CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE;

•

. I

3932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE; MAY 10,

COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

Thomas L. Harrison, of New York, to be collector of customs for the district of Oswegatchie, in the Sliate of New York.

Eli H. Reynolds, of New Jersey, to be collector of·customs for the district of Newark, N. J.

Henry H. Kain, of Mississippi, to be collector of the district of Vicksburg, Miss.

APPOINTMENTS IN THE REVENUE SERVICE.

Herbert W. York, of New York, to be a second 2.ssistant engineer in the revenue service of the United States.

John B. Coyle, of :M:aine, to be a second assistant engineer in the revenue service of the United States.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, May 10, 1888.

The Rouse met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. MILBURN, D. D. .

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

POINT ISABEL LIGHT, TEXAS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Light-House Board of an appropriation for the re-establishment of the Point Isabel light; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

PUNTA GORDA LIGHT, CALIFORNIA.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Light-House Board of an appropriation for the establishment of a light and fog-signal at Punta Gorda, California; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

CONTINGENT EXPENSES, TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, with inclosure, recommending that the item of appropriation for contingent expenses of the Treasury Department for the fiscal year 1889 in the pending legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill be increased in accordance with recent estimates; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. ·

THOROUGHFARE BETWEEN CAPE MAY AND GREAT BAY, N.J.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, with a letter from the Chief of Engineers, reports of the examination and survey of the thoroughfare running from Cape May to the Great Bay north of Atlantic City, N. J.; which was referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and ordered to be printed.

THE BRIG SALLY.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting conclusions of law and findings of fact in the matter of the brig Sally, Cassius F. Lee, administrator, etc.; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM: H. ROBERTSON AND E. L. HEDDEN.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a bill (S. 1198) for therelief of William H. Robertson and Edward L. Hedden, late collector of customs district of the city of New York; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. HouK, by unanimous consent, obtained leave of absence until the 19th instant.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. FISHER, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found duly enrolled bills and joint :r:esolutions of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

Joint resolution (S. R. 73) relating to the disposal of public lands in certain States;

.A bill (S. 109)for the reliefofThomas H. Norton and James McLean;

.A bill (S. 1877) granting a pension to Harriet L. Vaughan; A bill (S. 555) to establish an additional land district in the State

of Oregon; A bill (S. 1912) granting an increase of pension to William Irving; .A bill. (S. 2195) to authorize the building of a railroad bridge at

Little Rock, Ark.; A bill (S. 1889) to authorize the Tennessee and Midland Railroad

Company to construct a bridge aeross the Tennessee River at any point on the line between the counties of Decatur and Perry, in the State of Tennessee, it may deem acceptable;

.A bill (S. 68) authorizing the Secretary of War to receive for in-

strnction at the Military Academy at West Point Jose .Andres Urtecho, of Nicaragua;

.A bill (S. 752) to grant a pension to Mrs. Elvira L. Johnson1 widow of Commodore Philip T. Johnson;

Joint resolution (H. Res. 95) to enable the President of the United States to extend to certain inhabitants of Japan a suitable recognition of their humane treatment of the survivors of the American bark C:::.shmere;

A bill (H. R. 7936) to restore to the pubij.c domain a part of the Uintah Valley Indian reservation in the Territory of Utah, and for · other purposes;

A bill (H. R. 7319) for the relief of Emory R. Seward; and Joint resolution (S. R. 70) appropriating $30,000 for the interna

tional exhibition at Brussels, Belgium. Al'IIERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. McCREARY. I rise to present a privileged report, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreeing Yotes of the two Houses on

tlle amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 1473) authorizing the President of the United States to arrange a. conference for the purpose of promoting arbitration and encouraging reciprocal commercial relations between the United States of Americ.'l. nnd the Republics of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Empire of Brnzil, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommeud to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its dL'>Rgreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered l,and agree to the same.

That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 2. That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate

numbered 3, and agree to the same. That the House recede from its qisagreement to the amendment of the Senate

numbered 4, and agree to the sa.:ne with amendments as follows: In line ifl of the Senate amendment, after the word "States," add the words, "which are hereby invited to participate in said conference;" in line 38 of the Senate amendment, in lieu o! the sum proposed, insert "75,000 ;" strike out all of lines 48, 49, and 50, down to the word ''and" in line 51 of the Senate amendment; in line 56 of the Senate amendment, after the word "clerks,'' insert the words, "and other assistants;" strike out all after the word" publication," in line 58 of the Senate amendment, down to the semicolon after the word "languages," in line 60, and insert the words, "by the Public Printer, in the English, Spanish, and Portuguese languages, of so much of the proceedings of the conference as it shall determine;" in line 6l of the Senate amendment strike out the word ''full;" and the Senate agree to the same. ·

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5, and agree to the same.

J A.MES B. McCREARY, JOHN E. RUSSELL, WM. W. 1\IORROW,

Managers on the part of the House. WM. P. FRYE, J. N. DOLPH, JOSEPH E. BROWN,

Manage1·s on the part of the Senate. The statement of the House conferees accompanying the report was

read, as follows: Statement of the managers on the part of the House.

The managers of the House appointed on the conference ordered on the disngt·eeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill H. R. 1473, being" A bill authorizing tlle President of the United States to arrange a conference for the purpose of promoting arbitration, and encouraging reciprocal commercial relations between the United States of .America. and the Republics of Mexico, Central and South America., and the Empire of Brazil," herewith submit the joint report of the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the vartofthe Senate, which was unanimously agreed to, and in explanation of amendments made and their effect submit the following statement, and ask the adoption of the report:

No change is made in the amendments to the bi11 lle1·etofore adopted by the House, or to the report heretofore adopted by the House, except that instead of declaring in the bill that ix delegates to said conference shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two by tlle President of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the Bouse of Representatives, who shall be members of thei.r respective Houses, the bill is so amended that all the ten delega~s to said conference are authorized to be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

JAMES B. McCREARY. JOHN E. RUSSELL. WM. W. MORROW.

The report of the committee of conference was adopted. :Mr. McCREARY moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also

moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. 1\Ir. McCREARY. I will state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first

measure of this kind which has ever been introduced and passed in this House, and I believe good results will follow.

SALE OF CONVICT-MADE GOODS.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. PLIDIB], a member of the Committee on Labor, asks leave to file and have printed the views of a minority of that committee on the bill (H. R. 8716) to protect free labor and the industries in which it is employed from the injurious effects of convict labor by confinin~ the sale of the goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured by convict labor to the State in which they are produced. In the absence of objection, the-leave requested will be granted.

There being no objection, it was so ordered. D. M. SPRAGUE AND WILLIAM TILTON.

Mr. GROSVENOR. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of the Whole House be discharged from the further consideration of tho

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3933 bill (H. R. 4856) for the relief of D. 1\I. Sp~<YU.e and William Tilton, and that the House consider the bill now.

The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the claim of D. l\1. Sprague and William Tilton for the

sum of $943, for damages accruing to them in 1865 by reason of the failure of the Quartermaster's Department to comply with its contract, be allowed by the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and paid as similar claims are paid by the Treas-ury Department. .

There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration of the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GROSVENOR moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

U.r. MILLS. I move to dispense with the morning hour for the presentation of reports from committees.

Mr. OATES. I hope consent may be given that reports be filed with the Clerk.

The SPEAKER. That consent is usually asked after the order dispensing with the morning hour has been made.

