only be imposed for the 
 purpose of deluding the less intelligent of our farmers 
 into the belief that they are receiving some considera- 
 tion and benefit under the tariff, although the prices of 
 their products are fixed in the world's market in com- 
 petition with like products produced by the cheapest 
 labor of the world. To the farmers of the country 
 
 199 
 
we haYe given untaxed agricultural implements, bind- 
 ing twine, free salt and untaxed cotton ties, for the- 
 additional reason in this last case that cotton is the 
 largest export crop of the country, sold abroad in com- 
 petition with the cheap labor of India and of Egypt,, 
 and we believe that it is enough for the private tax- 
 gatherer to follow it in the markets of his own country 
 without pursuing it to all the markets of the world. 
 As cotton bagging can be used but once, we have 
 thought it but just to extend the draw-back system to 
 such bagging made of jute butts when used upon 
 exported cotton, a privilege which the exporter of 
 wheat can already enjoy, coupled with the further ad- 
 vantage in his case that the same bags may be used for 
 successive exportations of grain. 
 
 " The placing of wool upon the free list has justified 
 a very substantial reduction of the duties on woolen 
 goods. Of the woolen tariff it may be truly said, as 
 was said of the woolen tariff of 1882, 'that it is the 
 masterpiece of the ultra restrictionists and exhibits all 
 the Avorse features of the system.' Although the im- 
 ports of 1892 show an average duty of 95.82 per cent, 
 in the woolen schedule, it can not be said that woolen 
 manufacture has been a flourishing industry in this 
 country, or that the American wool-grower has secured 
 remunerative prices for his wool. With free wool we 
 anticipate great benefits to consumers of woolen goods, 
 a revival of the woolen industry, such as that which 
 followed the tariff of 1857, and a steadier and better 
 market for the American wool-grower. We have , 
 placed the duties upon woolen fabrics at forty per cent., 
 but with a proviso for a uniform cut of five per cent., 
 
 200 
 
with a lapse of five years, beginning on the first day of 
 July, 1896. 
 
 " A most important change in the bill proposed from 
 the present law will be found in the general substitution 
 of ad valorem for specific duties. This must always be 
 the characteristic of a revenue tariff levied upon a large 
 range of articles, especially when they include the plain 
 necessaries of life. 
 
 " It is the purpose of the present bill to repeal in toto 
 section three of the tariff act of O 3tober 1, 1890, com- 
 monly but erronneously called its reciprocity pro- 
 vision. That act placed sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and 
 hides on the free list, but authorized the President, 
 should he be satisfied that the government of any 
 other country producing such articles imposed duties 
 upon the agricultural or other products of the United 
 States which he might deem reciprocally unequal and 
 unreasonable, to suspend the provision under which these 
 articles were admitted into this country free. This sec- 
 tion has brought no appreciable advantage to Amer- 
 ican exporters , it is not in intention or effect a pro- 
 vision for reciprocity, but for retaliation. It inflicts 
 penalties upon the American people by making them 
 pay higher prices for these articles if the fiscal neces- 
 sities of other nations compel them to levy duties upon 
 the products of the United States which, in the opinion 
 of the President, are reciprocally unequal and unreason- 
 able. Under the provisions of this section Presidential 
 proclamations have been issued imposing retaliatory 
 duties upon the five above-mentioned articles when 
 coming from certain countries. These proclamations 
 have natually led to ill-feeling in the countries thus. 
 
 201 
 
discriminated against, and to dijolomatic correspondence 
 in which it has been claimed with apparent Justice, that 
 such discriminations were in violation of our solemn 
 treaty obligations. Moreover, ^ve do not believe that 
 Congress can rightly vest in the President of the 
 United States any authority or power to impose or re- 
 lease taxes on our people by proclamation or otherwise, 
 or to suspend or dispense with the operation of a law 
 of Congress." 
 
 The minority of the Ways and Means Committee 
 (Messrs. Reed, Burrows, Payne, Dalzell, Hopkins and 
 Gear, the Republican members), joresented the follow- 
 ing views in opposition to the proposed law : 
 
 " The most surprising thing about the bill is the fact 
 that this proposition to raise revenue will lower the 
 revenue of this country $74,000,000 below the revenue 
 of 1893, which was only $2,000,000 above our expenses. 
 This fact and the other fact that by this bill the larger 
 part of the burden of taxation is transferred from 
 foreignei's, and borne by our own citizens, should always 
 be kept in mind during the discussion. 
 
 " It unfortunately happens that ' free raw material " 
 is an elastic term, and whac is one man's fi'ee raw ma- 
 terial is another man's finished product. The manufac- 
 turer in Massachusetts is told that he is to be encouraged 
 by having free lumber to build his factory and to j^ack 
 his goods, but inasmuch as that very lumber thus made 
 free is the Maine manufactufers finished product, no 
 wonder the Democrats of Bangor, the mills on the 
 Penobscot being unable to move a saw, denounced 
 ' class legislation ' wath a new appreciation of what class 
 legislation really means. And with the dwellers on the 
 
 202 
 
Penobscot sympathize the lumbermen in Wisconsin and 
 Michigan, the Pacific slope, Alabama, Georgia and 
 Florida. So also the miners in Michigan, struggling this 
 very moment with starvation, realize that the most 
 odious class legislation there can possibly be is the legis- 
 lation which protects labor in the mill and leaves it in 
 the mines to the charity of the great cities. These so- 
 called 'free raw materials,' free wool, free coal, and free 
 iron are not put on the free list with any reference, di- 
 rect or indirect, to raising revenue. They are placed 
 there to encourage manufacturers who are to be com- 
 pensated for any loss in this market by the markets of 
 the world where they will have the chance to struggle 
 with the cheaper labor of the Old World with whatever 
 energy they may have left after the struggle at home 
 with that same cheaper labor let into our markets by a 
 lower tariff which does not give us the compensation 
 even of a larger revenue. 
 
 " The doctrine of the Democratic platform that pro- 
 tection is robbery and should be abolished is compre- 
 hensible and sturdy. The new movement on behalf of 
 mitigated and sporadic robbery is contrary alike to good 
 morals and public faith. All false pretenses are unwise, 
 contrary to sound policy and sound statesmanship. 
 Hence many of us who are sure that the Democratic 
 platform is utterly untrue admitted its straightforward- 
 ness and directness. This bill, framed by those who 
 represent the platform, can not receive that kind of 
 praise. It pretends to be a revenue tariff, and does not 
 raise revenue. It pretends to give protection, but de- 
 stroys it in every indirect way. 
 
 "But while this bill in its principle, if it has any, is' 
 
 203 
 
not unprotective, it will be absolvitely so in practice not 
 only in its direct reductions but also in its indirect 
 reductions sure to come from the change from specific 
 duties to ad valorem, which is a marked feature of the 
 bill. An ad valorem duty, as the name implies, is one 
 which varies according to the price. If prices could be 
 exactly determined nothing would seem to be fairer 
 than an ad valorem duty. But, unfortunately, prices 
 are very much matters of opinion, on which honest men 
 may differ much and rogues much moi^e. Inasmuch as 
 the duty depends on the price, a cheat on the price is a 
 cheat on the duty. If a piece of goods is worth $6 a 
 yard and the duty is twenty-five per cent., the correct 
 duty is $1-50. If the price be invoiced at $5 a yard 
 and the fraud not detected, the duty collected becomes 
 $1.25, and the ad valorem, which seems to be twenty- 
 five per cent., becomes about twenty per cent., and not 
 only is the Government cheated out of its quarter of a 
 dollar, but the manufacturer is cheated out of one-fifth 
 of the protection his Government has promised him. 
 So great have been the objections in actual American 
 practice to the ad valorem duties that among the names 
 which can be cited against it are some of the most 
 illustrious in American history : Hamilton, Gallatin, 
 Crawford, Webster, and Van Buren, with Buchanan and 
 Daniel Manning. Such, too, has been the experience of 
 all other nations, and their tariff bills show such an 
 exclusion of ad valorem duties as makes even the act of 
 1890 seem objectionable on that very account. That 
 the example given above of a piece of goods lowered 
 from $6 to |5 is reasonable is evident from this very 
 bill, where an undervaluation has to reach forty per 
 
 204 
 
'Cent., which in this case would be from $6 to $3.60, in 
 order to create presumption of fraud. This, therefore, 
 is not theory. It is within the experience of e very- 
 merchant that goods which can not be purchased at all 
 in Europe can be purchased, duty paid, in New York, at 
 lower prices than like goods can be purchased by the 
 honest merchant who values them at their true market 
 value and pays the duty demanded by the Government, 
 and yet these ad valorem duties thus objectionable have 
 been increased in number everywhere, being substituted 
 in nearly all the schedules for specific duties. 
 
 "A serious general objection to the bill is that it 
 decreases the revenue according to the calculations 
 usually made by the Treasury Department as compared 
 with 1893 about $74,000,000. This large deficit, coming 
 as it does upon a depleted Treasury, is rather appalling 
 in a bill for revenue only. How this great hole in our 
 resources, as a Nation, is to be filled, no one knows. At 
 this date not even the Committee knows itself, unless 
 the President, anticipating in his message to Congress 
 the report of the Committee on Ways and Means, shall 
 afford to the Committee itself its wished-for clue. 
 Against the consideration of such a bill creating such a 
 •deficit and leaving it unaccounted for, the minority 
 vainly protested when the bill was laid before the Com- 
 mittee. Who would dare, if of sound and statesmanlike 
 mind, to create a deficit of $74,000,000, and blindly vote 
 it with no plan in sight whereby the Grovernment could 
 meet its expenditures ? That same protest we make to 
 the House and to the country." 
 
 The minority then proceeded to a consideration of the 
 bill as to particular items. It will be impossible to do 
 
 205 
 
more tlian notice as briefly as may be, their objections, 
 to a few of the more important schedules : 
 
 " That which lies at the base of our iron and steel 
 industry is iron ore. The existing duty thereon is 
 seventy-five cents per ton. The revenues from its im- 
 portation aggregated in the last fiscal year over half a 
 million of dollars. It is proposed under a ' tariff bill 
 for revenue only,' to throw away absolutely every cent 
 of this large revenue b}^ putting iron ore on the free 
 list. That, however, may be said to be a comparatively 
 small matter in comparison with the effect that the pro- 
 posed measure will have upon our home industry by 
 the substitution for native of foreign ores, the product 
 of cheap foreign labor. Our ore iudustrj^, from what- 
 ever point viewed, is among the most important. Ac- 
 cording to the Census figures of 1890, the production of 
 iron ore for the year ending December 31, 1889, was in 
 excess of fourteen and a half million tons. Its value 
 was more than thirty-three and a third millions of dol- 
 lars. Twenty-six States and two Territories, North, 
 South, East and West, contributed to it. In the amount 
 and value of production Michigan stands first, and 
 whether Pennsylvania, a Middle State, or Alabama, a 
 Southern State, stands second is a question of doubt. 
 The amount of capital invested is nearly a hundred and 
 ten millions of dollars, and the number of men directly 
 employed over thirty-eight thousand. The average 
 annual earning capacity for each person so employed at 
 current wages is $409.95. Of course in taking account 
 of the value of this industry to American labor there 
 must be added all the various labor processes, including 
 the transportation, necessary to get the ore from the 
 
 206 
 
hills into the furnace stack. The theorist who talks 
 about ' raw materials ' never permits himself to realize 
 that, as has been well said, ' Nature rarely dispenses 
 with transportation. She never separates, assorts, 
 cleanses, and feeds into the hopper or the stack.' The 
 bill proposes to put into competition with American 
 ores foreign ores, some of which are produced at a labor 
 cost one-tenth and none of them at a labor cost greater 
 than one-fourth of ours. It proposes to bring our labor- 
 ers who get from $1.60 to $2 per day, and who work 
 from fifty-five to sixty hours a week, into competition 
 with laborers who work seventy-two hours a week and 
 get thirty-six to sixty cents per day ; our miners who get 
 from $2.25 to $2.75 per day into competition with those 
 who get from sixty to seventy-two cents per day. It 
 proposes to condemn to temporary idleness and ulti- 
 mately to divert into new channels, after an immense 
 loss, if not the whole at least a large part of an invested 
 capital of over thirty-three and one-third millions of 
 dollars ; to deprive our transportation lines of a large 
 proportion of their profits from the carriage of the ore 
 product, and to leave undeveloped treasures hidden 
 under the soil of twenty-six States and tw.o Territories. 
 Foreign ore will take the place of our domestic product 
 to a great extent, and this will cripple if it does not 
 entirely destroy our home industry. Ocean freights are 
 so low as to afford no protection. Ore is frequently car- 
 ried across the ocean as ballast, and when freight is paid 
 at all it averages not to exceed five shillings per ton on 
 iron ore from Bilboa and other points in Spain. Under 
 these circumstances there is no question but that foreign 
 -ores will take the ]Aace of domestic in all furnaces along 
 
 307 
 
and withia easy reach of the coast, and its low price be- 
 cause of cheap labor cost will enable it to bear freight 
 charges for long distances even into the interior. In the 
 last analysis the placing of iron ore on the free list 
 means either the abandonment of that industry with 
 us, or the mining of ore to be sold in competition with 
 the cheap labor of Cuba, Africa, and Spain. 
 
 "Having sacrificed over half a million dollars per 
 annum of revenue to the vagary of free trade, this 
 tariff bill ' for revenue only ' proposes to aifect another 
 large source of revenue by the serious reduction of the 
 duties on pig iron. That duty is now $6.72 per ton. 
 The duty proposed is 22^ per cent, ad valorem, or 
 about |1.60 to $1.90 per ton, a lower tariff than was 
 ever before proposed on this article. That suggested 
 by the Mills bill was $6.00 per ton; under the 
 tariff of 1846 the duty was thirty per cent, ad valorem. 
 The revenue from pig iron during the last fiscal year 
 amounted to over one-third of a million dollars. While 
 decreased duties will add to importation, it is to be 
 noticed that the difference between present and pro- 
 posed duties is in the neighborhood of $5.00 per ton, 
 and that a large loss of the product and a large loss 
 of revenue are both inevitable. Pig iron, so far as both 
 capital and labor are concerned, is one of our leading 
 industries, and is followed in twenty-three States of the 
 Union. In the year 1892 our product was 9,157,000 
 tons, of a value of $131,161,039, and theprices at which 
 it was sold to the consumer were the lowest that it ever 
 commanded. The proposed duty will close all New 
 England furnaces and all east of the Alleghanies, 
 as well as those of the South. The market for South- 
 
ern pig iron is necessarily found in the North, owing to 
 the lack of demand at the place of production. The 
 consequence is, that the competition of Southern pig 
 iron, which of all pig irons is made at the cheapest cost 
 in this country, fixes the prices in Northern markets. 
 That price is controlled to a large extent by freight, 
 rates. Interior freight rates are very heavy as com- 
 pared with ocean rates. In many cases pig iron comes 
 from England and Belgium as ballast, subject to no 
 freight charges at all. In other cases it bears a burden 
 not to exceed five shillings per ton. At this figure 
 it can be carried to the Atlantic and Gulf ports, and 
 even to those of the Pacific. Assuming that our pig 
 iron, made at the least cost, is made as cheaply as that 
 made abroad, which is not true, it amounts to a 
 demonstration that all of our blast furnaces, save those 
 in the interior, must succumb to foreign competition. 
 Even the latter, if able to exist at all, must do so with- 
 out a margin of profit. 
 