The motion of Mr. M1LLS was agreed to. Mr. 1\ULLS obtained the floor and said: !yield for a moment to my

colleague [Mr. SAYERS].

SPECIAL DEFICIEKCY BILI~.

Mr. SAYERS. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged from thefurther consideration of House bill No. 9788, and that the bill be now considered in the House. It is a bill making an appropriation to supply a deficiency in the appropriation for expenses of collecting the 1·evenue from customs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, and for other purpo_es.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. SAYERS]?

Mr. ROGERS. I ask that the bill be read, the right to object being reserved. We would like to know what the biil is:

The bill was read, as follows: Be ite11acled, etc., 'rha.t to defray the expenses of collecting the revenue from

customs for the fiscal year ending June 30,1888, in addition to the amount heretofore appropriated, the sum of $450,000, or so. much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the 'l'reasnry not otherwise appropriated, to be expended by, or under the direction of, the Secretary of the 1.'rea ury, who is authorized t-o cause to be paid therefrom the full compensation which the employes in the customs·reven~e service would have been entitled to receive had no order been made r~ucing their compensation in consequence of an estimated deficiency in the appropria.t:ou.

That section 3687 of the Revised Statutes, appropriating, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of S2,750,000 for the expenses of collecting the revenue from customs for each half year in addition to such sums as may be received from fines, penalties, and forfeitures connected with

· the customs, and from fees paid into the Treasury by customs officers, and from storage, cartage, drayage, labor, and services, be, and the same is hereby, repea ed, to take effect from and after June 30, 1889.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to discharging the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of this bi11 and considering it now in the House?

Mr. ROGERS. I do not object. The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill. Mr. SA YER.S. I am directed by the Committee on Appropriations

to offer the amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: After line 26, on page 2, insert as a. separate section the following: "SEa. 2. For Army and Navy pensions as follows: For invalids, widows, minor

children, and dependent relatives, and survivors and widows of the war of 1812, $3,500,000, to supply a deficiency on account of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888: Provided, That the appropriation aforesaid for Navy pensions shall be paid from the income of the Navy pension fund so far as the same may be sufficient for that purpose: .And provided fu!ther, That the amount expended under each of the above items shall be accounted for separately."

The amendment was agreed to. 1\Ir. SAYERS. I am directed by the Committee on Appropriations

to offer another amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

After the amendment just adopted insert as a new eection the following: " SEa. 3. That the appropriation of$100,000 made by the act approved March 3,

1887, for heating apparatus to be furnished before June 30, 1888, for the following new public buildings, namely, Aberdeen, Miss.; Augusta, Me.; Clarksburgh, W. Va.; Columbus, Ohio; Concord, N.H.; Council Bluffs, Iowa.; Dallas, Tex.· Erie,Pa.; Hannibal, Mo.; Jefferson City, Mo.; Leavenworth,Kan.; Lynchburgh: Va..; Macon, Ga.; New Albany, Ind.; Pensacola., Fla.; Peoria., Ill._; Quincy, Ill.; Sheveport, La.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Terre Haute, Ind.; Toledo, OhiO: Tyler, Tex.; and Waco, Tex., shall continue available to enable the Secretary of the Treasury t-o fulfill contracts entered into therefor prior to June 30, 1888."

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SAYERS. I demand the previous question on ordering the bill

as amended to be engrossed and .. read the third time. Mr. DINGLEY. Before !bat is done I wish the gentleman from

Texas would explain the effect of the original bill with reference to the change in the collection of the customs.

Mr. SAYERS. The effect will be to change the appropriation from a permanent to an annual one. It is in accordance with the previous recommendations of Secretaries of the Treasury, and meets the unanimous judgment of the Committee on Appropriations.

I renew the demand for the previous question. The previous question was ordered, under the operation of which the

bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time,· and passed.

Mr. SAYERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. MILLS. I ask unanimous consent that gentlemen having re

ports from committees may present them at the desk. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, MISSOURI.

Mr. HENDERSON, of North Carolina. 1\Ir. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from. Texas will yield a moment, as I wish to submit areport from the Committee on the Judiciary for present consideration. I am instructed by the committee to report back the Senate amendment to the bill (H. H.. 6831) to detach the county of Audrain, in the State of Missouri, from the eastern and attach .it to the western judicial district of said State, with the recommendation that the House concur in the Senate amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Senate amendment will be read. The amendment was read at length, and concurred in. Mr. HENDERSON, of North Carolina, moved to reconsider the vote

by which the Senate amendment was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

SPECIAL DEFICIE~CY APPROPRIATION.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, bas the motion to reconsider been made in reference to the bill H. R. 9788? If not, I desire to enter that motion now.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is advised that the motion was made and laid on the table.

Mr. REED. My objection to this bill is to the last clause, and I made. an inquiry with reference to the point before the bill was considered. I understood that it was not in the bill. I did not understand that this provision was embodied as I now :find it, for I -intended to make opposition to the clause. It is a very serious matter, and bas been passed without the slightest consideration. I think there should be some little time given to a matter of that importance.

:Mr. MILLS rose. Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? Mr. MILLS. I must demand the regular order. Mr. CANNON. I think I am entitled as a privileged matter to

make this statement. ' Mr. MILLS. B.ut we want to proceed with the debate on the tariff. Mr. CANNON. I do not think that the House will want to cut me

off without allowing an opportunity for a brief explanation. The gentleman fl'om Maine did inquire of me· if there was a clause

embodied in this bill repealing the permanent appropriations for the collection of the customs. I was busy about something else at the time, and, indeed, was not quite sure about the provision myself, and told him I thought not; that the provision had been agreed upon by the Committee on Appropriations and was · soon to follow the introduction of this bill, but that it was not on this bill.

I notice now that it is on the hill; and the gentleman from Maine stating that owing to that information which I had erroneously given him, and which I gave in good faith, I may be permitted to say he did not examine the bill with care, and did not offer the opposition to the clause of the bill which he bad designed to offer. Now I think it would qe but fair, I will say to my colleague from Texas, that under these circumstances or by common consent that matter may be con-sidered as opened. _

Mr. ~fiLLS. I shall object to reopening a question now which is likely to consume any considerable time of the House.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable seriousness. We ought not to change our whole policy in regard to the collection of the customs without at least some consideration or discussion. This matter has been brought up before the House at a time when it was expected tba t no business would be transacted except such matters as 1·elated to the tariff bill under discussion. Herice nobody was on the alert to look after it, and I myself was misled by the response made to me, as bas been stated.

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the gentleman from Texas to object unless this is to be considered at some future time.

Mr: REED. I have no objection to that whatever. I only wanted to be fairly understood by the House before it is enacted into law. I think it altogether possible that the House may change its conclusion after a full consideration of the matter.

Mr. RANDALL. That would delay the appropriation to an indefinite period, and I object to that.

Mr. CANNON. Permit me just here foramoment. While I am in

3934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

favor of the provi ion embodied in this bill, yet the gentleman will understand that his objection to considering the question at some future time places me in rather an embarrassing position, the gentleman fl'Om Maine having asked me, and I not giving him the full answer which pm·haps I ought to have been able to give him and should have given him, and which answer, I am satisfied now from what he says, misled him. I should prefer, therefore, that either to-morrow or at some future time this matter may be opened and may be considered as far as relates t.o the last clause of the bill.

M1". MILLS. I am not wi)ling that the business in which the Houso has been engaged shall be postponed or hampered in any manner by a lengthy consideration of an appropriation billlik.e this.