 "During the year ending June 30, 1893, there was 
 imported into the United States 628,425,902 pounds of 
 tin plate which paid a duty at the rate of 2. 2 cents per 
 pound, and thus produced a total revenue to the Gov- 
 ernment of $13,825,369.84. It is clear that the present 
 duty admirably serves the two-fold purpose of produc- 
 ing revenue for the Government and of affording reason- 
 able protection to an American industry. No sufficient 
 reason has been advanced for the destruction of an in- 
 dustry which in such a short period of time has gained 
 so firm a foothold, and which promises such a brilliant, 
 future. Side by side with the advance in the American.' 
 tinning of sheets, the manufacture of black sheets to be 
 
tinned Las progressed. According to the most reliable 
 evidence, the time is not far distant when, if proper 
 protection be continued, all the black sheets necessary 
 to make all the tin plate required in this country, 
 and all the tin plates so required, will be made 
 here. One of the provisions of the existing law 
 is that the duty of 2.2 cents per pound on 
 tin plates shall cease unless in some one of 
 the six years next preceding June 30, 1897, 
 the aggregate quantity of tia plate produced shall 
 have equalled one-third of the amount of such plates 
 imported and entered for consumption during any fiscal 
 year after the passage of the existing law and prior to 
 October 1, 1897. There can be no doubt that our cap- 
 italists have invested their money in the manufacture 
 of tin plates upon the faith that this provision operated 
 as a Governmental pledge that the tin plate duty 
 under existing law should continue for a j^eriod of six 
 years. Had the language of the act been embodied in 
 an instrument to which individuals were parties of the 
 first and second part, it could hardly successfully be 
 contended that there was not a contract that this duty 
 would continue for six years. Of course, no claim of 
 legal contract can be made against the United States as 
 sovereign, but at the same time it is difficult to resist 
 the conclusion that in morals the contract exists, calling 
 for I'ecoguition on the part of Congress. Nothing 
 seems more clear than that the proposed change of 
 duty upon tin plates is against the interests of the 
 Government as a revenue measure, that it threatens the 
 destruction of one of our most prosperous and growing 
 industries, narrows the sphere of labor, ^vorks no good 
 
 210 
 
to the consumer, and appioaohes dangerously near to 
 bad faith, upon the part of the Government. 
 
 "The tariff law of 1890 placed sugar, up to and in- 
 cluding No. 16 Dutch Standard, on the free list, to take 
 effect April 1, 1891. The duties which had been col- 
 lected from the people on sugar prior to 1890 had 
 amounted to the enormous sum of $1,460,412,227, these 
 duties being levied on an article of prime necessity of 
 v^fhich up to 1890, we had only been able to produce 
 about one-tenth of the amount needed for our con- 
 sumption. These duties were, therefore, levied under 
 the theory of a tariff for revenue only. The Fifty-first 
 Congress was a protective Congress, and, not believing 
 in a tariff for revenue only, wisely repealed the old 
 law, and for the first time in the history of the 
 country sugar came free to the people. This has 
 resulted in a direct saving to the American people 
 of over $200,000,000, less $16,717,726 paid for bounty 
 and $11,000,000 estimated to be due to the pro- 
 ducers for this year, which would aggregate $27,- 
 717,000, being a direct saving of over $1.25 per year 
 for each person in the United States. In harmony 
 with the doctrine of protection, the Fifty-first Con- 
 gress deemed it their duty to give protection to the 
 growers of cane, beet, and sorghum sugar by way of 
 a bounty. In view of the fact that we have a vast 
 area of country, especially adapted to the gi-owth of 
 sugar, and believing that it was a sound policy to 
 make the American people self-sustaining in an arti- 
 cle the annual consumption of which was constantly in- 
 creasing, and which requires an annual expenditure of 
 about $115,000,000, nearly all of which is paid to 
 
 311 
 
foreign labor, Congress wisely provided, in the opinion 
 of the minority, that the grower of cane, beets, and sor- 
 ghum sugar should be paid a small bounty, to run until 
 1905, and to carry out the provisions of this law a con- 
 tinuing appropriation was made to pay the bounty. 
 The bill of the majority proposes to reduce the amount 
 of bounty allowed by existing law, beginning July 1, 
 1895, at the rate of one-eighth of a cent per pound per 
 year, and that on July 1, 1902, said bounty shall 
 ' cease and determine.' The policy of paying bounties, 
 directly or indirectly, for the purpose of encouraging 
 certain industries, is as old as the Government itself,- 
 and has been recognized in the statutes of both State 
 and Nation since 1789. This policy has been vali- 
 dated by the highest courts of our country. 
 
 "The majority have made a general reduction on 
 agricultural products and have made use in many in- 
 stances of the vicious ad valorem rate. This gives 
 peculiar satisfaction to the Canadian farmers and Ber- 
 muda members of Parliament, because it enables them 
 to come into our markets on more than equal terms. A 
 recent investigation develops the fact that our farms 
 and farm labor cost one-third more than the correspond- 
 ing farms and farm labor in Canada. So, lest the Cana- 
 dian farmer should be outstripped in the race for our 
 market, this bill fixes the duties on his farm products at 
 a rate less than 20 per cent., and gives him. an advantage 
 of IS^ per cent, over our own citizens. In addition to 
 this, with all kinds of manufactured lumber on the free 
 list, it is no wonder that Canadian statesmen are boast- 
 ing that they get more by this bill than they could 
 hope to get by the most favorable reci^^rocity treaty, 
 
 313 
 
and this without the surrender of a single advantage on 
 their part. The competition which necessarily exists 
 between our millions of farmers will always regulate 
 the price of farm products in this country so that they 
 will bring no more than a fair return. Why, then, open 
 our markets to Canada and deprive our own citizens of 
 them without forcing the Canadians to pay at least the 
 difference in cost of production into the Treasury ? One 
 of the proofs of unselfishness on the part of the Com- 
 mittee is illustrated in a duty equal to seventy-one per 
 cent, on rice, a Southern product, as against an average 
 of less than twenty per cent, on the products of North- 
 ern farms. In exchange for this and for free wool the 
 farmer's machinery and binding twine are put on the 
 free list. Under the competition encouraged by protec- 
 tion the farmer's machinery has been cheapened to a 
 third of its former cost. To give the Canadian manu- 
 facturer an equal footing may possibly produce a slight 
 reduction in the cost, but would only result in driving 
 out the small manufacturers ; the survivors would be 
 compelled to form combines and trusts to continue in 
 business. In binding twine the result would send the 
 business to Calcutta, Hong Kong and Dundee ; the pro- 
 duct would be cheaper for a time, but in the end the 
 importer would get the profits and the farmer will have 
 to pay the same, or more, after domestic competition 
 is destroyed. Salt is a finished product. Nearly the 
 total cost of its production is human labor. In the 
 Wyoming district, in New York, it furnishes employ- 
 ment to five thousand people; in Syracuse and in 
 Michigan to many more. The freight on salt from 
 Liverpool to New York for two years past has ranged 
 
 213 
 
between thirty-six cents and one dollar per long ton, the^ 
 average not being more than 60 cents. From the Wyo- 
 ming district the rate is $2.24 per long ton to New 
 York. Under the present duty of eight cents per 
 hundred pounds the importation in 1893 was 140,000 
 tons and paid a revenue of $301,972.60. To get this 
 trade the English merchant made a discount on salt for 
 America nearly equal to one-half the duty. He sells for 
 shipment here at a less price than to any English 
 province. Salt is produced in such quantities and in 
 such universal competition here that the cost to the 
 consumer has declined at the factory from $4 per bar- 
 rel to 40 cents for the same article. To find a market 
 here the English producer and the English ocean carrier 
 must and do pay the entire, tariff. Free salt means the 
 surrender to England of our Eastern markets, to Canada 
 of our Northern trade. With free salt' the Liverpool 
 merchant will supply the retail merchant at a price just 
 below the cost to the Wyoming manufacturer. The 
 consumer will doubtless pay about the same as now, and 
 the difference between the cost abroad and the cost here 
 will be divided between the foreign producer, the ocean 
 carrier, the single distributing agent in New York (who 
 now gets a profit on every pound of salt shipped from 
 Liverpool to the United States or Canada) and the 
 American retailer, while the Government loses the 
 revenue. The American workman must seek some other 
 employment or accept a large reduction in his wages- 
 There is no excuse for putting this finished product on 
 the free list. It is unjust to the American workman,, 
 the consumer, and the Grovernment." 
 
 "The wool schedule as proposed in the Committee's 
 
 214 
 
bill is in some respects most reprehensible. It proposes- 
 . to destroy at a blow tbe great industry of wool-growing, 
 which now ranks as seventh in the value of its products 
 among the several branches of American agriculture, 
 and which has heretofore been recognized as an agri- 
 cultural product deserving and requiring jDroteotion, 
 under every Administration and by every tariff act since 
 that of May 22, 1824. Nothing short of the total 
 destruction of this important industry can be counted 
 upon, as the consequence of placing both wool and 
 mutton on the free list. 
 
 "The bill deals with the wool manufacture in terms 
 scarcely less radical than those accorded the wool- 
 growing industiy, upon which it so largely depends. 
 It proposes to revolutionize the manufacture of woolen 
 goods by transferring it from the basis of dutiable 
 materials to free wool, a change more radical than any 
 textile industry in any country was ever forced to make,, 
 without the most careful provision for a safe and gradual 
 readjustment. Ignoring this feature of the situation, 
 the majority would compel our wool manufactui'ers to 
 make this leap in the dark, divested of the safeguard of 
 specific duties and subjected to lower ad valorems than 
 will offset the difference in cost of production. We 
 have secured in the United States a magnificent wool 
 manufacturing industry, in which over $300,000,000 are 
 invested, making every variety of woolen goods and 
 employing more than a quarter of a million operatives. 
 This industry the majority offers up as a sacrifice on the 
 altar of tariff reform. 
 
 "Contemplated legislation, which imperils over $300,- 
 000,000 of capital invested in a particular industry, and. 
 
 215 
 
involves the fortunes or the occupations of hundreds of 
 thousands of its citizens, demands special provisions to 
 render such a transition as safe, gradual, and easy as 
 possible. This bill proposes to compel our wool manu- 
 facturers to accomplish the transformation in one month 
 — that being the brief interval allowed — after wool 
 becomes free, before the duties compensatory for the 
 wool duties are removed from woolen goods. These 
 manufacturers are expected to accomplish in one month 
 what their foreign competitors have been generations in 
 learning. Many of our best manufacturers will not 
 attempt the feat thus forced upon them. Realizing the 
 .animus that underlies such legislation, so suggestive of 
 the Middle Ages, they will close their mills, pocket their 
 losses, and retire. They may ti'uly say that the property 
 .they invested, which gave employment to thousands 
 of our people at generous wages, which built up 
 prosperous towns on every water power in the Eastern 
 and Middle States, which added to the Nation's 
 wealth by increasing the earning and the consuming 
 capacity of its people, has been wantonly confiscated by 
 act of the Fifty-third Congress. The terms of the bill 
 are equivalent to an edict from the committee command- 
 ing every woolen manufacturer to shut down and keep 
 shut down until the bill becomes a law, and turning 
 thousands of operatives into the street. The bill has 
 been carefully devised, apparently, for the purpose of 
 crippling the domestic manufacturer in advance of a 
 new tariff so that he will be left bruised and broken 
 when the time arrives for him to begin competition for 
 this market under duties from sixty to seventy-five per 
 <;ent. less than at present. The punishment meted out 
 
 216 
 
io our woolen manufacturers for daring to invest their 
 capital in this useful and important industry is severe 
 and condign. In order that there shall be no mistake 
 about the purpose to destroy the industry, the majoi-ity 
 further provides that the punishment shall be extended 
 over the next five years, during which the meagre pro- 
 tection allowed them is to further melt away at the rate 
 of one per cent, a year. No such provision is found in 
 any other schedule ; no other class of duties has been 
 reduced so sharply as these ; no other industry subjected 
 to a complete reversal of economic conditions. The pur- 
 pose of the framers of this schedule is a purpose to 
 destroy. 
 
 " One of the most amazing propositions of the bill is 
 that bituminous coal shall be put upon the free list, and 
 the million of dollars per annum that we receive from 
 its importation by way of revenue absolutely thrown 
 away. Coal has little value save as it gets it from labor. 
 It is worth almost nothing in the hill ; would be worth 
 absolutely nothing were it not for the prospect of being 
 mined. It is not a raw material, for it is not worked 
 into any further shape, but is consumed and done for at 
 once. Call it raw material in the hill, if you please ; it 
 then cuts no figure in a tariff bill. Except for a short 
 period, it has always borne a duty. Under the revenue 
 tariff of 1846 it bore a duty of thirty per cent, ad 
 valorem. No change has been made in the duty on it 
 since 1872. The Mills bill provided the same rate as 
 the present law — seventy-iive cents per ton. Now it is 
 proposed to make it free. It is difficult to imagine why. 
 It is the most universally prevalent of all the subjects of 
 American industry. There are few States or Territories 
 
 317 
 
that an inference with it will not affect. It appears that 
 on every side pecaliar facilities are afforded to foreigners 
 to seize our coal trade if the duty on coal be stricken 
 down. And this simply by reason of the difference be- 
 tween foreign wage rates and oiir own. The difference 
 in cost to the consumer from the removal ofthe duty 
 would be slight in the first instance ; the loss to Ameri- 
 can labor and American capital would be incalculable, 
 and the loss to the whole people in the last analysis be- 
 yond measure. To put coal on the free list is without 
 reason and against reason, and finds no semblance of 
 defence save in the unjustifiable desire to exploit a 
 theory at the expense of the American people." 
 
 It will be observed that the bill as originally in- 
 troduced provided for free raw sugar, free wool, free 
 coal, free lumber and free iron ore, and reduced the 
 duties very materially on a great many articles. Its 
 discussion was begun in Committee of the Whole, 
 on January 15, 1894, and on January 24th, a 
 measure j)roviding an income tax was presented to 
 the House, and this, with certain internal revenue 
 features, were incorporated in the pending bill by a vote 
 of 182 to 48. The bill was passed by the House on 
 February 1st, yeas 204, nays 140, not voting eight, four 
 Democrats and four Republicans. Of those voting in 
 the affirmative all were Democrats, but ten Populists ; 
 of those in the negative all were Republicans, but four- 
 teen Democrats. The members from 'New England cast 
 six votes for the bill and nineteen against it ; those from 
 the Middle States, yeas, 32, nays 34; from the Western 
 and Northwestern States, yeas 68, nays 59 ; from the 
 Southern and Southwestern, yeas 92, nays 8 ; and from 
 the Pacific States, yeas 6, nays 10. 
 
 218 
 
The bill as amended was reported from the Com- 
 mittee on Finance on March 20th, and occupied the 
 attention of the Senate almost constantly until its final 
 adjournment on August 17th. A multitude of amend- 
 ments — some 634 in all — were proposed hj the Com- 
 mittee and ultimately adopted by the Senate, the chief 
 of which were the duties on sugar, coal and iron ore, 
 and the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties, so 
 completely changing the character of the measure as to 
 render it practically a new bill. 
 
 The sugar schedule was the most important revenue 
 feature of the measure. It carried with it the abroga- 
 tion of the reciprocity treaties of the Harrison adminis- 
 tration, and the abolition of the sugar bounty of the 
 tariff act of 1890, but the treaty with Hawaii was left 
 in full force. Next to it the income tax provoked the 
 greatest opposition ; Senator Hill of New York did all 
 in his power to strike this provision from the bill, but 
 bis motion to that effect, on June 28th, failed by a vote 
 of 24 to 40. An amendment offered by Senator Man- 
 derson, of Nebraska, on July 2nd, continuing the sugar 
 bounty in force was defeated by a vote of 33 to 37, and 
 an amendment by Senator Peffer, of Kansas, making 
 sugar free was also lost — yeas 33, nays 39. Both pro- 
 positions were in the main supported by the Republicans 
 and opposed by the Democrats. The amended bill, or 
 substitute was passed by the Senate, on July 3rd, yeas, 
 39, all Democrats, but two Populists ; nays 34, all Re- 
 publicans except three, one Democrat and two Populists. 
 
 A conference with the Plouse on its amendments was 
 asked by the Senate, and Messrs. Voorhees, Hari'is. Vest, 
 Jones, of Arkansas, Sherman, Allison and Aldrich were 
 
 219 
 
named as its conferees. The House, on July 7tli, per- 
 emptorily refused to accept the Senate amendments, by 
 a uoanimous vote, and appointed as its conferees, Messrs. 
 Wilson, of West Virginia, McMillin, Turner, of Georgia,. 
 Montgomery, Reed, Burrows and Payne. A long and 
 bitter contest was expected, and to add to the perplex- 
 ities of the situation, Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Ways. 
 and Means Committee, in a speech to the House, on 
 July 7th, gave to Congress and the country the follow- 
 ing personal letter from President Cleveland, strongly 
 opposing the passage of the Senate bill : 
 
 " The certainty that a conference will be ordered be- 
 tween the two houses of Congress for the purpose of 
 adjusting differences on the subject of tariff legislation," 
 said Mr. Cleveland, " makes it also certain that you will 
 be again called on to do hard service in the cause of 
 tariff reform. My public life has been so closely related 
 to the subject, I have so longed for its accomplishment^ 
 and I have so often promised its realization to my 
 fellow-countrymen as a result of their trust and con- 
 fidence in the Democratic party, that I hope no excuse 
 is necessary for my earnest appeal to you that in this crisis 
 you strenuously insist upon party honesty and good 
 faith and a steady adherence to Democratic principles. 
 I believe these are absolutely necessary conditions to 
 the continuation of Democratic existence. 1 can not rid 
 myself of the feeling that this conference will present 
 the best, if not the only hope of true Democracy. In- 
 dications point to its action as the reliance of those who 
 desire the genuine fruition of Democratic effort, the 
 fulfillment of Democratic pledges, and the redemption 
 of Democratic promises to the people. To reconcile 
 
 220 
 
differences in the details comprised within the fixed and 
 well-defined lines of principle will not be the sole task 
 of the conference ; but, as it seems to me, its members 
 will also have in charge the question whether Democratic 
 principles themselves are to be saved or abandoned. 
 There is no excuse for mistaking or misapprehendino- 
 the feeling and temper of the rank and file of the De- 
 mocracy. They are downcast under the assertion that, 
 their party fails in ability to manage the Government, 
 and they are apprehensive that efforts to bring about 
 tariff reform may fail ; but they are much more down- 
 cast and apprehensive in their fear that Democratic 
 principles may be surrendered. In these circumstances 
 they can not do otherwise than to look with confidence 
 to you and those who with you have patriotically and 
 sincerely championed the cause of tariff reform within 
 Democratic lines and guided by Democratic principles- 
 This confidence is vastly augmented by the action under 
 your leadership of the House of Representatives upon 
 the bill now pending. Every true Democrat and every 
 sincere tariff reformer knows that this bill in its present 
 form, and as it will be submitted to the conference, falls 
 far short of the consummation for which we have long 
 labored ; for which we have suffered defeat without dis- 
 couragement; which in its anticipation gave us a rally- 
 ing cry in our day of triumph ; and which, in its promise 
 of accomplishment, is so interwoven with Democratic 
 pledges and Democratic success, that our abandonment 
 of the cause, or the principles upon which it rests, means 
 party perfidy and party dishonor. One topic will be 
 submitted to the conference which embodies Democratic 
 principles so directly that it can not be compromised. 
 
 221 
 
"We have in our platform in every way possible de- 
 clared in favor of the free importation of raw materials. 
 We have again and again promised that this should be 
 accorded to our people and our manufacturers as soon 
 as the Democratic party was invested with the power to 
 determine the tariff policy of the country. The party 
 now has that power. We are as certain to-day as we 
 have ever been of the great benefit that would accrue 
 to the country from the inauguration of this policy, and 
 nothing has occurred to release us from our obligations 
 to secure this advantage to our people. It must be ad- 
 mitted that no tariff measure can accord with Demo- 
 cratic principles and promises, or bear a genuine Demo- 
 cratic badge, that does not provide for free raw materials. 
 In these circumstances it may well excite our wonder 
 that Democrats are willing to depart from this, the most 
 Democratic of all tariff principles, and that the incon- 
 sistent absurdity of such a proposed departure should 
 be emphasized by the suggestion that the wool of the 
 farmer be put on the free list, and the protection of tariff 
 taxation be j^laced around the iron ore and coal of cor- 
 porations and capitalists. How can we face the people 
 after indulging in such outrageous discriminations and 
 violations of principle? It is quite apparent that this 
 question of free raw materials does not admit of adjust- 
 ment on any middle ground, since their subjection to 
 any rate of tariff taxation, great or small, is alike viola- 
 tive of Democratic principle and Democratic good faith. 
 I hope you will not consider it intrusive if I say some- 
 thing in relation to another subject which can hardly 
 fail to be troublesome to the conference. I refer to the 
 adjustment of taiiff taxation on sugar. Under our party 
 
 223 
 
platform and in accordance with our declared party 
 purposes sugar is a legitimate and logical article of rev- 
 enue taxation. Unfortunately, however, incidents have 
 accompanied certain stages of the legislation which will 
 be submitted to the conference that have aroused in 
 connection with this subject a natural Democratic ani- 
 mosity to the methods and manipulations of trusts and 
 combinations. I confess to sharing in this feeling; and 
 yet it seems to me we ought, if possible, to sufficiently 
 free ourselves from prejudice to enable us coolly to 
 weigh the considerations which, in formulating tariff 
 legislation, ought to guide our treatment of sugar as a' 
 taxable article. While no tenderness should be enter- 
 tained for trusts, and while I am decidedly opposed to' 
 granting^ them, under the guise of tariff taxation, any 
 opportunity to fxirther their peculiar methods, I suggest 
 that we ought not to be driven away from the Demo- 
 cratic principle and policy which lead to the taxation of 
 sugar by the fear, quite likely exaggerated, that in car- 
 rying out this principle and policy we may indirectly 
 and inordinately encourage a combination of sugar- 
 refining interests. I know that in present conditions 
 this is a delicate subject, and I appreciate the depth and 
 strength of the feeling which its treatment has aroused. 
 I do not believe that we should do evil that good may 
 come, but it seems to me that we should not forget that 
 our aim is the completion of a tariff bill, and that in 
 taxing sugar for proper purposes and within reasona- 
 ble bounds, whatever else may be said of our action, 
 we are in no danger of running counter to Democratic 
 principle. With all there is at stake there must be in 
 the treatment of this article some ground upon which 
 
 823 
 
we are willing to stand, where toleration and concilia- 
 tion may be allowed to solve the problem without 
 demanding the entire surrender of fixed and conscien- 
 tious convictions. I ought not to prolong this letter. 
 If AThat I have written is unwelcome, I beg you to 
 believe in my good intentions. In the conclusions of 
 the conference touching the numerous items which will 
 be considered, the people are not afraid that their 
 interests will be neglected. They know that the 
 general result, so far as these are concerned, will be to 
 place home necessaries and comforts easier within their 
 reach, and to insure better and surer compensation to 
 those who toil. We all know that a tariff covering all 
 the varied interests and conditions of a country as vast 
 as ours must of necessity be largely the result of 
 honorable adjustment and compromise. I expect very 
 few of us can say, when our measure is perfected, that 
 all the features are entirely as we would prefer. You 
 know how much I deprecated the incorporation in the 
 proposed bill of the income tax feature. In matters of 
 this kind, however, which do not violate a fixed and 
 recognized Democratic doctrine, we are willing to defer 
 to the judgment of a majority of our Democratic 
 brethren. I think there is a general agreement that 
 this is party duty. This is more palpably apparent 
 when we realize that the business of our country 
 timidly stands and watches for the result of our efforts 
 to perfect tariff legislation, that a quick and certain re- 
 turn of prosperity waits upon a wise adjustment, and 
 that a confiding people still trust in our hands their 
 prosperity and well-being. The Democracy of the land 
 plead most earnestly for the speedy completion of the 
 
 324 
 
tariff legislation which their representatives have under- 
 taken, but they demand not less earnestly that no 
 stress of necessity shall tempt those they trust to the 
 abandonment of Democratic principles." 
 
 Astonishing and unprecedented in the annals of legis- 
 lation though it may have seemed to many of its hear- 
 ers, the President's letter was nevertheless received 
 with great applause by the Democrats of the House, 
 and with cheers and laughter by the Republicans, and 
 such may be said generally of its reception by the two 
 parties throughout the country. It served, however, to 
 intensify the feeling in the Senate against the original 
 House bill, and every effort in that body to recede from 
 its amendments proved unavailing. Caucuses were held 
 by the Democratic members of the two houses on Au- 
 gust 7th and 13th, at the first of which no definite 
 action was taken, but at the latter it was agreed by a 
 vote of 130 to 21 to concur in the Senate amendments 
 without change or exception, thus passing the Senaie 
 tariff bill, and then to pass for the Senate's considera- 
 tion four separate bills placing sugar, coal, iron, and 
 barbed wire on the free list. These were derisively 
 styled by the press as " popgun bills," and their pas- 
 sage was never expected, even by their authors. 
 Still the programme was faithfully followed. The 
 House ao-reed to recede from its disagreement to 
 the Senate amendments, on August 13th, by a vote 
 of 182 to 106. Seven Populists united with the ma- 
 jority party in the affirmative, and twelve Demo- 
 crats voted with the Republicans in the negative. 
 The four separate bills providing for free coal, 
 iree iron ore, free barbed wire fencing, and free 
 
 235 
 
sugar, were then introduced by Mr. Wilson in the- 
 order named, and all passed by the House, that for free 
 sugar practically without opposition, and the others by 
 the requisite vote. In the Senate all were referred to 
 the Committee on Finance on August 17th, by a test 
 vote of 32 to 17, eleven Democrats and three Populists 
 voting with the Republicans for such reference. Dur- 
 ing the debate on this motion a letter was read from 
 the Secretary of the Treasury stating that if sugar was. 
 placed on the free list the expenditures for the next 
 fiscal year would exceed the revenues by $27,478,058, 
 and if all four bills were passed the deficiency would be 
 $29,478,058. We shall see that although none of them 
 were enacted the deficit was nevertheless still greater 
 than here estimated. 
 
 As was naturally to be expected under circumstances 
 so extraordinary. President Cleveland did not sign the 
 Senate substitute for the so-called Wilson bill. He did 
 not, as might be supposed, veto the bill outright, but 
 permitted it to become a law by lapse of time, on Au- 
 gust 27th, the day before Congress adjourned, content- 
 ing himself with the following explanation of his 
 course, in a letter from the Executive Mansion, of that 
 date, to Representative Catchings, of Mississippi : 
 
 "Since the conversation I had with you and Mr. 
 Clark, of Alabama, a few days ago, in regard to my ac- 
 tion apon the tariflE bill now before me, I have given the 
 subject further and more serious consideration. The 
 result is, I am more settled than ever in the determina- 
 tion to allow the bill to become a law without my 
 signature. When the formulation of legislation which 
 it was hoped would embody Democratic ideas of tariff 
 
Teform was lately entered upon by Congress, nothing 
 was further from ray anticipation than a result which I 
 could not promptly and enthusiastically endorse. It is 
 therefore with a feeling of the utmost disappointment 
 that I submit to a denial of this privilege. I do not 
 claim to be better than the masses of my party, nor do I 
 wish to avoid any responsibility which, on account of 
 the passage of this law, I ought to bear as a member of 
 the Democratic organization. Neither will I permit my- 
 self to be separated from my party to such an extent as 
 might be implied by a veto of the tarifE legislation, 
 which, though disappointing, is still chargeable to 
 Democratic efforts. But there are provisions in the bill 
 which are not in line with honest tariff reform, and it 
 contains inconsistencies and crudities which ou2;ht not 
 to appear in tariff laws or laws of any kind. Besides, 
 there were, as you and I well know, incidents accom- 
 panying the passage of the bill through Congress which 
 made every sincere tariff reformer unhappy while in- 
 fluences surrounded it in its later stages, and interfered 
 with its final construction, which ought not to be recog- 
 nized or tolerated in Democratic tariff reform. And yet, 
 notwithstanding all its vicissitudes and all the bad treat- 
 ment it received at the hands of pretended friends, it 
 presents a vast improvement to existing conditions. It 
 will certainly lighten many tariff burdens that now rest 
 heavily upon the people. It is not only a barrier against 
 the return of mad protection, but it furnishes a vantage 
 ground from which must be waged further aggressive 
 operations against protected monopolies and govern- 
 mental favoritism. I take my place with the rank and 
 file of the Democratic party who believe in tariff' reform 
 
and who know what it is, who refuse to accept the re- 
 sult embodied in this bill as the close of the war, who 
 are not blinded to the fact that the livery of Democratic 
 reform has been stolen and worn in the service of Re- 
 publican protection, and who have marked the places 
 where the deadly blight of treason has blasted the 
 counsels of the brave in their hour of might. The 
 trusts and combinations, the communism of pelf, whose 
 machinations have prevented us from reaching the suc- 
 cess we deserved, should not be forgotten nor forgiven.- 
 We shall recover from our astonishment at their ex- 
 hibition of power, and if then the question is forced 
 upon us whether they shall submit to the free legisla- 
 tive will of the peoples' representatives, or shall dic- 
 tate the laws which the people must obey, we will 
 accept and settle that issue as one involving the in- 
 tegrity and safety of American institutions. 
 