:Mr. REED. It seems the gentleman yielded to take up this bill. Mr. RANDALL. The question was put distinctly by the gentleman

from Maine [1\Ir. DINGLEY], and tbe answer of the gentleman from Texas was made.

Mr. REED. Not on that point. Mr. SAYERS. Yes; I explained the matter in response to an in

quiry of the gentleman from Maine. Mr. RANDALL. And when the bill was presented tho gentleman

from Arkansas [Mr. ROGERS] reserved the point of order. Mr. MILLS. Regular order. The SPEAKER. The regular order is the cull of committees for re

ports. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. lliLLS. I now renew the request that members having reports from committees may be permitted to hand them in at the Clerk's desk.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. FISHER, from the Committee on Enrolled ~ills, reported that they had examined and found duly enrolled a bill and joint resolution of the following titles; when the Speaker sjgned the same, namely :

A bill (H. R. 7348) granting to the city of Grand Forks, Dak., the right to build two free bridges across Red River; and

Joint 1·esolution (H. Res. 148) to print twelve thousand five hundred copies of t he eulogies on Seth C. Moffatt, late a Representative in Congress.

FILING OF REPORTS. The following reports were filed by being handed in at the Clerk's

desk: CRUELTY TO DOMESTIC .A....."'rnALS.

Mr. OATES, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported back wHh amendment the bill (H. R.. 8344) to prevent cruelty to domestic animals; which was referred to the House Cn.lendar, and, with the accompanJi?g report, ordered to be printed.

ROAD FROM LITTLE ROCK, ARK., TO THE NATIO~AL CE:l!ETERY. ·Mr. :MAISH, from the Committee on Military A:ffuirs, reported back

the bill (H. R 6096) to construct a road from Little Rock, Ark., to the national cemetery adjacent thereto; which was laid on the table.

He also, from the same committee, reported, as a substitute for the foregoing, n. bill (H. R. 9917) to construct a road from Little Rock, .Ark., to the national cemetery adjacent thereto; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

FRANKLIN LEE AND CHARLES F . DUNBAR. Mr. LAIDLAW, from the Committee on Claims, reported back fn.

vorably the bill (H. R. 8462) for the relief of Franklin Lee and Charles F . Dunbar; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

CIIAPL.A.IN C. M . BLAKE, U. S. A. Mr. HOOKER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported

back favorably the bill (H. R. 640) to restore Chaplain C . .M. Blake to rank and pay; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, :with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDEKT. The committee rose informally, and Mr. RICHARDSON having taken

t he chair as Speaker p1·o tempore, a message in writing from the President of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. P RUDEN, one of his secretaries.

The message further announced the approval of bills of the following titles:

An acL (H. R. 6453) granting a pension to George P. Stone; An act (H. R. 1788) for the erection of a public building at Lancas

ter, Pa. ; An act (H. R. 3G17) for the relief of John C. Adams, administrator

of Joseph Adams, deceased; An act (H. R. 3333) to authorizethe city of Chicago to erect a cribin

Lake Jltlichigan for water-works purposes; An act (H. R. 4082) for the relief of the AgTicnlhual and Mechan

ical C-ollege of Alabama; An act (H. R. 1438) to authorize the Kansas Vn.lley Railroad Com -

pany to construct and operate a. railway through the Fort Riley military reservation in Kansas, and for other purpo es;

An act (H. R. 1158) to amend an act entitled "An actauthorizingthe Postmaster-General to adjust certain claims of postmasters for losses by burglary, fire, or other unavoidable casnn.lty," approved Uo.rch 17, 18 2;

An net (H. R. 107.0) for the relief of J . A. Wilson; and An act (H. R. 112) granting a. pension to George Schneider.

ORDER OF llUSJNESS.

Mr. lliiLLS. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the purpose of further considering revenue bill .

Mr. HATCH. I desire to make a parliamentary inq!liry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HATCH. The Speaker will remember that Uay 10 was set

apart under a special order of the House for the consideration of bills reported by the Committee on Agriculture, not to interfere with revenue or appropriation bills. I ask the Speaker what position that order will be left in if the House goes on to-day with the tariff bill.

The SPEAKER. According to the present recollection of the Chair it was to be a continuing order until at least two days had been occupied by the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. HATCH. That is my recollection. The SPEAKER. Tbe order embraces this language:

The order assigning a day to the Committee on Agriculture shall be llt continuing one until at least two days ha.ve been occupied in the consideration of bills 1·eported by it.

Mr. HATCH. I am content with thu't statement. TARIFF.

The motion of ?!lr. MILLS was agreed to. The House accordingly resolved itself in Co Committee of the Whole,

llfJ:. SPRINGER in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. The House is now in Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill the title of which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows: / A bill (H. R. 9031) Ia> r educe taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the

collection of the r eve nue.

[Ur. TUR~ER, of Georgia., withholds his remarks for revision. See APPENDIX.]

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, under existing legislation and administration of the Go"Vernment all will admit the propriety of an amendmentto the revenue laws which will reduce the revenue. I am constrained to eay, however, that with just and in the long r(ln economical legislation n. :p~~.rt of the money in tho Treasury should hn.ve been used in keeping the promises th:1twere made to the soldiers of the late wn.r. The last Congress, and so far this Congress, has failed to do them j ustke. The veto by the Pr~ident of the dependent pension bill deprives a large number of the eoldiers of the late wn..r who are dependent upon their labor for support, who are disabled and can not make the technical proofs required, of pensions j nstly due them.

J\IEXICAN PENSIO:::V BILL.

The President, however, did sign the Mexican pension bill, which grants a pension to every soldier of that war who is disa.bled from any cause, and to every one ofthe age of62, whether disabled or not, whether rich or poor; also t.o the widows of such soldiers. Mr. Chairman, to-day soldiers of that war who fought in the Confederate army, and widows of soldiers of that war are upon the pension rolls whose husbands were killed in battle upon the Confederate side, while the widows of soldiers who fought against them in the Union Army are denied a pension because they can not make the full technical proof- tie all the knots and adjust all the ribbons-tracing the death of their husbands to injury strictly from service in the Army. More than that, l't!r. Chairman, in many cases where Congress passes spec.ial acts, placing widows of such soldiers on the pension-roll, the President makes baste to veto them. Legislation ought to be had at least placing soldiers of the late war and their widows upon an equality with the soldiers of the Mexican war. Such legislation would properly take a. part of the idle money in the Treasury.

APPLICATIO:::V OF SURPLUS.

In the absence of such legislation the President under the law should have applied the surplus in the Treasury to the payment and purchase of the indebtedness of the Government. 'lrne, he elected to say he had no authority so to do, but without any additional legislation he is now taking in the bonds of the United States which he could hn.ve heretofore done from time to time, buying the bonds at a less price then than now and s..wing from one to two years' interest thereon. In addition to this, I want to say that the placing by the President of $60,000,000 now on deposit with threo hundred national banks, without interest, instead of having applied the same to the liquidation of the Government debt, deserves the censure of Congress, and-should receive the condemnation of the people. •

The policy of the Administration from its commencement to the preaent time has been to pile up moue.yin the Trea.suryandpreventproper• legislation for the expenditure of money, so it could point to the over-

/

.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3935 :flowing coffers of the Treasury and demand legislation looking towards a tariff for revenue only. Sil', no man in the House or the country will more heartily support an economical expenditure of the puhlic money than .I, but true economy consists in paying the debts of the Government and keeping faith with its defenders, who did so much to preserve it.