 The millions of our countrymen who have 
 fought bravely and well for tariff reform should be 
 exhorted to continue the struggle, boldly challenging 
 to open warfare and constantly guarding against 
 treachery and half-heartedness in their camp. Tariff 
 reform will not be settled until it is honestly and fairly 
 settled in the interests and to the benefit of a patient 
 and long-suffering people." 
 
 But the people were no longer to be deceived ; their 
 patience was in truth exhausted with j.leas for a " re- 
 form " that brought only distress to the business 
 interests of the country, that deranged our finances, and 
 instead of abundant revenue, brought nothing but 
 deficiencies to the Government. The result of the 
 November elections proved this conclusively, for never 
 
 228 
 
in the history of the United States, in any Con- 
 gressional election, was the party and doctiine of pro- 
 tection so overwhelmingly endorsed. The Democratic 
 majority of ninety -four in the House of Representatives 
 in the Fifty-third Congress was changed to a Re- 
 publican majority of one hundred and forty in the 
 Fifty-fourth Congress. Not only was the victory 
 sweeping and decisive in the North, or in States 
 usually Republican, but for the first time in many 
 years, more Republicans were elected from the South 
 than Democratic members were returned from the 
 North, including even the strongholds of that party in 
 the great cities. The Senate, too, was partly recovered, 
 the Republican membership having been increased by 
 gains in legislative elections from thirty-six to forty- 
 three in a total of eighty-eight. The Republican major- 
 ities were everywhere phenomenal, and nowhere larger 
 than in the great States of New York, Illinois and 
 Indiana, which in 1892 had given their electoral votes 
 for the Democratic ticket. 
 
 The income tax feature of the new law was at once 
 attacked by eminent lawyers on the ground of un- 
 constitutionality. It provided that " there shall be 
 assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the 
 gains, profits and incomes received in the preceding 
 calendar year by every citizen of the United States, 
 whether residing at home or abroad, and every person 
 residing therein, whether said gains, profits or income 
 be derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, 
 dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, em- 
 ployment or vocation carried on in the United States or 
 elsewhere, or from any source whatever, a tax of two 
 
per cent, on the amount so derived, over and above 
 $4,000, and a like tax shall be levied, collected and 
 paid annually upon the gains, profits, and increase from 
 all property owned, and of 'every business, trade or 
 profession carried on in the United States by persons 
 residing without the United States." It was to go 
 into effect on January 1, 1895, and to continue in force 
 until January 1, 1900. On February 13, 1895, Con- 
 gress extended the time of making the returns, in that 
 year only, until April 15th, and fixed certain new 
 exemptions ordeductions in computing incomes. But on 
 March 13th, a suit was begun in the United States 
 Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of the 
 income tax, and, arguments for and against it were 
 made by Messrs. George F. Edmunds, Joseph H. 
 Choate, James C. Carter, and Attorney Greneral Olney. 
 On April 7th the Court handed down its decision, 
 unanimously concurring that direct taxes ought not to 
 be levied by the Greneral Grovernment except under' the 
 pressure of extraordinary exigency ; that such had 
 always been the practice down to August 15, 1894; 
 that so much of the new act as attempted to impose a 
 tax upon the rent or income of real estate without 
 apportionment was invalid ; that the tax upon the in- 
 come derived from municipal bonds was invalid — and 
 that upon other questions raised by counsel the Court 
 was equally divided, and therefore expressed no o^Diniou. 
 On the question of taxing rents the Court was said to 
 stand: Affirming the law. Justices Harlan and White 
 opposed. Chief Justice Fuller, and Justices Biewei 
 TBrown, Field, Gray, and Shiras. On the general ques 
 tion of its constitutionality, the Court divided equally 
 
For the law, Justices Brewer, Brown, Harlan and 
 White ; against it. Chief Justice Fuller and Justices 
 Field, Gray and Shiras. Justice Jackson was sick and 
 did not hear the case. Mr. W. D. Guthrie, one of those 
 actively engaged in the case, was impressed with the 
 idea that upon a further hearing the Court Avould 
 ■declare the whole law invalid, and an application for a 
 rehearing was accordingly made and granted, the Court 
 convening for such purpose on May 7th. Arguments 
 were made against the law by Messrs. Choate and 
 Guthrie and for it by Attorney General Olney, and the 
 Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Whitney, and on May 
 27th the Court handed do^vn its decision declaring 
 every provision contained in sections 27 to 37 of 
 the Wilson act to be unconstitutional, null and void. 
 The vote of the Court was as follows : Against 
 the law, Chief Justice Fuller (Dem.), Justices 
 Field (Dem.), Gray (Rep.), Brewer (Rep.), and 
 Shiras (Rep.) ; sustaining the law. Justices Har- 
 lan (Rep.), Brown (Rep.), Jackson (Dem.), and 
 White (Dem.). In concluding his opinion Judge Harlan 
 asked this pertinent question: "The judgment just 
 rendered defeats the purpose of Congress by taking out 
 of the revenue not less than $30,000,000, and possibly 
 $50,000,000, expected to be raised of incomes. We 
 know from the official journals of both houses of Con- 
 gress that taxation would not have been reduced to the 
 extent it was by the Wilson act but for the belief that 
 if the country had the benefit of revenue derived from a 
 tax on incomes it could be safely done. We know from 
 official sources that each house of Congress distinctly 
 refused to strike out the provisions imposing a tax on 
 
 231 
 
incomes. • ' • ■ If, therefore, all the income-tax 
 sections of the Wilson act must fall because some of 
 them are invalid, does not the judgment this day 
 rendered furnish ground for the contention that the 
 entire act falls when the Court strikes from it all of the 
 income-tax provisions, without which the act would 
 never have been passed ? " 
 
 Another point of great contention may be mentioned 
 in this connection. The tariff act of 1890 provided for 
 an annual appropriation by Congress for the amount of 
 the bounty guaranteed the domestic producers of sugar, 
 and the sum estimated as necessary for this purpose by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury for 1895 was $11,000,000. 
 This sum had been honorably earned by the sugar- 
 producers of the country and its payment was naturally 
 expected. On September 5, 1895, however, Hon. 
 Robert B. Bowler, of Ohio, Comptroller of the Treasury, 
 rendered a decision on the constitutionality of the sugar 
 bounty appropriated in the Sundry Civil Bill by the 
 rifty-third Congress (Democratic in both branches), the 
 case being that of the Oxnard Beet Sugar Company, of 
 Nebraska, for $11,782.50. Until this hour it had not 
 been generally supposed that the Comptroller had any 
 jurisdiction by which he could pass upon the right of 
 payment, but Mr. Bowler asserted his jurisdiction and 
 right to refuse payment of these bounties on the 
 ground of the unconstitutionality of the appropriation 
 ■ — although made in obedience to existing law. He 
 quoted the decision of the Court of Appeals of the 
 District of Columbia, in a suit brought for a mandamus 
 to compel the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Com- 
 missioner of Internal Revenue to pay the sugar bounty 
 
 238 
 
i^ 
 
 provided in the act of 1890, and held that the Court- 
 having decided all such bounties to be unconstitutional, 
 its decision was one of which he was bound to take 
 cognizance. He therefore ordered the papers to be 
 returned to the Auditor for transmission to the Court 
 of Claims, "in order that there may be furnished a 
 precedent for the future action of the Executive Depart- 
 ment in the adjustment of the class of cases involved in 
 these sugar bounties." 
 
 The tariff received but little attention at the third 
 session of the Fifty-third Congress, which began Decem- 
 ber 3, 1894, and, ended by the constitutional limitation, 
 March 3, 1895. President Cleveland discussed some of 
 its features in his annual message, but his recommenda- 
 tions were not adopted, nor was any determined effort 
 made to amend the act of the preceding August in any 
 essential particular. He said : 
 
 "The Grerman Government has protested against that 
 provision of the customs tariff act which imposes a dis- 
 criminating duty of one-tenth of one cent a pound on 
 sugars coming from countries paying an export bounty 
 thereon, claiming that the exaction of such a duty is in 
 contravention of Articles V and IX of the treaty of 
 1828 with Prussia. In the interest of the commerce of 
 both countries, and to avoid even the accusation of 
 treaty violation, I recommend the repeal of so much of 
 the statute as imposes that duty, and I invite attention 
 to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State 
 containing a discussion of the questions raised by the 
 
 German protests The Secretary of the Treas 
 
 ury reports that the receipts of the Government from 
 all sources of revenue during the fiscal year ending, 
 
 233 
 
June 30, 1894, amounted to $382,802,498.29, and its 
 expenditures to $442,605,758.87, leaving a deficit of 
 $69,803,260.58. There was a decrease of $15,952,- 
 674.66 in the ordinary expenses of the Government as 
 compared with the fiscal year 1893. There was col- 
 lected from customs $131,818,530.62, and from internal 
 revenue $147,168,449.70. The balance of the income 
 for the year, amounting to $93,815,517.97, was derived 
 from sales of lauds and other sources. The value of 
 our total dutiable imports amounted to $275,199,086, 
 being $146,657,625 less than during the preceding year; 
 and the importations free of duty amounted to $379,- 
 795,536, being $64,748,675 less than during the pre- 
 ceding year. The receipts from customs were $73,536,- 
 486.11 less, and from internal revenue $13,836,539.97 
 less, than in 1893. The total tax collected from dis- 
 tilled spirits was $85,259,250.25; on manufactui'ed 
 tobacco, $28,617,898.62; and on fermented liquors, 
 $31,414,788.04. Our exports of merchandise, domestic 
 and foreign, amounted during the year to $892,140,572, 
 being an increase over the preceding year of $44,495,- 
 
 378 The tariff act passed at the last session 
 
 of the Congress needs important amendments if it is to 
 be executed effectively and with certainty. In addition 
 to such necessary amendments as will not change rates 
 of duty, I am still very decidedly in favor of putting 
 coal and iron upon the free list. So far as the sugar 
 schedule is concerned, I would be glad, under existing 
 aggravations, to see every particle of differential duty 
 in favor of refined sugar stricken out of our tariff laws. 
 If with all the favor now accorded the sugar-refining 
 interest in our tariff laws it still languishes to the ex- 
 
 334 
 
tent of closed refineries and thousands of discharged 
 workmen, it would seem to present a hopeless case for- 
 reasonable legislative aid. Whatever else is done or 
 omitted, I earnestly repeat here the recommendation I 
 have made in another portion of this communication, 
 that the additional duty of one-tenth of a cent per 
 pound laid upon sugar imported from foreign countries 
 paying a bounty on its export be abrogated. It seems 
 to me that exceedingly important considerations point 
 to the propriety of this amendment. With the advent 
 of a new tariff policy not only calculated to 
 relieve the consumers of our land in the cost of 
 their daily life, but to invite a better de- 
 velopment of American thrift and create for 
 us closer and more profitable commercial relations with 
 the rest of the world, it follows as a logical and im- 
 perative necessity that we should at once remove the 
 chief, if not the only, obstacle which has so long pre- 
 vented our participation in the foreign carrying trade 
 of the sea. A tariff built upon the theory that it is 
 well to check imports and that a home market should 
 bound the industry and effort of American producers 
 was fitly supplemented by a refusal to allow American 
 registry to vessels built abroad though owned and navi- 
 gated by our people, thus exhibiting a willingness to 
 abandon all contest for the advantages of American 
 transoceanic carriage. Our new tariff policy, built 
 upon the theory that it is well to encourage such im- 
 portations as our people need, and that our products 
 and manufactures should find markets in every part of 
 the habitable globe, is consistently supplemented by 
 the greatest possible liberty to our citizens in the 
 
 235 
 
'Ownership and navigation of ships in which our prod- 
 ucts and manufactures ma}' be transported. The 
 millions now paid to foreigners for carrying American 
 passengers and products across the sea should be turned 
 into American hands. Ship-building, which has been 
 protected to strangulation, should be revived by the 
 prospect of profitable employment for ships when built, 
 and the American sailor should be resurrected and 'again 
 take his place — a sturdy and industrious citizen in time 
 of peace and a patriotic and safe defender of American 
 interests in the day of conflict. The ancient provision 
 of our law denying American registry to shij)s built 
 abroad and owned by Americans appears in the light of 
 jDresent conditions not only to be a failure for good at 
 every point, but to be nearer a relic of barbarism than 
 anything that exists under the permission of a statute 
 -of the United States. I earnestly recommend its 
 prompt repeal." 
 
 To provide for the steadily increasing deficiency in 
 the Treasury occasioned by a change in our tariff laws, 
 the Administration had resorted to the policy of issuing 
 bonds, an expedient that should have been adopted 
 only after all reasonable efforts to secure an adequate 
 revenue to meet the needs of the Government had been 
 fully exhausted. This, however, was not the reason 
 given for their issue by the Secretary and the President. 
 The excuse offered was that it was necessary to issue 
 the bonds in order to maintain the gold reserve of 
 $100,000,000 in the Treasury for the redemption of 
 greenbacks. Such a necessity had not before arisen 
 since the resumption of specie payments, and for the 
 first time the gold reserve of $100,000,000 was en- 
 
 236 
 
croached upon. Under the demands imposed upon it 
 by its tariff reform policy, however, the Administration 
 felt constrained to apply it to meet the daily necessities 
 of the Government, and even this did not suffice to meet 
 the demands for the gold which was being so largely 
 used in the payment of the trade balances against us. 
 In January, 1894, $50,000,000 in bonds were issued, 
 and a second issue of $50,000,000 was again deemed 
 necessary on November 26, 1894. The sum of $116,- 
 000,000 was realized by the sale of these bonds, yet the 
 gold reserve in the Treasury was steadily depleted until 
 it had fallen to $58,463,173: On that day, November 
 26th, the President sent a special message to Congress 
 and urged the issue of bonds, payable in gold, instead 
 of in coin, as had heretofore been the practice, to re- 
 plenish the gold reserve and redeem the legal-tender 
 notes of the Govei'nmeut. The amount of such notes 
 was stated by him to be about $500,000,000. "More 
 than $172,000,000," said he, "have been drawn out of 
 the Treasury during the year for the purpose of ship- 
 ment abroad or hoarding at home. While nearly $103,- 
 000,000 was drawn out during the first ten months of 
 the year a sum aggregating more than two thirds of 
 that amount, being about $69,000,000, was drawn out 
 during the following two months, thus indicating a 
 marked acceleration of the depleting process with the 
 lapse of time." In other words, while about $20,600,000 
 had been drawn out before the passage of the new tariff 
 law, about $151,400,000 " of the depleting process " had 
 followed its enactment. Still the President saw no 
 relief in the adoption of a policy that would at once 
 both provide abundant revenue and protect our home 
 
 337 
 
industries, by adjusting the tariff on protective lines. 
 "It will hardly do," he observed, "to say that a simple 
 increase of revenue will cure our troubles. The appre- 
 hension now existing and constantly increasing as to 
 our financial ability does not rest upon a calculation of 
 our revenue. The time has passed when the eyes of in- 
 vestors abroad and our people at home were fixed upon 
 the revenues of the Government. Changed conditions 
 liave attracted attention to the gold of the Government. 
 There need be no fear that we can not pay our current 
 expenses with such money as we have. There is now 
 in the Treasury a comfortable surplus of more than 
 $63,000,000, but it is not in gold, and therefore does not 
 meet our difficulty." 
 
 The " changed conditions " had indeed " accelerated " 
 the process of "investors abroad" getting possession • of 
 the gold of our people. But it is not hard to see 
 why, under the protective policy, when we were 
 bgth making our goods and keeping our gold at 
 home, no similar " difiiculty " as that which now 
 alarmed the President had ever occurred. 
 
 A bill designed to carry out the President's recom- 
 mendations was introduced in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives on November 26th, by Hon. William M. 
 Springer, of Illinois. For this bill Mr. Eeed, of Maine, 
 offered a substitute, entitled " a bill to provide for a 
 temporary deficiency of revenue." By this the Secretary 
 of the Treasury was authorized to issue bonds, bearing 
 not more than three per cent, interest, and -payable in 
 coin, " to an amount sufficient to provide for and main- 
 tain the redemption of United States notes," as provided 
 in the specie resumption act of 1875, and "to pay the 
 
 338 
 
current expenses of the GovernmeEt as long -as the cur- 
 rent revenues shall be deficient." An elaborate substi- 
 tute was also offered by Hon. JSicholas N. Cox, of Ten- 
 nessee, to meet the views of the Democratic members 
 who were, with him, opposed to gold alone being re- 
 quired in payment of the bonds. The substitute by 
 Mr. Reed was rejected by the House, on February 7th, 
 by a vote of 107 yeas to 189 nays, and that by Mr. Cox 
 by 55 yeas to 184 nays. The bill by Mr. Springer was 
 also defeated — yeas 135, Republicans 42, Democrats 93 ; 
 nays 162, Republicans 55, Democrats 107. Four Demo- 
 crats answered "present," and forty-eight members, 
 twenty-two Republicans and twenty-six Democrats, did 
 not vote. Mr. Springer moved to reconsider this vote, 
 and Mr. Hatch to table his motion, which prevailed by 
 135 yeas to 124 nays. 
 
 On the next day, February 8, 1895, President Cleve- 
 land sent another special message to Congress annoim- 
 cing the third sale of bonds under the present Adminis- 
 tration " to parties abundantly able to fulfill their un- 
 dertaking, whereby bonds of the United States author- 
 ized under the act of January 14, 1875, payable in coin 
 thirty years after their date, with interest at the rate of 
 four per cent, per annum, to the amount of a little less 
 than $62,400,000, are to be issued for the purchase of 
 gold coin, amounting to a sum slightly in excess of 
 $65,000,000, to be delivered to the Treasury of the 
 United States, which sum, added to the gold now held 
 in our reserve, will so restore such reserve as to make it 
 ;amount to more than $100,000,000." The bonds were 
 purchased by Messrs. August Belmont <fe Co., of New 
 York, on behalf of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons, of 
 
 339 
 
London, England, and Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co., of 
 New Yoi*k, on behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., 
 of London, as stated in a report of the Ways and Means 
 Committee of the House, on February 13th, and was 
 made without public notice or competitive bidding as 
 had previously been the practice in all such transac- 
 tions. This report recommended the adoption of a 
 joint resolution authorizing the issue of $65,116,275 of 
 gold three per cent, bonds. This also was disagreed to 
 by the House, on February 14th, by a vote of 120 yeas to 
 167 nays. Of those voting in the affirmative thirty 
 were Republicans and ninety Democrats ; of those in the 
 negative, fifty-five were Republicans and 112 Demo- 
 crats, while two Democrats answered " present " and 
 sixty members did not vote — twenty-three Republicans 
 and thirty-seven Democrats. 
 
 The first session of the Fifty-fourth Congress con- 
 vened on Monday, December 2, 1895. Hon. Thomas 
 B. Reed, of Maine, was the unanimous choice of the 
 Republican caucus for Speaker, and was elected by the 
 House over Hon. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, the retir- 
 ing Speaker, by a vote of 244 to 105. On December 17th, 
 the Speaker announced the appointment of the Ways and 
 Means Committee, as follows : Messrs. Nelson Dingley, 
 Jr., of Maine, Chairman, Sereno E. Payne, of New 
 York, John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Albert J. Hopkins, 
 of Illinois, Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Charles 
 A. Russell, of Connecticut, Jonathan P. Doliver, 
 of Iowa, George W. Steele, of Indiana, Martin N. 
 Johnson, of North Dakota, and Walter Evans, of Ken- 
 tucky, Republicans ; and Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, 
 Benton F. McMillin, of Tennessee, Henry G. Turner, 
 
 240 
 
of Georgia, John C. Tarsney, of Missouri, Joseph 
 "Wheeler, of Alabama, and John McLaurin, of South 
 Carolina, Democrats. The Committees of the Senate 
 were reorganized on December 30th, by a vote of 30 
 to 28, to meet the change in the political complexion 
 of that body, by a special committee appointed for the 
 purpose. The Finance Committee agreed upon was as 
 follows : Messrs. Justin S. Morril, of Vermont, Chair- 
 man ; John Sherman, of Ohio ; John P. Jones, of 
 Nevada ; William B. Allison, of Iowa ; Nelson W. Aid- 
 rich, of Rhode Island ; Orville H. Piatt, of Con- 
 necticut ; Edward O. Wolcott, of Colorado ; Daniel W. 
 Voorhees, of Indiana ; Isham Gr. Harris, of Tennessee ; 
 George G. Vest, of Missouri ; James K. Jones, of 
 Arkansas; Stephen M. White, of California; and Ed- 
 ward C. Walthall, of Mississippi. Hon. William P. 
 Frye, of Maine, was agreed upon for President pro tem. 
 of the Senate, and was elected to that office on Feb- 
 ruary 7, 1896. 
 
 President Cleveland recommended no changes what- 
 ever in our revenue laws, in his annual message to Con- 
 gress, December 3, 1895. The tariff question, indee 
 was treated very briefly, and in but a single short 
 paragraph, reading as follows : 
 
 " By command of the people a customs-revenue sys- 
 tem, designed for the protection and benefit of favored 
 classes at the expense of the great mass of our country- 
 men, and which, while inefficient for the purpose 
 of revenue, curtailed our trade relations and impeded 
 our entrance to the markets of the world, has been 
 superseded by a tarifE policy which in principle is 
 based upon the denial of the right of the Government 
 
 241 1 
 
to obstruct the avenues to our people's cheap living or 
 lessen their comfort and contentment, for the sake of 
 according especial advantages to favorites, and which, 
 while encouraging our intercourse and trade with other 
 nations, recognizes the fact that American self-reliance, 
 thrift, and ingenuity can build up our country's in- 
 dustries and develop its resources more surely than 
 enervating paternalism." 
 
 The President did not attempt to show the progress 
 made in "building up our country's industries and de- 
 veloping its resources" under the tariff act of 1894, 
 nor did he offer any comparison of the gain by its 
 operations in contrast with the la^v of 1890 and 
 the previous protective legislation of the Republican 
 party. Neithei- did he show wherein the act of 1890 
 was "inefficient for the purpose of revenue," nor the im- 
 provement made under the new law in this or any re- 
 spect, as an example of the great advantages he 
 predicted would certainly follow the adoption of his 
 " tariff reform " policy. Such a review could not have 
 but impressed the country, and added to the enlighten- 
 ment of the peoj)le. 
 
 This message was quickly followed by a sjjecial mes- 
 sage to Congress, on December 17th, treating exclu- 
 sively of the Venezuelan boundary controversy, a dis- 
 pute that to some degree threatened serious complica- 
 tions and possibly a war with Great Britian, with the 
 enormous outlays that such a step would necessarily in- 
 volve. On December 20th the President sent a second 
 special message to Congress devoted entirely to the public 
 credit and the condition of our National finances. So 
 serious had the situation now become, in the opinion of 
 
 242 
 
the President, that Congress was asked to forego its 
 customary holiday vacation. They must devote them- 
 selves exclusively to the public business to meet the 
 overshadowing emergency. 
 
 " After all the efforts that have been made by the 
 Executive branch of the Government," said Mr. Cleve- 
 land, " to protect our gold reserve by the issuance of 
 bonds amounting to more than $162,000,000, such reserve 
 now amounts to but little more than $79,000,000, and 
 about $16,000,000 were vnthdrawn from such reserve 
 during the month next previous to the date of my last 
 annual message, and quite large withdrawals for ship- 
 ment in the immediate future are predicted." The 
 remedy for this condition, suggested by the President, 
 was not to increase the revenues of the Government 
 until they were adequate to meet its expenditures. 
 The " sudden and unusual apprehension and timidity in 
 business circles " described by him was, apparently, to 
 be met only by issuing more bonds. 
 
 The President did not state, as might frankly have 
 been done, that the new tariff law had not begun to 
 meet the necessities of the Government, from the stand- 
 point simply of providing adequate revenues to meet its 
 expenditures. Up to the meeting of the Fifty-fourth 
 Congress the so-called Wilson act haVi been in force 
 fifteen months, and the official statements of the Treasury 
 Department of the receipts and expenditures of the 
 Government under its operations up to September 30, 
 1895, had disclosed the following facts: The expendi- 
 tures exceeded the receipts in the month of September, 
 1894, $7,701,789.73. For the quarter ending December 
 31, 1894, the receipts were $61,211,058.11 and the ex- 
 
 243 
 
penditures $88,324,246.70 — showing a deficiency of 
 127,113,188.59. For the quarter ending March 31, 1895, 
 receipts $77,991,042.75, expenditures $85,951,016.43, 
 deficiency $7,959,973.68. For the quarter ending June 
 30th, receipts $75,215,297.83, expenditures, $83,291,- 
 801.76— deficiency $8,076,503.93. For the quarter 
 ending September 30th, receipts $87,390,864.90, ex- 
 penditures $95,445,734.09— deficiency $8,054,869.19. 
 A total for the period of $324,429,492.47 in receipts 
 and $383,335,817.59 in expenditures, or a deficiency of 
 $58,906,325.12. The revenues of the Government from 
 all sources for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1895, were 
 $390,373,203.30, and the expenditures for that period 
 $433,178,426.48, showing a deficit of $42,805,223.18. 
 Nor has this -condition since been improved. The 
 receipts of the Government for the quarter ending 
 December 31, 1895, were $81,880,927.46, and its ex- 
 penditures $87,360,517.12, a deficiency of $5,479,589.66. 
 For the quarter ending March 31, 1896, the receipts 
 were $81,338,047.69, the ^expenditures $86,554,291.05, 
 and the deficiency $5,216,243.36. This record is also 
 being maintained during the current month, for up to 
 April 17th the receipts of the Government were 
 $14,225,688.12, and the expenditures $20,956,388.00, 
 showing a deficiency of $6,730,699.88, or nearly 
 $400,000 per day. The aggregate receipts under the 
 new tariff law from September 1, 1894, to April 17, 
 1896, have been $501,874,155.74, and the expenditures 
 $578,207,013.76— showing a deficit of $76,332,858.02, 
 or an average per month of $3,452,745. 
 
 Obedient to the President's request. Congress, despite 
 its custom, continued in session, and on December 26th, 
 
 244 
 
Mr. Dingley, Chairman of the Ways and Means Com- 
 mittee of the House of Representatives, introduced a 
 bill to " temporarily increase revenue to meet the ex- 
 penses of government and to provide against a de- 
 ficiency," and in connection with the matter submitted 
 an able and interesting report, from vrhich. the following 
 passages are taken. He said : 
 
 "Your Committee regard tlie chronic deficiency of 
 revenue for the past two years and a half as a most 
 potent cause of the difficulties which the Treasury has 
 encountered, and an important factor in the creation and 
 promotion of that serious distrust which has paralyzed 
 business and dangerously shaken confidence even in the 
 financial operations of the Government. It is as im- 
 possible for a government to have a continuous de- 
 ficiency of revenue for two years and a half Avithout 
 affecting its financial standing, as it is for an individual. 
 It is impossible also for a government to continue in 
 this condition without casting a shadow of doubt and 
 discouragement over all business operations within its 
 borders. The serious fact which we are called upon to 
 confront is that in the two and a half years that have 
 elapsed since July 1, 1893, this Government has had an 
 insufficiency of revenue to meet current expenditures 
 amounting in the aggregate to about $133,000,000. 
 Even in the first half of the present fiscal year the 
 deficiency will reach about $20,000,000 and about 
 $3,000,000 during the present month. And up to the 
 present time there is no sufficient ground for concluding 
 that this insufficiency of revenue will not continue 
 during the remainder of the fiscal year, and how much 
 longer no one can safely predict. If the consequences 
 
 245 
 
of sucli a chronic deficiency were only the necessity of 
 borrowing money to meet current expenses in time of 
 peace, even this would afford abundant reason for in- 
 creasing the revenue. But the consequences are more 
 widei reaching than that. Insufficiency of revenue has 
 made it necessary to use the redeemed United States 
 legal-tender notes to pay current expenditures, and 
 thus to supply additional means to draw gold from the 
 greenback redemption fund — in short, to create the 
 'endless chain' of which the Secretary of the Treasury 
 complains, and which has made it necessary to sell issue 
 after issue of bonds to replenish the reserve. In 
 response to the urgent call of the President, your 
 Committee have felt impelled to act with all possible 
 dispatch. Two facts have led your Committee to look 
 to an increase of customs duties as the most appro- 
 priate souice of additional revenue. They are, first, the 
 fact that Ave are already raising a disproportionate 
 amount from internal revenue, which has always been 
 regarded as a war resort. Indeed, Jefferson took the 
 ground that excise taxes should not be resorted to by 
 the Federal Government as sources of revenue in time 
 of peace, and the Democratic National Convention 
 maintained the same doctrine in 1884; and, secondly, 
 the fact that by increasing customs duties on im- 
 ported articles which we can and ought to produce 
 or make at home, for revenue purposes, we can at the 
 same time incidentally encourage stricken industries 
 and materially aid in turning in our favor the balance 
 of trade which has been so heavily against us all 
 through this calendar year, and which has caused a 
 demand for gold for export that our Treasury has been 
 
 246 
 
called upon to supply. For so loug as the balance of 
 trade is against us on account of excessive imports o£ 
 articles which we ought to produce or make for our- 
 selves, we must export gold or (what is the same 
 thing) promise to pay gold to pay for the excess of 
 imports over the exports. 
 