Ur. Chairman, after payment of the ordinary expenses of the Governmentfor theyear1887therewasasurplus, in roundnumbers,of$55,000,-000; the estimate by the Department is a surplus for the year 1888 of $66,000,000, which estimate is probably too low; for year 1887 from customs (tariff) the receipts were $217,000,000; for year 1887from internal taxes, $119,000,000, and from other sources sufficient to make in the aggregate$371,000,000. Themajorityofthe Waysand Means Committee estimate that we can safely so amend the revenue laws as to reduce the annual income $78,000,000. Theyhavereporteda bill placing articles on the free-list, imported to the amount of $22,000.000, and reducing duties on other articles, which they claim will further reduce the revenues $32,000,000, making a total tariff reduction of $54,000,000. They also recommend the repeal of internal taxes as follows: On tobacco, $17,000,000; special taxes for licenses retail liquor-dealers and special taxes on malt liquor-dealers, $7,000,000, making, as they estimate, a total reduction of $78,0UO,OOO. In the· claim as to the articles placed by the bill on the free-list, $22,000,000, and reduction of internal taxes, $24,000,000, making $46,000,000 reduction, the committee is no doubt correct.

As to the claim that the reduction in tariff on the other articles will reduce the revenues $32,000,000, I have to say, instead of reducing the revenues, such reduction would no doubt so stimulate importation of these articles that there would be an increase of revenue from customs instead of a decrease.

The bill as a whole is "vicious, inequitable, and illogical." Its bare introduction and favorable recommendation with the threat of enactment has filled the manufacturing business and labor interests of the country, including the agriculturists, with fear and alarm.

1\fr. Chairman, there is a conflict of opinion in this country, and always has been, touching the principle upon which

FEDERAL TAXATION

should rest. The motto of the Democratic party has been and is ''to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market," and this, too, without reference to the place of'J)Coduction or the diversification ofindustries in our own country. That party would tax such articles as can not be produced in the United States upon their being imported into this country and let such articles as are or can. beproducedin the United States be imported from abroad free. This biJl is constructed with that principle in view, and journeys in that direction. The Republican party would let articles imported into the United States which can not be produced in our borders come frceoftaxation, and would raise the revenues by taxing such articles imported as are or can be produced in this country in sufficient quantity to supply our own people, the object of such taxation being twofold.

First. To raise sufficient revenue to carry on the Government. Second. The diversification of our own industries without decreasing

the wages of labor, so that those engaged in agriculture and those engaged in other pursuits shall be found scattered throughout the country side by side, ready to exchange their commodities at the least possible cost for transportation and commission. The highest order of statesmanship dictates a policy that will in the shortest time possible so diversify our industries that the product of each industry in the country will be sufficient to supply the wants of those engaged in all other industries. Such a policy cheapens the product and makes us an independent, self-!mpporting people in war and in peace. So far as we approximate this condition we approximate prosperity; so far as we journey in the opposite direction we approximate disaster.

The position of the Republican and Democmtic parties touching protection was tersely stated by Ron. Walter Q. Gresham ina speech made in New York in 1884, as follows : It must not be forgotten that this (the Democratic) party would have involved

us in untold embarrassment if its leaders had been permitted to carry out their unsound financial views, not to say heresies. In revising our tariff laws and re· ducing our customs revenues, home interests should not be neglected. Indeed, protection to our manufacturers and laborers can and should be a.fforded by taxing only such imports as come into real competition with them and admitting others free. No one disputes that the Republican party is in favor of thus affording protection to our domestic industries.

Revenue laws should be enacted with reference to our local conditions and wants. We should legislate in the interest of our own people rather than in the interest of mankind Not until we are able t.o control the markets of the world can we afford to adopt fl'ee trade. No intelligent man need be told that the weight ofopinio'n in the Democratic party is decidedly opposed to protective principle , but that, if in full possession of the Government, it would refuse to enact or mainlain protective-tariff laws.

[Applause.] J\!r. Chairman, the contest between the two parties is of long stand

ing, dating back for a generation before the war; it was a contest be-tween two systems of labor,

SLAVE LADOR Ali""D FREE LAROR.

The South, before the war, as now, dominated the Democratic party. Her civilization was built upon cheap labor-slave labor. That labor did not vote, was not educated. A peck of .corn-meal and six pounds

of salt pork would subsist a laborer South for a week. A <;heap suit of clothes would last 1or a year. That labor produced cotton; great value in little bulk. The South did not desire diversification of industry. Its statesmen believed it to be good policy to exchange its products for the products of cheap labor on the other side of the sea; hence their mottoes, "Buy \n the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets." ''Free trade." "A tariff for revenue only."

Under this policy the waters of her rivers turned no machinery. Her mineral wealth remained without development. Cotton was king. The civilization of the North rested upon free labor; every man was a citizen, a sovereign. Each had his family to maintain, his taxes to pay, his children to educate. The exercise of citizen hip required a little leisure, a surplus for the book and the paper and the home. The products of the agriculturist of the North, unlike cotton, were bulky and of far less value. They would not bear transportation to foreign markets like cotton; therefore the citizen of the North believed it to be indispensable for individual and national prosperity to diversify our industries so that there could be a mutual exchange of products upon our own soil. They were without capital, without skilled labor.

They had to come in competition with foreign capital that had been accumulating for hundreds of years and foreign labor which was so cheap that its reward barely sufficed to afford the laborer a. mere subsistence from the cradle to the grave. TheN orth demanded a protective tariff, protection against their cheap labor and capitaL The conflict led to nullification in South Carolina in 1832. One compromise after another was made, yet the antagonistic forces underlying the two systems of labor were ever present, and one compromise only demonstrated the necessity for another. Finally the inevitable ca"me. The Southern Confederacy was formed; her chief corner-stone was her system of labor, and to make sure that no conte t touching labor and indtlStries should in the future interfere with her peculiar system, in the formation of the Confederate constitution, article 2, section 8, it was provided-

That no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.

The South belieTed in that doctrine, wrote it in her constitution, fought for it. The Southern Confederacy failed, slavery is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, our Southern friends are in

•the Union; they are here, they dominate the Democratic party, and that party believes to-day, as it believed in 1856, when it declared for free trade and free ships, as it believed during the war, as it belieTed in 18iG, when it declared for a tariff for revenue only. In short, from its standpoint, a sound economic policy constrains it to declare--nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.

The Mills bill is a step in tho direction of and in harmony with that principle. Do I misstate the position of the gentlemen who framed the Mills bill? If so I pause and ask to be corrected. What s:tys the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE], and afl the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee? No answer is heard. I have stated the positions of the two parties correctly.

THE MILLS BILL.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time that I have for general debate I can not critidse the Mills bill in detail, but will seek to do so when the bill comes up for consideration item by item. The bill is subject to criticism for many sins of omission and commission, one of the principal of which sins is the placing of wool on the free-list. The wool industry is one of the principal industries of the country and h!l$ been wisely fostered by the Government. Let us inquire about it a minute. In 1859 the product of wool in the United States was 60,000,000 pounds. In 1884 the product was 308,000,000 pounds. The legislation in 1883 reducing the tariff on wool caused it to run down until in 1886 the production was only 285,000,000 pounds as against 60,000,000 pounds in 1859. The average weight of the fleece has increased from 2.4 pounds in 1860 to 5 pounds in 1 85, showing what a wise system of protection has done for the development of this industry, not only in the increased production of wool, but also in the increased number of sheep and the increased weight of fleece.