 " Your Committee have not undertaken a general 
 revision of the tariff on protection lines, as a majority 
 hope can be done in 1897, not only because they know 
 that such tariff lesfislation avouH stand no chance of be- 
 coming a law, but also because general ta'riff revision 
 would require many months ; and the need is more 
 revenue at once. We believe, however, that this need 
 of more revenue is so great that a simple measure 
 increasing all duties of the dutiable list, and taking from 
 the free list of the present tariff a few articles that were 
 always on the dutiable list until August 27, 1894, and 
 which have always been important revenue producers, 
 and limiting the operation of such legislation to about 
 two years and a half — until the present deficiency of 
 of revenue is overcome — ought to receive the approval 
 even of those who do not favor protective duties on 
 patriotic grounds ; and that the fact that it may inci- 
 dentally encourage the production of many articles that 
 we require at home instead of abroad will not be 
 regarded as a ground of opposition under present cir- 
 cumstances. In framing the bill submitted for your 
 consideration it has been necessary, if action was to be 
 taken promptly, to resort to a considerable extent to a 
 horizontal raise of duties, for the reason that it would 
 have required months to deal with each article separ- 
 ately. Horizontal dealing with tariffs can not be Justi- 
 
 247 
 
-fied in ordinary times, but in such an exigency as exists 
 now — so serious that the President felt it his duty to 
 send us a special message of extreme urgency — and 
 especially for a limited time, it is not only defensible, 
 but it is the only alternative. But while we have pre- 
 sented in the bill reported a horizontal increse of fifteen 
 per cent, of existing duties on all the schedules but two, 
 which is an addition of less than eight per cent, to the 
 average ad valorem rate giving about $15,000,000 
 revenue from that source, yet more than $25,000,000 of 
 of the $40,000,000 which it is estimated this bill would 
 add to our annual revenue will come mainly from wool, 
 which is taken from the free list and given a moderate 
 duty, and from manufactures of wool, which are given a 
 compensatory duty equivalent to the duty on wool, 
 which is always necessary when a duty is placed on 
 wool, in order to give the wool-grower the benefit and 
 make it possible to manufacture woolens at home. The 
 bill reported by your Committee proposes to make the 
 duty on imported clothing wool sixty per cent, of the 
 duty imposed by the act of 1890, which would give an 
 equivalent of six and six-tenths of a cent per pound on 
 unwashed wool, or about forty per cent, ad valorem. 
 This reduction from the duty of the act of 1890 has 
 been made because the restoration of the full duty in 
 that act might seem to be too great a change from the 
 present law to those whose co-operation it is necessary 
 to secure in order to have any legislation, and not as a 
 measure of what might be done when all branches of 
 the Government are in harmony with the majority of 
 the House on protection lines. The duty on manu- 
 factures of wool is increased by a specific duty equi- 
 
 248 
 
valent to the duty on wool. The duty on carpet wools 
 is left at the thirty-two per cent, ad valorem, where it 
 was placed in 1890. This is a purely revenue duty, as 
 we raise very few carpet wools. 
 
 " Such lumber as was placed on the free list by the 
 act of 1890, without the slightest justification, is restored 
 to the dutiable list, but with a duty of only sixty per 
 cent, of the duties provided by the act of 1890 — giving 
 an equivalent of only about fifteen per cent. Such a 
 reduction from the low rates of 1890 is justified only on 
 the ground that the object of your Committee has been 
 to frame a bill mainly on revenue grounds, in the hope 
 that it would secure the approval of those in official 
 place whose co-operation is essential to legislation, and 
 who may be supposed to feel that in such an exigency 
 as now exists the public necessity must control." 
 
 The rules were suspended and the bill immediately 
 passed by the House, on December 26th, by a vote 
 -of 205 yeas to 81 nays, the Republicans in the affirm- 
 ative, and the Democrats and Populists in the negative. 
 Thus the House acted with signal promptness and a 
 fairn-ess and conservatism rarely equalled in a body 
 so completely controlled by the party in opposition 
 to the existing Administration. 
 
 In the Senate, on December 31st, Mr. Sherman offered 
 a resolution, declaring that it was owing " to injurious 
 legislation by the Fifty-third Congress, that the reve- 
 nues of the Government had been reduced below its 
 necessary expenditures, and the fund created by law for 
 the redemption of United States notes had been in- 
 vaded to supply deficiencies of reserve, and that such a 
 misapplication of the resumption fund is of doubtful 
 
 249 
 
legality and greatly injurious to the public credit," and 
 slioxild be prevented by restoring the sum that had been 
 taken from it to the gold reserve of $100,000,000 that 
 ought to be kept m the Treasury for the purpose of re- 
 deeming (Jnited States notes, and to hereafter segregate 
 it from the ordinary current receipts of the Govern- 
 ment. In support of this resolution Mr. Sherman made 
 a notable speech on January 3, 1896, in which he de- 
 clared deficiency of revenue to be the sole or controlling 
 cause of our financial difficulties. "The President has 
 mistaken the cause of our present financial situation," 
 said he, " in attributing it to the demand for gold for 
 United States notes instead of to the deficiency of 
 revenue caused by the legislation of the last Congress. 
 He places the effect before the cause. He proposes as 
 a remedy the conversion of the United States notes and 
 the Treasury notes into interest-bearing bonds, thus 
 increasing the interest-bearing debt nearly $500,000,000. 
 He proposes a line of public policy that will produce a 
 sharp contraction in our currency, add greatly to the 
 burden of existing debts, and arrest the progress of 
 almost every American industry which now competes 
 with foreign productions." 
 
 On the same day, Hon. Stephen B. Elkins, of West 
 Virginia, offered a resolution directing that no bonds of 
 the United States be sold hereafter at private sale or 
 under private contract. The effect of its discussion 
 apparently proved influential in causing a change in 
 the policy of the Administration, to such an extent that 
 the next sale of bonds was made after due advertise- 
 ment and to the general public. 
 
 On January 8th a caucus of the Republican Senators 
 
 250 
 
was held at which it was ao;reed to have the House 
 tariff bill reported to the Senate favorably, and with- 
 out amendment. But, on February 4th, the Committee 
 on- Finance reported a substitute, striking out the 
 whole of the House bill and inserting in lieu thereof a 
 bill providing for the free coinage of silver. Mr. Mor- 
 rill, of Vermont, Chairman of the Finance Committee, 
 attempted to have this bill considered, on February 
 13th, but his motion to take it up was defeated by a 
 vote of 21 to 29. All of the affirmative votes were 
 cast by Republicans, and all of the negative, except five, 
 by Democrats — Mr. Jones, of Nevada, and Messrs. 
 Carter and Mantle, of Montana, Mr. Dubois, of Idaho, 
 and Mr. Teller, of Colorado, Republicans. On February 
 25th a motion to take up the bill was again defeated, 
 yeas 22, all Republicans, nays 33, Democrats 23, Re- 
 publicans 5, and Independents and Populists 6. The 
 Republicans voting in the negative were Messrs. Can- 
 non, of Utah, Cai'ter and Mantle, of Montana, Dubois, 
 of Idaho, and Teller, of Colorado, and the Independents 
 and Populists, Messrs. Allen, of Nebraska, Peffer, of 
 Kansas, Jones and Stewart, of Nevada, and Kyle, of 
 South Dakota. 
 
 A new loan of $100,000,000 in four per cent, bonds, 
 payable in coin, was advertised by the Grovernment, 
 ■ostensibly to maintain the gold reserve in the Treasury, 
 which had fallen in January, 1896, to about $49,000,- 
 000. This swelled the aggregate of bonds authorized 
 by the present Administration, in a time of peace, in 
 less than three years, to $262,602,245.27. Bids were 
 opened in the Treasury Department at Washington, on 
 February 5th. It will be remembered that the Presi- 
 
 251 
 
dent in November, 1894, had sanctioned the sale of 
 bonds to the amount of $62,400,000, to rna thirty years 
 and bear four per cent, interest, to a syndicate of 
 bankers at a premium of four and a half per cent. Fgur 
 per cent, bonds, due in 1907, were then selling in the 
 open market at 110. The new sale was, therefore, 
 watched with much interest, and it demonstrated the 
 credit of our Government among our own people, to 
 the amazement of foreign observers. To quote from 
 Public Opinion, a non-partisan and independent news- 
 paper, the new bond sale disclosed the following facts : 
 " There were 4,640 apparently genuine bids, aggre- 
 gating $568,269,850. The prices offered ranged from 
 par to 120, the great mass of bids being from 110 to 
 112. The New York World's bid for $1,000,000 at 114 
 was the highest for any considerable amount. J. Pier- 
 pont Morgan, for himself and associates (the National 
 City Bank, Harvey Fish & Sons, and the Deutsche 
 Bank of Berlin), bid 110.6877 for the whole issue or 
 any part thereof. John A. Stewart, President of the 
 United States Trust Company, for himself and about 
 180 banks and financial institutions, bid 110.075 for 
 $76,000,000. On February 7th, it was announced at 
 the Treasury Department that bids aggregating $66,- 
 788,650 above 110.6877 had been received, and that the 
 780 persons making these bids would receive the bonds. 
 The Morgan syndicate to have the remaining $33,211,- 
 850. The sale will net the Government about $111^- 
 000,000. The New York Tribune says that, excluding 
 the Morgan syndicate, of the successful bids nearly 
 $45,000,000 was from New York, nearly $9,000,000 
 from New England, about $5,500,000 from other 
 
 252 
 
Eastern States, $3,000,000 from Central States and! 
 Canada, $3,200,000 from Western States, and $1,400,-. 
 000 from Southern States. It is understood that one- 
 fourth of the Morgan bonds will go to Berlin, but the 
 Tribune estimates that not more than one-tenth of the 
 successful bids were on European account. Two days- 
 after the opening of the bids, the Morgan syndicate was 
 selling bonds of the new issue on the New York Stock 
 Exchange for 116^ 'gold' Government four per cents 
 of the same class as those just issued were selling at 
 116^ 'cash.' The Treasury gold reserve stood, on 
 February lYth, at $44,483,186." 
 
 The New York Chamber of Commerce adopted a 
 resolution recognizing "with grateful pride the confi- 
 dence of the people in the financial strength of the 
 country, as expressed by the large subscriptions to the 
 Government loan," and declaring its belief " that the 
 extraordinary success of this loan should dispel every 
 doubt as to the ability and intention of the United 
 States Government to redeem all its obligations in the 
 best money of the world." 
 
 The sale proves conclusively that the financial strength 
 and stability of the United States Government is with- 
 out parallel throughout the world. It.also demonstrates 
 that the people are not deceived by deficiencies in the 
 revenue to meet the expenditures of the Government. 
 Granted a competent tariff policy, there would be 
 neither deficits nor bond sales, but a return to an in- 
 crease of the debt-paying power of the Government. 
 Business would be revived and increased and prosperity 
 again smile upon every section of the country. 
 
 In concluding this lengthy but hastily prepared re- 
 
 253 
 
View of our tariff legislation, covering a period of more 
 than fifty yeais in our National history, it would be im- 
 possible for me to enumerate all the sources and authori- 
 ties from which my data have been drawn. The 
 Congressional Record has been constantly consulted, 
 Benton's "Thirty Years View" referred to, and Blaine's 
 masterly " Twenty Years in Congress" liberally drawn 
 upon, for of all authorities on tariff legislation it is at 
 once the most comprehensive, graphic, and entertain- 
 ing. No student could dispense with that standard 
 Avork, McPherson's " Handbook of Politics," and from 
 it has been taken the record of many details of measures 
 pending in or passed by Congress since the outbreak of 
 the Civil War. Hon. Richard W. Thompson's " His- 
 tory of the Tariff" has been consulted, and Henry V. 
 Poor's pamphlet, issued during the campaign of 1892, 
 has also been of service. Special acknowledgment of 
 indebtedness to Hon. Ellis H. Roberts' excellent 
 AVork on " Revenue and Taxation " should be made, 
 while no source of authority has been more frequently 
 consulted than the several excellent political almanacs 
 of the time, notably the American Almanac, edited by 
 Mr. Spofford, Librarian of Congress, the New York 
 Tribune Almanac, from Mr. Greeley's first publication 
 of it to the present time, the encyclopaedic New York 
 World Almanac, and many others. The American 
 Economist, Public Opinion, and Review of Reviews 
 have also been frequently consulted. The language of 
 'many writers has been freely adopted, perhaps too 
 literally in some cases, but the attempt has been made 
 in every instance to acknowledge the source and author. 
 The aim of the review is to be full, accurate and prac- 
 
 254 
 
tical, to quote always the views and words of others 
 rather than elaborate my own opinions. No source of 
 authority to the student of to-day, the annals of Con- 
 gress alone excepted, is so valuable in such work as 
 this as the comprehensive, studious, and careful re- 
 views of Congressional proceedings made each year for 
 " Appleton's Annual Cyclopa3dia." 
 
 It has been my aim to present, as completely as pos- 
 sible, a review of proposed tariff legislation since the ■ 
 close of the Civil War to the present time, as well as a 
 sketch of the measures actually enacted, to the end that 
 the student may observe the trend and purpose of the 
 leading 2:)olitical parties in respect to this economic 
 question. It is perhaps impossible to write of these- 
 events without displaying to some extent partisan bias 
 or preference, but it has been my honest endeavor 
 to do justice to all ^vho directly participated in them, 
 or have ^vritten or sjaoken as "those who speak by 
 authority" about them. Some subjects have been in- 
 troduced that may at first appear foreign to a review of 
 tariff legislation, but this has seemed necessary because 
 a true j^resentation of the position of the several 
 political parties upon kindred subjects, notably those 
 relating to labor, immigration, and finance, often dis- 
 closes more clearly than anything else could the real; 
 views of the opposing sides upon the main issue. But 
 I have not undertaken to treat any of these subjects at 
 length, or philosophically, simply to group together for 
 the busy man, as a ready reference, what has been done, 
 or proposed, by the two great political parties of the 
 country. The matter is not, and could not be, strictly 
 original ; much herein contained has already been used 
 
 255 
 
by myself, as well as presented more ably by others. 
 The tariff question is just now commanding (and will 
 always continue to command) the serious attention of 
 the American people, until it is rightly settled. If I 
 have, from contemporaneous history, or otherwise, aided 
 in the slightest degree the honest inquirer who cares to 
 contrast the past with the present, to compare history 
 with actual daily experience — to the end that he 
 may know the truth about the two great contending 
 systems, and thereby reach right conclusions for his 
 guidance in promoting the progress and prosperity of 
 our country, I shall be glad. Ascertaining the truth, 
 and dismissing from our minds all prejudice and pre- 
 conceived opinions, let us have the wisdom and courage 
 to be guided by it. 
 