The product of wool in 1886 in the United .States was a little under three-fourths of the amount necessary to answer our purposes; the other one-fourth was imported. The largest producer of wool in the world is Australasia. With 78,000,000 sheep she produces 435,000,000 pounds annually. Next comes the United States with 44,000,000sheep (a little over one-halfthe number that Australasia has), producing285,000,000 pounds. Next comes the Argentine Republic with 75,000,000 sheep (nearly double as many as~ have); she produces 283,000,000 pounds, which is less than we produce. The quality of our sheep is much better. Next comes Russia with 47,000,000 sheep; she produces 262,000,000 pounds of wool annually.

Mr. Chairman, if we place our great wool interest in competition with the cheap land and labor of Australasia and South America we shall destroy it, and then prices will increase and we shall be at the mercy of the foreign wool-grower.

But again, in the bill reported by 1\Ir. 111ILLS it is proposed to reduce


the duty upon woolens. First, wool i~elf is to be placed upon the free-list, and then the duty is to he reduced upon woolen goods. Let us inquire about the m::mufacture of woolens. In 1R50 the total value of all woolens manufactured in this country was $43,000,000. In 1860 it was $66,000,000. The imports in 1860 were $43,000,000. In 1870 the manufacture had jumped, under the influ:;:nce of the protective policy of the Republican party, from $66,0001000 to $177,000,000. In 1880, under the continuation of that policy, it bad increased to $267,-000,000. In 1886, according to the best information I can obtain, the value of the wool manufactures in the United States had increased to $350:000,000, and we imported $44,000,000 worth. That means that our consumption of woolens in.1886 was, in round numbers, $400,000,-000. How much did wecorisumein1860? Why, in 1860 we produced $66,000,000 and imported $43,000,000; so that we consnmed a little over $100,000,000 worth in 1861, as against $400,000,000 in 1886, nearly all of which we produced ourselves. And in this connection it may be well to remind gentlemen that whereas the average consumption of wool per capita by the people of the United States in 1860 was two pounds, it was five pounds in 1885. .And yet, from early mom to dewy eve, the dP.ep bass notes and the high soprano voices of gentlemen upon the other side are screaming out that our people are freezing to death. [Laughter on the Republican side.] What a set they must have been to stand the cold away back in 1860. [Renewed laughter.] More wool produced, far more, double, treble, quadruple, quintuple; manufactures of wool likewise increased; prices cheapened, aye, greatly cheapened since 1860, and still our fr1ends are not happy.

Strangely enough., Mr. MILLS wants free wool so that our manufacturers can compete with the English manufacturers. You recollect what he said. He said that if we were to compete with England we must produce as cheaply as England, if not cheaper. Well, suppose we have free wool as England has, will that enable us to produce as cheaply? No, no. Op.r labor receives at least one-half more than the English labor receives, and we ha¥e got to reduce there in order to obtain the advantage which the gentleman desires. But he says he wants to reduce the price of wool, it being a raw material, so that our manufacturers can compete with those of other countries. I wa,c:; amazed and amused a few days afterwards when his colleague, the gentleman from Texas LMr. LANHAM], aro13e in his place and, through several pages of his speech, labored and pulled and hauled to convince his• Texas constituents that putting wool on the free-list would raise the price. [Renewed laughter.]

It reminded me of that old story of the doctor who made pills from the bark of a tree, if you stripped the bark from above downwards, it was lorumbobhi, hut if you stripped it from below upwards it was hibobilorum, and had a •ery different effect. [Renewed laugh-

ter.] But the Texa.s constituents of the two gentlemen can pay then money and take their choice betwe~::n the conflicting statements and the.ories of their Representatives.

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEGISLATION.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen on the other side of the House boast that the Mills bill proposes to reduce revenue, and they charge that we upon this side do nothing but criticize their bill, and fail to submit any proposition of our own. Gentlemen, you are in the majority, and are responsible for legislation here. We of the minority are powerless to legislate; and, up to this time, have not even the power or the privilege of submitting a bill for you of the majority to lay upon the table. If the country will give the Republicans a majority in this House and the President, that party will promptly meet the emergency, revise the tariff, decrease taxation without interfering with its time-honored principles-without reducing wages, without breaking down the industries of the country; but until we get power, we can well say: ''We are no~ called upon to legislate; we have no power to legislate."

PROPOSITION FOR REDUCTION OF REVENUE.

Mr. Chairman, while this is the situation, I, as one member of the minority, am willing now, as at all times, to state how I would reduce revenue if I had the power. It is claimed that the Mills bill would reduce the revenue $78,000,000 per annum, and that they can safely be reduced by that amount-some claim to a greater amount.

.Much talk on both sides has been had about the repeal of internal taxes. Even if desirable, this can not be done; for we can not reduce taxation to so great an amount and have money sufficient to carry on the Government. President Cleveland and the Secretary of the Treasury advise against the repeal or reduction of internal taxes; yet the Mills bill takes the tax off of tobacco, leaves it on cigars, and adds a repeal of special taxes on retail liquor dealers and malt liquor dealers, amounting, all told, to $24,000,000. Standing alone as a single proposition I would not support that measure; but oat of deference to the views of others I am willing to concede that reduction, provided we add other items of reduction to it.

If we could spare a repeal of the tax on alcohol used in the arts and manufactures, I would vote for that; but, believing that, added to the repeal of the tax upon tobacco, a provision placing sugar upon the freelist from all countries that do not levy an export tax on it would reduce the revenues as far as is prudent at this time, I would so place it, and there stop, except so far as it might be necessary to pass a so called administrative bill, to which all parties agree.

FREE SUGAR.

1\Ir. Chairman, I hold in my hand a tapulated statement, made up at the Treasury Department, touching sugar :md its importation for a series of years, which I take pleasure in printing with my remarks.

Statement showing the percentage of the value of imported sugar and molasses entered for consumption to tlte total value of imported merchandise entered for consumption, and the percentage of estimated duties collected on impo1'ted sugar and molasses to the total amou11t of duties collected; also the avemge cost per pound, and tlte average specific and ad valorem 1·ates of duty on sugar during tlte years named below.

Value of Value of im- Per cent. Estimated Per cent. Rate of duty on sugar. dutiable mer- ported sugar Total duties of value duties col- of duties Cost per

YearendingJune30- chandise and molasses of sugar collected on lected on on sugar pound of entered for entered for merchan- Average Equiva· andmo- sugar and mo- andmo- sugar. con sump- consump- lasses. dise. lasses. lasses. specific per lent ad tion. tion. pound. valorem.

1856 ........................ . ................................ . $246, 047; 468 $25, 315,071 10.28 $64, 084, 401 $7,594,521 ll.85 23.25 12.53 16.13 15.42

Cents. I 4.08 Cents.

1.22 1.64 1.02 1.0!) 1.05

Per cent. 30.00 30.00 24.00 24.00 24.00

1857 ......................................................... .. 283, 569, 188 49, 339, 028 17.40 63,664,864 14,801,708 5.45 4.26 4.55 4.38

1858-........................................................ . 187,385, 484 21, 952, 323 11.71 42,046,722 5,268,558 1859 .......................................................... . 249, 966, 964 32, 867. 509 13.15 48,894,684 7,888,202 1860 .......................................................... . 267, 891, 447 33, 856, 018 12.64 52,692,421 8,125,444

1------1 -----163,329, 949 43,678,433

1883 ......................................................... .. 493, 916, 384 456, 295, 124 386,667,820 413,778, 056 450, 325, 322

91,389,211 94,372,965 73,497,930 76,723,266 74,219,614

18.50 209, 659, 699 46,160,916 22.02 25.76 29.42 Z7.4.8 '1:/.36

4.4 8.6 2.7 2.8 2.5

2.31 1.95 1.97 2.00 2.03

52.88 53.95 73.66 70.40 82.04

1884 ... ........ .. .................. .............. ............. . 20.68 189, 844, 995 48,913,031 1885 ..................................................... _,,, 19.01 177,319,550 52,175,140 1886 ........................................................ . 18.54 188,379,3<¥1 51,766,923 1887 ......................................................... .. 16.48 212, 032, 424 58,004,359

• 410, 202, 986

TREASURY DEPATMENT, BUREAU OF STATISTICS, May 4, 1888.

It appears that in 1887-last year-our imports of sugar and molasses amounted in round numbers to $76,000,000. How much was the duty or tax on this? Listen, my Democratic friends-you friends of the poor man! Fifty-eight million dollars of tax was collected on $76,000,000 of imported sugar and molasses.

A. MEMBER. Eighty per cent. Mr. CANNON. Yes, 82 percent. ad valorem, or 2 cents a pound on

the average. The average value of this sugar was 2! cents a pound, the tax was 2.03 cents, equal to ~.04 per cent. ad valorem.

What is the average consumption of sugar in the United States? Fifty-three pounds to every man, woman, and child in the country. Rich and poor, great and small, wiseandunwise, black and white, farm laborer and factory laborer1 everybody consumes on a average 53 pounds

·of sugar annually, and the poor man pays as much as the millionaire.

----·-257,020,369

W!\1. F. SWITZLER, Chief of Bureau.

How much does the tax amount to per capita each year? One dollar and six cents. That is collected upon this imported sugar and molasses from every man, woman, and child in the country; yet the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TURNER], as I understood his remarks to-day, seemed to think that if there was a direct tax placed upon each inhabitant of this country to that amount it would sweep out of power the party that did not remove it.

Let me go a step farther in regard to sugar. The imports of sugar and molasses for five yea.rs-1883 to 1887, inclusive-amounted, accordingto this tabulated statement from the Department, to $410,000,000. What was the duty? Two hundred and fiity-seven million dollars in those five years; the importation with the duty amounting to $667,-000,000. For the five years from 1856 to 1860, inclusive, the importation was $163,000,000, as against $410,000,000 in the more recent period

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3937 of five years; and the duty was $43,000,000, as against $257,000,000. Thus it will be seen that the importation of this article has grown year by year, although it is the best-protected article on the list, every thing considered, and has been so substantially from the foundation of the Go,·ernment to the present time.

From 1821 to 1887, inclusive, the value of the imports of sugar and molasses for consumption in the United States, not for re-export, was $1,967,000,000-nearly $2,000,000,000. The tariff or tax was $1,038,-000,000, making the first cost of this product before it reached theretailer, much less the consumer, more than $3,000,000,000; and the great bulk of that was in the last thirty yearn. What has protection done for sugar? Only one-tenth of all the sugar consumed is produced here. Why, sir, the production is falling off. Instead of producing more suga1.· we are pro4_ucing less than formerly.

Now, gentlemen, I am willing to stand by the logic of the principles of the Republican party. I belie>e that we should tax products from abroad where it is practicable to produce in this country in due time a sufficient amount of the same product to answer the demands of our people. Upon that principle we did well to protect wool; upon that principle we did well to protect iron and steel and woolens and all the textiles. But here stands substantially one thousand million dollars of tax in the last thirty yearn upo.n sugar, and nearly two thonsaud million dollars of imports; and the sugar product of the United States is not one-tenth of what we consume, and is growing less. What is to be done? I ha>e here a table showing the amount of the product of sngar in the United States. Last year it was 30~,000,000 pounds, less than one-tenth of what we consume. What was the protection? About 2 cents a pound.

But, say our friends on the other side, "Yon are going to admit now that the tax is added to the import." Yes, it is in certain cases. If you import coffee into this country, eYery dollar of the tax is added, because we can not produce coffee here. If you import tea, eYery dollar of the tax is added. Before we commenced to produce iron, steel, steelrails, and textiles in any considerable quantities, while we imported substantially all of those articles that we used, the tax was added. But everybody understands that the tax is not added now on most of these articles. The amount of textiles, cotton and wool, the ainonnt of iron and steel and their manufactures imported into this country, is now a mere bagatelle in comparison with the home product, and the compe· tition at home has reduced the price far lower than it was when we .first levied the duty.

How is it with sugar? Has there been any increase of production in the United States? No; a quarter of a century registers a decrease. And the small amount produced, which has not been increased, leaves the import tax a tax upon the consumer. What is to be done? Fiftyeight million dollars paid last year into the Treasury from this source ! How much have you produced in this country? Again, let us see. Three hundred million pounds. Why: gentlemen, you can pay by way of bounty upon that 300,000,000 pounds 2 cents a pound, and it would only cost annually $6,000,000, and yon have $52,000,000 of the sugar tax annually collected left.

From every standpoint it is plain what should be done. From the home of every laboring man in this country, North and South, who unuerstands this matter comes the demand to red nee the revenues andrelieve the whole people of this $1.06 a head yearly tax, and thus reduce the surplus. Who does it hurt? The Louisiana plallters? No. The Kansas farmer, and the California coast beet producer, who believe they have in the diffusion process a solution of the problem of sugar production in this country? No; they get the same bounty they now receive a.t a cost of $6,.000, 000, and the rest of the country is 1·elieved of $52;-000,000 annual tax. .

Wise statesmanship dictates that we should' make this provision. A. product in such universal use as sugar should, if possible, be produced in this country. I have but little hope of Louisiana's increasing the product.. If it. is increased at all I believe the increase is to come from the sorghum and the beet. Europe now produces one-ha of the sugar of the world from beets, yet at the beginning of this century not a p(')nnd was produced in Europe. A judicious system of bounties created the production there. In my opinion we should give the project a fair trial.

Gentlemen, it is a cur~ous fact, when yon hunt up these statistics, to find what stories they tell, and they ten the truth. We hear something about the sugar trusts; and whenever a Democrat lifts his nose and thinks he comes in sight of something that can be r.alled a "trust," which truly or falsely-and it does not make much difference to him which-can be laid to the tariff, he begins to step high. [Laughter.] I say to you, if you will put sugar on the free-list it will break up the payment of a bounty now paid to the sugar refiners. I will explain.

Notwithstanding the great importation of sugar, we exported in 1886 and in 1887$22,000, 000 in round numbers of the refined sugar. We did not export any brown sugar; we imported that.

Mr. GEAR. I want to suggest to the gentleman that under the arrangement of the tariff to-day there has not been a hogshead of what is called fair merchantable sugar introduced in this country in ten yearn.