 Caoton, Ohio, May 25, 1896. 
 
 256 
 
INDEX. 
 
 NAMES. 
 
 Adams, Jolin, 1. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, 1 ; on advant- 
 ages of protective system, 8, 13, 14, 19. 
 
 Adams, Chas. H., resolution relating to 
 - tariff, 47. 
 
 .^sop. reference to fable, 86. 
 
 Aldrioh, Nelson W., 63, 101 ; reciproci- 
 ty amendment, 139, 140, 319 ; finance 
 committee, 1896, 241. 
 
 Allen, of Nebraska, 251. 
 
 Allison, W. B., 101, 140, 155, 219; 
 finance com., 341. 
 
 Ambler, J. A., tariff commission, 59. 
 
 Arthur, President C. A., 1st annual 
 message, 1881, 57 ; approves tariff 
 com. bill, 1881, 58 ; recommends re- 
 ductions, 1882, 61 ; approves internal 
 rev. bill, 1883, 63 ; last annual mes- 
 sage, 1884, 73. 
 
 Ashmun, George, 19. 
 
 Atherton, Chas. G., 13, 
 
 Ayer, Ira, Special Treasury Agent, 
 report, 1893, on tin plate, 174. 
 
 Bank, Nat. City, N. Y., bid for loan, 
 252. 
 
 Bank, Deutsche, Berlin, bid for loan, 
 252. 
 
 Barbour, William, letter relating to 
 thread, 84. 
 
 Bayard, Senator, 63. 
 
 Bayard, Richard H. , 15. 
 
 Bayne, T. M., 99, 140. 
 
 Beck, Senator, 63. 
 
 Bemen, — , 19. 
 
 Benton, Ool., 3, 4, 9, 10. 
 
 Bingham, Representative, 155. 
 
 Belmont, A. & Co., 289. 
 
 Black, James, 19. 
 
 Black, John C. 90. 
 
 Blaine, James G., 27; letter of accep- 
 tance, 1884, 67, 72 ; declination, 1888, 
 80, 139, 166, 184. 
 
 Blair, H. W., 145. 
 
 Bland, R. P., 97, 103, 103. 
 
 Blodgett, Senator, 102. 
 
 Blount, — , 65. 
 
 Boston Thread & Twine Co., 85. 
 
 Boteler, A. R,, tariff com., 59. 
 
 Botts, JohnM., 14. 
 
 Bowler, R. B , Comptroller, decision 
 
 on sugar bounty, 232. 
 Brewer, M. S., 145. 
 Brewer, Justice, 380, 281. 
 Breckenridge, — , 65. 
 Brower, J. M., bill to repeal tobacco 
 
 tax, 98. 
 Brown, Justice, 330, 331. 
 Brooks, James, 36. 
 Bryan, William J., binding twine on 
 
 free list, 153. 
 Buchanan, James. 3, 6, 15, 25, 39, 80, 
 
 31, 304. 
 Buck, John R., error affecting knit 
 
 goods, 60. 
 Burrows, J. C, 99, 101, 140, 303, 320. 
 Butler, B. F., at Dem. Nat. Convention, 
 
 1884, 70. 
 Bynum, of Ind., 153. 
 
 Calhoun, John C. , as a protectionist, 5, 
 
 9. 
 Cameron, Simon, 19. 
 Cannon, of Utah, 251. 
 Carlisle, John G., 50, 62, 63 ; Speaker, 
 
 1884, 64, 73 ; Speaker, 1886, 78, 83 ; 
 
 speech on home market, 1888, 86, 
 
 101, 136, 140. 
 Carter, J. C, 280. 
 Carter, — , of Montana, 251. 
 Casey, Zadoc, 13. 
 Cass, Lewis, 21. 
 Caswell, L. B., 147. 
 Calchings, — , of Miss., letter from 
 
 Pres. Cleveland, 226. 
 Chipman, — , 153. 
 Choate, J. H., 230, 231. 
 Choate, Rufus, 15. 
 Clark, — , Alabama, 326. 
 Claytons, The, of Delaware, 19. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Cleveland, Grover, 72; Inaugural, 1885, 
 73, 77 ; annual message, 1887, revision 
 of tariff, 78, 80 ; letter of acceptance, 
 1887, 94, 95 ; annual message, 1888, 
 96, 147, 157; nomination, 160; letter 
 relating to tariff reform, 167, 171 ; 
 inaugural address, 1893, 185 ; calls 
 extra session of Congress, 187, 188 ; 
 message, Dec, 1893, 189; letter to 
 Mr. Wilson on conference, 220 ; letter 
 to Mr. Catchings on substitute tariff 
 law, 226 : annual message, 1894, 233 ; 
 special message relating to bonds, 
 1895, 239 ; annual message, 1895, 241 ; 
 special message, Deo. 20, 1895, relat- 
 tineto finances, 243. 
 
 Cobden, Richard, 18. 
 
 Collamer, Jacob, 19. 
 
 Conkling, Senator, 56. 
 
 Connell, W. J., eight-hour bill, 1890, 
 144. 
 
 Converse, Geo. L., defeating Morrison 
 bill, 1884, 64. 
 
 Corwin, — , 19. 
 
 Covert. J. W., quinine bill, 1879, 50. 
 
 Cowles, H. H., amendment of int. rev. 
 laws, 1889, 98. 
 
 Cox, S. 8., reduction on pig iron, 41, 
 65. 
 
 Cox, N. N., relating to bond issue, 239. 
 
 Crawford. — , 204. 
 
 Crisp, C. P., elected Speaker, 52d Con- 
 gress, 148 ; same, 53d Congress, 187 ; 
 candidate, 54th Congress, 240. 
 
 Crittenden, John J., 15, 19. 
 
 Culbertson, D. B., 103. 
 
 Cullom, Senator, 155. 
 
 Curtin, Andrew G., 29. 
 
 Dallas, George M., 16, 19. 
 
 Dalzell, John, 145, 202, 240. 
 
 Davis, David, elected President of Sen- 
 ate, 1881, 57. 
 
 Davis, Garrett, 18. 
 
 Davis, Robert T., constitutional amend- 
 ment, 1884, 65. 
 
 Dayton, William L., 15. 
 
 Delano, Columbus, 19. 
 
 Diokerson, Mahlon, 10. 
 
 Dingley, N. J., Jr., 99 ; bill relating to 
 worsted, 1890, 103, 140, 240; bill to 
 increase revenue, 245. 
 
 Deliver, J. P. , 240. 
 
 Dolph, Senator, 153. 
 
 Douglas, 8. A. 30. 
 
 Dubois, Senator, 251. 
 
 Dunnell, M. H., 59. 
 
 Eaton. W. W., bill for investigating 
 tariff, 1880, 53. 
 
 Edmunds, Senator, 102. 
 
 Elkins, S. B., resolution relating to 
 
 bonds, 1896, 250. 
 Evans, Walter, 240. 
 Evans, George, 15, 19. 
 
 Farnsworth, J. F., abolishing tax on 
 coal, 1871, 39. 
 
 Fessenden, William Pitt, 13. 
 
 Fiedler, W. H., constitutional amend- 
 ment, 1884, 65. 
 
 Field, — , 171. 
 
 Field, Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, 12. 
 
 Fisk, Harvey & Sons, 258. 
 
 Flower, R. P., 99, 140. 
 
 Fowler, Samuel, bill to encourage ship- 
 ping, 154. 
 
 Fremont, Gen., 29. 
 
 Frye, W. P., 341. 
 
 Fuller, Chief Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Garfield, J. A. , 51 ; minority report on 
 iron, 1880, 53, 54. 
 
 Gallatin, — , 204. 
 
 Garland, A. M., 59. 
 
 Gear, J. H., 99, 302. 
 
 Geary, T. J., Chinese bill, 1892, 152, 
 153. 
 
 Gentry, Meredith P., 18. 
 
 Giddings, J. R., 19. 
 
 Goggin, W. L., 13. 
 
 Gorman, A. P., 89, 155. 
 
 Graham, James, 18. 
 
 Graham, W. A., 15. 
 
 Granger, Francis, 13. 
 
 Grant, V. 8., approves tariff, 1870, 36 ; 
 message. Dec, 1870, 37; message, 
 Dec, 1871, 38, 39; message, 1873, 
 43 ; message, Dec, 1874, 45 ; message, 
 Dec, 1875, 46, 56. 
 
 Gray, I. P., 90, 160. 
 
 Gray, Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Greeley, Horace, 254. 
 
 Grosvenor, C. H., 240. 
 
 Guthrie. W. D., 231. 
 
 Hale, Eugene, free salt bill, 1871, 40. 
 
 Halstead, Murat, 28. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, 1, 204. 
 
 Hamilton, Senator, 36. 
 
 Harlan, Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Harris, Senator, 219, 341. 
 
 Harrison, Benjamin, 94, 95 ; inaugural, 
 1889, 98; message, Dec, 1889, 99; 
 special message, 1890, 139 ; message, 
 Dec , 1890. 141 ; approves restoration 
 of State taxes, 1891, 147, 148 ; mes- 
 sage, Dec, 1891, 149; proclamation 
 suspending free products of Hayti 
 
INDEX. 
 
 1892, 153, 154, 156 ; letter of accep- 
 tance, Sep., 1891, 160, 171 ; message, 
 Dec., 1892, 173, 185. 
 
 Harrison, William Henry, 6. 
 
 Hatch, W. H., free salt bill, 50, 51. 
 
 Haskell, — , 63. 
 
 Hayes, John L., 59. 
 
 Hayes, Rutherford B., 50, 53. 
 
 Hawley, J. R.,44. 
 
 Henderson, J. S., 77. 
 
 Hewitt, A. S,, 75. 
 
 Hibbard, Ellery A., 40. 
 
 Hill, D. B., 319. 
 
 Hitt, — , 153. 
 
 Hoar, Senator, 103. 
 
 Hiscock, Frank, 77, 140. 
 
 Holman, W. S., 44, 155. 
 
 Hooper, — , 35. 
 
 Hopkins, — , 303, 340. 
 
 Howard, Jacob M., 13. 
 
 Houston, Samuel, 4. 
 
 Hoyne, — , 6 
 
 Hunt, Washington, 19. 
 
 Hurd, P. H. , tariff for revenue, 58, 54, 
 65. 
 
 Ingalls, J. J., 78. 
 IngersoU, Charles J., 19. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, recommends tariff 
 revision, 6 ; resists nullification, 9, 16, 
 161, 331. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, 1, 87, 161 ; opposing 
 excise taxes, 246. 
 
 Johnson, M. N., 240. 
 
 Jones, B. P., 80. 
 
 Jones, J. K., 219, 341. 
 
 Jones, John P., 241, 251. 
 
 Johnson, Richard M., 4. 
 
 Johnson, William Cost, 13. 
 
 Johnson, Reverdy, 19. 
 
 Kane, John K., 16. 
 
 Kasson, J. A., bill for tarifE commis- 
 sion, 57, 60. 
 
 Keifer, J. W., elected speaker, 56. • 
 
 Kelley, William D. , 36 ; abolishing int. 
 rev. system 1870, 38 ; same 1871, 40 ; 
 advocating temporary loans 1874, 43, 
 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 63, 83. 
 
 Kelsey of N. Y., 35. 
 
 Kenner, D. P., 59. 
 
 Kerr, M. C, elected speaker, 46. 
 
 Kyle, Senator, 351. 
 
 Lane, Henry S., 13. 
 Lane, Joseph, 30. 
 La Follette, R. M., 99. 
 Lincoln, Abraham, 39, 31. 
 Lowe, William M., 50. 
 
 Madison, James, 1, 3. 
 
 Mahone, Senator, 63. 
 
 Mangan, — , 19. 
 
 Manderson, C. P., 149, 319. 
 
 Manning, Daniel, 304. 
 
 Mantle, of Montana, 251. 
 
 Marshall, Samuel S., 35. 
 
 Marshall, Thomas P., 18. 
 
 McDill, Senator, 63. 
 
 McKenna, Joseph, 99, 104. 
 
 McKennan, Thomas I ., 14. 
 
 McKinley, William, Jr., 54, 63, 83, 99, 
 
 101 ; introduces tariff bill, April 16, 
 
 1890, 103, 140. 
 McLaurin, John, 341. 
 McMahon, William H., 59. 
 McMillan. B., 99, 140, 230, 340. 
 McLane, Louis, 4. 
 MoPherson, Senator, 101, 137. 
 Mills, Roger Q., resolution to revise 
 
 tariff, 1877, 48, 50, 53, 57, 58, 65, 78 ; 
 
 reports bill to reduce taxation, etc., 
 
 April, 1888, 82 ; opening speech, 83, 
 
 97, 99, 103 ; minority report on 
 
 McKinley bill, 125. 
 Monroe, James, 1. 
 Montgomery, — , 330. 
 Morgan, Geo. W., 34. 
 Morgan, Senator, 153. 
 Morgan, J. P. & Co., 240, 253. 
 Morgan. J. S. & Co., 340. 
 Morrill, Justin S., reports tariff bill, 
 
 1860, 30, 36, 58, 60, 63, T^, 78, 137, 
 
 149, 187, 241, 351. 
 Morrison, W. R., 46, 47, 50, 63, 64, 65, 
 
 73 ; introduces bill to reduce tariff, 
 
 1886, 75, 76, 77. 
 Morrow, Jeremiah, 13. 
 Morton, Levi P., 94. 
 Mutchler, W. J., 145. 
 
 Neal, Lawrence T., 157, 159. 
 Niles, John M. , 19. 
 New York World, 353. 
 
 Gates, W. C, 148. 
 
 Gliver, H. W., Jr., 59. 
 
 Glney, Attorney General, 230, 231. 
 
 O'Neill, J. J., aa eight-hour amend- 
 ment, 1888, 89. 
 
 Owen. W. D., Owen Immigration Law, 
 147, 148. 
 
 Oxnard Beet Sugar Co., 332. 
 
 Parker, Hosea W., 40, 
 Parker, William P., 29. 
 Parmenter, William, 13. 
 Payne, S. E., 99, 203, 330, 240. 
 Peck, Labor Commissioner, N. Y., 
 report 1891, 174. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PefEer, Senator, 319, 351. 
 Pendleton, John S., 18. 
 Pendleton, Nathaniel G., 13. 
 Piatt, O. H., 341, 
 Polk, James K., 6, 16, 17, 19, 33. 
 Poor, H. v., 354. 
 Porter, R. P., 59. 
 Price, Hiram, 54. 
 