Mr. CANNON. Now, then, the average duty, as I haYe shown, is 2

XIX--247

cents a pound on the present valuation of sugar. I went to the Treasury Department the other day andsaid: Under this section of the statute allowing a rebate, where duties have b£en paid upon articles imported, when they are exported how much do you allow to the refiners? He answered: '' Oh, I can answer that question in a minute," and here he hands me a circular, which I have before me, which provides that-

On and after November 1, 1886, a. drawback will be allowed at the rate of 2.60 cents on all refined sugars exported-

Mr. BUCHAN AN. On the pound? Mr. CANNON. Yes. Now, mark you, 2 cents is what it amounts

to when imported; that is the duty; and 2.60 cents is the drawback when exported. I said: "Well, do not you know that they exported eleven millions last year and tbesame quantity the year before?" He said ''Yes." !'asked: "How do you explain it; how can they export sugar unless that .60 cent of thedrawbackmteabove the duty amounts to a bounty?" Says he: "I give it up."

Ur. BUCHANAN. So do I. Mr. CANNON. Certainly; everybody will have to give it up. It

does amount to it. Now you break up that much of the trust when you let sugar come in free. [Applause.]

.Another strange thing, and I mnst hurry on; my time is getting limited. I>o gentlemen know that the duty on sugar in 1876 was 27! per cent. of all the duties collected upon the imported articles brought into the United States, the value being $76,000,000? Why, do you lrnow that wool and the manufactures thereof, iron and steel and all mannfactures thereof, chemicals, drugs, dyes, medicines and everything entering therein, all combined, do not pay as much duty as that collected on sugar? Yet it is necessary now for the good of the Democratic party that they should have the Louisiana vote, and the Mills bill only reduces the tax on sugar 20 per cent.

I give yon notice now that, like the voice of the prophet crying aloucl in the wilderness, I will not cease to cry aloud until I get a~ opportunity to see that 20 per cent. and go you 80 per cent. better. [Laughter.]

How much sugar did you import last year?-nine-tenths of all we consumed. How much did we produce in the United States ?-only one-tenth, of the value of $12,000,000. How much wool and mannfactures of wool and chemicals, drugs, dyes, medicines, and iron and steel, and all manufactures thereof are imported ?-$135,000,000 last year. What amount of these articles were produced in the United States last year ?-over $1,000,000,000 worth. That is what protection has done as to these artirles.

How long, Mr. Chairman, have I been talking? The CHAIRMAN (Mr. l'lfc.{\._noo ). The gentleman has eleven min

utes of his time remaining. Ur. CANNON. Why, it seemed to me I had not much more than

commenced. I was just getting warmed up to the work. Mr. Chairman, I have been surprised and amazed at many statements

from the other side. They cry out: "Oh, how the poor farmer is oppressed!" Why, sir, there are gentlemen on the other side who shed crocodile tears about the poor farmer who would not know a cow from a deer if they were to see- them. [Laughter.] -

THE POLICY OF THE FARlllER.

I understand about this farming proposition. I grew up on a farm on the Wabash. I recollect back tor forty-five years and over, and know something about it. I know something about glutting th.e market with farm produce. Gentlemen will recollect how, in 1861-I am sure all my colleagues do, and my friend from Iowa, Governor GEAR_:_ corn as good as was ever grown was bought in Illinois, and I dare say in Iowa, at the farm and the railway station at 10 and 12 cents a bushel.

The war took from the farms a great number of patriotic farmers and farm laborers, who ceased to follow the plow and who went into · the Army, and before 1864 came the same quality of corn was worth a dollar in currency and over 65 cents in gold at the railway station and at the farm. Why? Because a large number of men who had followed the plow had taken up the sword, and there were fewer produeers on the farms.

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. And more horne consumers. Mr. CANNON. Because a part of those who ha<l been producers

bec..'tme consumers and ceased to be producers. There is the key of the policy of the Republican party from the commencement-from the time it wrote the Morrill tariff act on the statute-book till the present day. Its motto has been: So shape your policy Lhat you will distribute a portion of the labor off the f~nm. [Applause.] Get more of it into the factory. And by and by we will produce substantially all the articles cocsumed in this countr_y that C..'lU be produced on our soil and in our climate, and yon give the farmer more customers and fewer competitors; while the policy of you Democrats woul<l increase the number of farmers and decreMe their present customers now engaged in other pursuits.

Mr. Chairman, I weil recollect the good ol<l Democratic days that our friends on the ot.her side sigh for the return of.

Born in the South, my earliest recollection is of ruy father owning a small tract of]and there. He went from t1w South to the North and West, where he could come in contact with free labor. Thank God for it. [Applause.]

\

·- -

3938 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD.~HOUSE. MAY 10,

There is no path the farmer has trodden in my section that I have not trod. I know what it was in the gdod old Democratic days to work month in and month out through all the seasoil.s for $8 per month, and get pay in store-truck, or what was generally worse, '' stmnp-tail currency," issued by banks which would break before you could spend it.

I know what it was in the good old Democratic times to see the corn raised and fed to the hogs and the hogs sold net at $1.50 per hundred and paid for in English-made calico (prints) at 35 cents a. yard. Sir, tmder a policy of protection better prints, made in the United States, are now sold at retail for 5 cents a yard everywhere throughout the country. Sir, you can buy a Letter suit of men's clothes at ret.ail in my city of Danville, ready to put on, for $15 than could have been bought for twice that money in good old Democratic days. The clothes, too, are made from American wool and American. material throughout, including the buttons, and the laboring man makes the $15 to buy the clothes within less than half the time it took in the good old Democrat.ic days. And still you Democrats are not happy. [Applause.]

I tell you, my Democratic friends, and your President, you might as well try to drown a. duck by pouring water on its back as to try to comrince the farmers of the great West that your propositions and policies are sound. The best, the most intelligent, the truest and most stable protectionists on 'the face of the earth are the men who follow the plow, and who believe their prosperity is to come from the di\crsity of industries.

THE INTEREST3 OF LABOit.

Much has been said about how the laboring man is oppressed by the protective policy, and the claim is made that he is better off in England than in the United States, everything considered. A statement of iact in a sentence fully refutes that statement. The reports from. the Treasury Department show that from 1820 to 1887, in round numbers, 14,-000,000 people have imiillgrated into the United States from Europe.

r Over 5,688,000 of these were from Great Britain. Listen, my Democratic friends. In round numbers, 9, 000,000 of these people lkwe come to the United States since the Republican party wrote the policy of protection upon the statute-book, under the lead of Abraham Lincoln. Great flocks of people, like individuals, go where they can get the best reward for their labor.

"DEFENSE OF SPEAKER CARLISLE."

Mr. Chairman, there has been much adverse criticism of the action oUhe Speaker of the House of Representatives in the formation of the Committee on Ways and Means. It is said that the committee is controlled by gentlemen from the South who are not familiar with the industries of the country and not in harmony with their welfare and preservation. I want to defend the Speaker as to the organization of that committee. He could not have done otherwise than he did. As long as the Republic endures it will from time to time have its legislation shaped by the party in power. As long as the South remains solid and Democratic, and that party r.emains in power, just that long will it dominate the executive, the legislative, and later the judicial branch of the Government. The created knows the creator. [Applause.]

TRUSTS.