 Eandall, Samuel J. , bill to put tea and 
 coifee on free list, 1871, 39 ; speaker, 
 46; speaker, 48 ; speaker, 1879, 50, 
 63, 64, 65 ; compromise tariff bill, 76 ; 
 argues for home market, 87, 88, 97, 98. 
 
 Rayner, Kenneth, 13. 
 
 Reed, T. B., 63, 83 ; argument on tariff, 
 85 ; speaker 51st Congress, 99, 303, 
 230; bill to authorize bonds, 338, 
 339 ; speaker, 340. 
 
 Reid, Whitelaw, 156 ; letter of accept- 
 ance, 165, 171, 
 
 Reeves, Henry A , reducing salt duties, 
 35. 
 
 Roberts, E. H,, 354. 
 
 Rothschild, N. M. & Sons, 339. 
 
 Russell, C. A., 240. 
 
 Samford, W. J., introduces tariff bills, 
 1880, 51. 
 
 Sayres, — , 155. 
 
 Schenck, Robert C, 19, 36. 
 
 Scott, W. L., 39, 89, 93. 
 
 Sherman, John, 36, 63. 73 ; introduces 
 bill against trusts, Jan., 1890, 103, 
 137, 138, 140, 153, 189, 819, 241 ; res- 
 olution relating to gold reserve, 349, 
 250. 
 
 Shepperson, A. B.. 174. 
 
 Shiras, Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Shively, B. P., bill reducing duty on 
 tin, 154. 
 
 Singer Sewing Machine Co., 85. 
 
 Smith, Caleb B., 19. 
 
 Smith, Samuel, 10. 
 
 Speer, of Georgia, 63. 
 
 Spofford, — , 254. 
 
 Springer, W. M., 83, 148, 338, 239. 
 
 Steele, George W., 340. 
 
 Stephens, Alexander H., 18. 
 
 Stevens, Thaddeus, 31. 
 
 Stevenson, A.E., 160, 170, 171. 
 
 Stewart, of Vermont, 103, 103. 
 
 Stewart, of Nevada, 351. 
 
 Stewart, John A., 352. 
 
 Sturgeon, Daniel, 15, 19. 
 
 Taylor, E. B., 103. 
 
 Taylor, Zachary, 31. 
 
 Tarsney, J. C, 341. 
 
 Teller, Senator, 351. 
 
 Thompson, P. B., 59, 65. 
 
 Thompson, Richard W., 13, 254. 
 
 Thurman, Allen G., 90. 
 
 Toombs, Robert, 18. 
 
 Townsend, R. W., bill to abolish duty- 
 
 on salt, 51, 53. 
 Tucker, of Virginia, 50, 53, 54, 63, 65. 
 Turner, H. G., 99, 140, 320, 240. 
 Tyler, John, 6, 11, 13 ; censured by 
 
 House, 14. 
 
 Underwood, J. W. H., 59. 
 United States Trust Co., 353. 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, 4, 6, 204. 
 Vance, Senator, 60, 140. 
 Vest, Senator, 103, 219, 341. 
 Voorhees, Baniel W., 140, 187, 219, 241.. 
 
 Wade, W. H., bill relating to eight-hour 
 law, and bill relating to contract la- 
 bor, 145 ; bill forbidding purchase of 
 products of convict labor, 146. 
 
 Walker, Robert J., report, 17 ; tariff, 
 18, 26. 
 
 Walthall, E. C, 241. 
 
 Ward, Hamilton, wants free coal, 35. 
 
 Washington, George, 1. 
 
 Weaver, — , 171. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, 5, 6, 10, 19, 204. 
 
 White, 8. M., 241. 
 
 White, Justice, 230, 231. 
 
 Wheeler, Joseph, 241. 
 
 Whiting, J. R., bill reducing duty on- 
 lead, 154. 
 
 Whitney, Ass't Att'y Gen., 231. 
 
 Williams, Ruel, 15. 
 
 Wilmot, David, 39. 
 
 Wilson, William L., 187 ; bill repealing 
 Sherman Silver Act of 1890, 189 ; in- 
 troduces tariff bill Dec, 1893, 193 ;, 
 speech July 7, 1894, 320, 236. 
 
 Winthrop, Robert C, 19. 
 
 Wolcott, E. O., 145, 341. 
 
 Wood, Fernando, 48 ; bill reducing, 
 duties March, 1878, 49, 50; death; 
 1881, 54. 
 
 Wright, Silas, 6, 15. 
 
 Wythe, Chancellor, 1. 
 
INDEX 
 
 SUBJECTS. 
 
 Arbitration, lain, 1887, 76. 
 Austria Hungary, treaty, 150. 
 
 Barbados, treaty, 150. 
 
 Binding twine, W. J. Bryan's bill, 153, 
 213. 
 
 Bond issue, 236, 338 ; Cleveland's mes- 
 sage, 239 ; same, S43 ; Sherman's 
 speech, 350 ; Elkins bill, 250 ; new 
 loan, 251 ; bids received, 353, 353. 
 
 Books, etc., 119. 
 
 Brazil, treaty, 150. 
 
 British Guiana, treaty, 160. 
 
 Butter, cheese, etc., 123. 
 
 ■Canned meats, etc., repeal of tax, 41. 
 Chinese immigration, bill, 1888, 89 ; 
 
 bill, 1892, 153. 
 Clothing, tax, 33. 
 
 Coal, to abolish duty, 35; same, 40, 217. 
 Convention. Democratic National, 1868, 
 
 34 ; 1872, 41 ; 1876, 47 ; 1880, 55 ; 
 
 1884, 70 ; 1888, 90 ; 1892, 156. 
 Convention, Republican National, 1860, 
 
 28 ; 1868, 34 ; 1873, 43 ; 1876, 47 ; 
 
 1880, 54 ; 1884, 65 ; 1888, 90 ; 1892, 
 
 155. 
 Contract labor, bill, 65 ; bill passed, 73, 
 
 to prohibit immigration of, 145. 
 Corporations, tax on, 33. 
 Cotton, tax on raw, 33 ; duty reduced, 
 
 41 ; free bagging, ties, etc., 153. 
 Customs, receipts, 1847 to 1861, 26; 
 
 during four years of tarifE of 1857, 
 
 36 ; 1862 to 1870, 32 ; decrease, 86 ; 
 
 decrease, 41 ; duties reduced, 45 ; 
 
 1874 to 1880, 54 ; decrease, 254. 
 
 Debt, reduction, 84 
 
 Exports, increased, 142, 149, 160, 175. 
 
 Financial crisis, 1837, 11. 
 Force biU, 1833, 9. 
 
 Germany, treaty, 150. 
 
 Gold, discovery in California, 23 -, 
 
 drain to Europe, 23, 26. 
 Great Britain, treaty, 150. 
 Grenada, treaty, 150. 
 
 Guatemala, treaty, 150. 
 
 Hawaiian, treaty, 148. 
 Hayti, treaty, 150. 
 Honduras, treaty, 150. 
 Horses, etc., 122, 132, 133. 
 
 Immigration, Owen law, 147, 148 ; 
 
 contract labor, 145. 
 Imports, exceeded exports, 36, 27. 
 Income tax, 32, 33 ; fixed at 3J^ per 
 
 cent., 36; to abolish, 54 ; attacked, 
 
 229 ; Supreme Court decision, 230. 
 Internal revenue, W. D. Kelley on, 38 ; 
 
 same, 40 ; reduction, 59 ; bill passed, 
 
 63 ; amended, 1 892, 153 ; decrease, 
 
 234. 
 Internal taxes, 1862 to 1866, 33 ; 
 
 reduced, 33 ; reduced, 1870, 36 ; 
 
 reduced, 41. 
 Iron and steel, to reduce duty, 36 ; 
 
 same, 41, 115; production, 142; 
 
 production, 175 ; rails, 198 ; ore, 206, 
 
 208. 
 
 Labor, arbitration bill, 76 ; convict bill, 
 76 ; eight-hour law, 89 ; sundry bills, 
 144 ; to adjust accounts, 145 ; con- 
 tract labor immigration, 145 ; pro- 
 ducts of convict labor, 146 ; to 
 enforce eight-hour law, 154. 
 
 Labor commissioner, Peck's report, N. 
 Y., 174 ; Mass. report, 174. 
 
 Lead, 154 ; Harrison's letter relating to, 
 168. 
 
 Leather, taxes, 38 ; duty reduced, 41. 
 
 Leeward Islands, treaty, 150. 
 
 Loans, recommended, 43 ; opposed, 44. 
 
 Match tax repealed, 54. 
 Mexico, war with, 22. 
 
 National debt, increase, 28. 
 
 Naval construction bill allowing foreign 
 
 steel, 60. 
 Nicaragua, treaty, 150. 
 Nullification ordinance, 19. 
 
 Panic, 1837, 11 ; 1857, 24, 25 ; 1873, 44. 
 Pinkerton detectives, 159. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Protection, inimical to enslaved labor, 
 9. (See Tariff ) 
 
 Quinine, on free list, 50. 
 
 Revenue measures of 1846 and 1851 , 26. 
 Revenue reform. Grant's message, 37. 
 
 (See Tariff.) 
 Reciprocity, Aldrich's amendment, 139; 
 
 Harrison recommends, 139, 140 ; 
 
 treaties, 150, 152. 
 
 Salt, etc., bill to exempt, 34; reduction, 
 
 35 ; to exempt, 40, 213. 
 Salvador, treaty, 150. 
 San Domingo, treaty, 150. 
 
 Savings banks, tax, 33 ; deposits, 177. 
 
 Shipping, to grant registers to foreign, 
 154. 
 
 Silver, 180, 131 ; ores, 130, 131 ; repeal 
 of act of 1890, 187, 189 ; free coinage, 
 251. 
 
 Slavery agitation, 21. 
 
 Spain, treaty, 150. 
 
 Specie, exports, ]i:55-6-7, 26. 
 
 Spirits. Bunnell's bill, 59, 65. 
 
 Stamps, to repeal law, 54. 
 
 Steam engines, taxes, 33. 
 
 Sugar, etc., bill to exempt, 34; to 
 reduce, 36 ; use of machinerj', 77, 
 117, 119, 138, 134, 136 ; reriprocily, 
 140, 150, 165 ; repeal of reciprocity, 
 20i; 211, 219, 222 ; bounty, 282 ; 
 German protest, 233, 234. 
 
 Tariff, laws 1813 to 1816, 1 ; duties 
 never bigber, 1828, 6 ; 1838, 9, 10 ; 
 1842, 11 ; popularity of, 1842, 16 ; 
 1846, 18 ; provisions of, 1846, 20 ; 
 condemnation of, 1846, 21 ; 1857, 21 ; 
 1857, 24 ; bill of 1860, 30, 31, 32 ; no 
 constitutional power, 35; law of 1870, 
 
 36 ; Grant advises revision, 38 ; for 
 revenue only, 40 ; Grant's message, 
 1875, 46 ; Morrison's bill, 47 ; Mills' 
 resolution, 48 ; Wood s bill, 49 ; 
 Samford's bill, 51 ; to iibolish duty on 
 salt, etc., 51 ; to regulate duty on 
 hoop iron, etc. , 52 ; on sugar, 52 ; 
 commission, 53; Hurd's bill, 1880, 53; 
 Arthur's message, 1881, 57 ; Mills on, 
 57 ; Arthur's message, 1882, 61 ; bill, 
 1883, 62 ; revised by passage of in- 
 ternal revenue bill, 63 ; Morrison's 
 horizontal bill, 64 ; Cleveland advises 
 reduction, 74 ; Morrison's bill, 1886, 
 75 ; same, 76 ; Randall's bill, 1886, 
 76; Cleveland's message, 78; Blaine's 
 letter, 1888, 80 ; Mills bill, 82 ; Mills' 
 speech, 83 ; Reed's speech, 85 ; Car- 
 
 lisle's speech, 86 ; Randall's speech, 
 87 ; Senate bill, 88 ; Cleveland's^ 
 message, 96; Mills bill, 97 ; Cowles 
 bill, 98; Harrison's inaugural, ItyS, 
 98 ; message, 1889. 99 ; McKinley 
 bill, relating to revenue collection, 
 1889, 101 ; McKinley tariff bill, 1890, 
 103; reciprocity amendment, Mi'O ; 
 Harrison's message, 143 ; ' ' pop gun " 
 bills, 1892, 153; Harrison's message, 
 
 1881, 149; Harrison's letter, 160;, 
 Reid's letter, 165 ; Cleveland's letter, 
 167 ; Stevenson's letter, 170 ; Harri- 
 son's message, 1892, 172 ; Cleveland's 
 message, 1893, 185; Cleveland's 
 message, 188 ; same, 1893, 190 ; Wil- 
 son bill, 198 ; minority report, 202 ; 
 Cleveland's letter to Wilson, 220 ; 
 "popgun" bills, 225; Wilson bill 
 not signed, 226 ; Cleveland's letler to 
 Catchings, 226 ; Cleveland's message, 
 1895, 241 ; Dingley's bill and report, 
 245. 
 
 Tariff Commission, 53 ; Kasson's bill, 
 
 1882, 57; appointed, 59; report, 1882, 
 61. 
 
 Tax, bill to abolish special, 36 ; re- 
 funded to states, 146. 
 
 Tea and coffee, 20 per cent, duty, 15 ; 
 bill to exempt, 34 ; to reduce, 36 ; to 
 put on free list, 89 ; duty, 40 ; to be 
 restored, 63, 150 ; repeal of recipro- 
 city, 201. 
 
 Tin, 116, 126, 135; to reduce, 154; 
 companies manufacturing, 174; plate, 
 198. 
 
 Tobacco, to exempt, 34 ; leaf, 77 ; to 
 repeal tax, 98, 123, 123, 124, 185, 199. 
 
 Tobago, treaty, 150. 
 
 Tonnage, Detroit River, 176; R. R., 177. 
 
 Treasury, receipts, 30; receipts, 1878, 
 43; receipts, 1891, 151; receipts, l."9!, 
 189; minority claim Wilson bill \Yill 
 reduce, 205 ; receipts, 1894, 24? ;. 
 receipts, 1895, 344. 
 
 Trinidad, treaty, 150. 
 
 Trusts, Sherman's bill, 1890, 103. 
 
 Venezuelan question, 343. 
 
 Washington Electric R. R. bill requir- 
 ing American rails, 90. 
 
 Windward Islands, treaty, 150. 
 
 Wool and Woolens, tax, 33 ; reduced,, 
 41 ; bill, 59 ; to correct error on knit 
 goods, 60 ; classification of worsteds, 
 103 ; amount, 1889, and imports. 111, 
 113, 113, 134, 137, 130 ; reciprocity, 
 140 k to make free, 153 ; Harrison's 
 letter; 163 ; on free list, 300. 314, 348. 
 
\>^l-/n 
 
 
 :"%.