Much has been s..1.id, Mr. Chairman, during this debate about trusts or combinations to limit the production and control the prices ofprod

·ncts. It is claimed that our customs legislation is responsible for the same. These combinations are common in the country and throughout the world, and from time to time have existed for ages past. I submit, however, that the protective policy is one of ·the principal means of combating such organizations. Before our industries were diversified, and while we were dependent upon Europe for our manufactured products, the foreign manufacturer who wanted a good price and the importer who wanted a good profit and commission in handling the foreign product fixed the prices as they chose, but wherever protection was sufficient to aftord the home manufacturer security against the cheap labor and capital of the foreign manufacturer, home I;Uanufactories have been established and home Competition ha.s cheapened the product. •

The manufacturer produces side by side with the agriculturist and other producers. Exchanges of products have been made upon smaller commissions and small charges for transportation. All over the country manufacturers come iii direct contact -w;ith the retailers aud consumers. This does not suit the importers, especially at New York, who with our Southern brethren, are the most persistent enemies of the protective system. Let it be noted that a trust or combination between the importer and the foreign manufacturer can not be reached by legis-lative penalty. ·

1\Ir. Chairman, these combinations are against public policy, and the American people can and will subdue and destroy them. We can reach "trusts" formed in the United States by legislative penalty, but " trusts " of foreign growth are beyond our reach, except as we reach them by development of home industries~

The interstate-commerce bill, in the enactment of which one of the Senators of my own Sta.te, Mr. CuLLOM, was an important factor, was a step in the right direction, and goes a great way toward the destruction of the most onerous of all trusts, namely, the transportation trust. Surely the cotton-seed oil trust, the dressed-beef trust, the anthracitecoal trust, the Standard Oil trust, and many others which might be men-

tioned are in no way dependent on the tariff for their form:ttion or ex-istence. '

Mr. Chairman, I ha'le been amn.zed at claims of gentlemen :,pon the other side in connection with this matter. Sir, if any party profit by, sustains, or is sustained by "trnstB~ ~' it is the Democmtic 1mrty. The standard oil trust, it is alleged by Democrats like ex-Smator Thurman, sends a Senator to the national Congress from the State of Ohio, and it is further alleged that its aU-potent influence dictates the appointment of a member of President Cleveland's Cabinet. It is fllrther alleged that this giant trust stands ready to pour its money out to assiEt in the re-election of :Mr. Cleveland.

J\Iore than this, Mr. Chairman, it is alleged tbat the gentleman from Pennsylvania [J\Ir. ScoTT] is the adviser and close friend of the Administration; one of its special aids in the use of the patronage of the Government to force the will of the Executi\e upon Representatives in the passage oftbe Mills bill. I am informed by one who claims to kuow whereof he speaks that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] is one of the members in interest with that other great trust which limits the output of its product and fixes its price by combination and agreement. I refer to the anthracite coal trust.

l\Iore than that, :Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [ Ir. ScoTT] is n, member of the Ways and Means Committee, which by its bill reduces the tariff on plate-glass, starch, and various other products, which is belie\ecl to be not for the best interests of the country, while iron ore and soft coal remain upon the protected list as heretofore. The gentleman is said to be one of the largest owners of coal and iron-ore interests in the country. I do not accuse him of acting for his own interests tn the premises, nor do I say that either of these articles should be reduced, but I do say when the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. O'FERTIALL], and otber Democrats talk about free raw material and the robber tariff, and at the same time these articles are retained on the protected list because they happen to be produced in their districts, tbat in my opinion such action shows a want of fidelity to the principles which they profess, and is simply extraordinary.

Gentlemen, you may claim to your immedia.te constituents that you saved coal and il"on-ore, but my word for it yo~ will not profit thereby. The men -who believe in the protective system in your districts and in the country at large will not be deceived by such action upon your part. They know that the system ig either good or bad. If good, they will elect Representatives wbo are in harmony with the system and will stand by it. Representatives who are big enough and broad enough to look over the whole country a.nd shape a policy that shall be consistent, and will result in the greatest good to all the people.

WHAT PROTECTIO~ llAS DO~"E.

Mr.- Chairman, I do not claim that the protective policy is the only element that has led to our· marvelous development and success since 1861. But I do claim it is the quickening principle that underlies our progress and prosperity. It goes hand in hand with industry and good wages; it stimulates diversity in production and cheapens products; it fosters invention. Under that policy the products of agriculture aggregated in value on the farm in 1887 over $3,700,000,000, while the value of manufactured products, 1\fr . . MILLS tells us, for the same year was $7,000,000,000. Thisfarexceeds the value of Great Britain's product.

Ours is the greatest agricultural and the greatest manufacturing country on the earth.

Listen, Democrats; over nine-tenths of all these products find a market within our own borders.

Great Britain reaches all about the earth for her markets; her navy and merchant marine is upon every sea. She dominates and in most instances oppresses 250,000,000 people that she may find a market for her products. Yet we have a better market f<>r all our products within our own borders than she has throughout the world.

Sir, we now have 60,000,000 people, and our present territory when developed will support 300,000,000. To the northw-ard is British America. To the South is Mexico, Central ~o\merica, and the high plateaus under the Equator. The Republican party favors a continuation of that policy which, pending the de\elopment of our own territory and that which may be added, will enable us to dominate our own markets with our own products.

The Democratic party, under the leacl of Cleveland, proposes toreverse the engine and pursue the opposite policy. The issue is made up. The two great captains will soon be in command of the opposing forces. The country can not afford to decide the issue in fu.vor of the Democratic party. [Applause.]

Mr. WILKINSON. Ur. Chairman, we ha\e been treated to a wide variety of topics in the di'Scussion of this bill. When the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KL.,NEDY] told yesterday of the child whom a minister of God had regretted that he bad not throttled when he baptized him, it was enough to make the blood run cold. I almo t shuddered as he told of that disciple of the meek o.nd loving Savior who regretted -whatever the provocation might have been-that his hands had not been imbued with an infant's blood. But, sir, the story was but an appropriate parable in the harsh doctrine which he advocated-a fit prelude for the slanders that fell from hls lips, and fQr the unwarranted

•

• I

1888. • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3939

,intrusions into the domestic affairs of n. State which is the peer of his own in all its rights, in all its dignities, and in all its powers.

These slanders have been denounced as they deserve in the other end of this CapLtol when they issued fresh from the lips which gave venomous utterance to them, and I regret to see that the author of them has found an apt pupil and imitator here. Louisiana, sir, has her complete election laws, her own courts to punish violations of them, her own polls, and is absolute and exclusive in her police powers and the administration of her domestic affairs. She proposes to guard and cherish this precious privilege of loeal self-government regardless of the disappointments of defeated office-seekers or the railings of ready calumniators. She proposes, sir, as long as the Constitution is not torn into a thousa-nd fragments, to retain this sacred right which belongs to her as well as to Ohio and to every other State. Her star of equal rights and equal powers shall not bedimmed in yonder flag while every other star that represents the rights -of every other State retains its bright-ness unimpaired! ·

I do not feel that I need go furt.her thaa this in meeting the aspersions of the gentleman from Ohio, uncalled for us they are. But, si r, if I did, I would remind him again that these charges when first uttered were denounced and proven unwarranted by the Senators from Louisi::ma, both in general and in detail. If I did go further I would challenge a comparison of the methods of election in the district which I ha\c the honor to represent-and whose fair name it is my privilege as it is my pride to defend-with those that prevail in the district rep-

. resented by the gent.leman from Ohio, or any other district in the country, in all the elements which affect the honest, the fair, and the untrammeled expres3ion of the will of the whole people. I might tell him that among the warmest greetings I received during my can...-uss were hurrahs from colorc{l throats and the he..1.rty grasp of colored hands, and that I bad the earnest support of colored voters by _the hundredsnot by fraud, nor force, nor intimidation, but of their own free will. [Applause.]

Regretting, 1\Ir. Chairman, this digression into which I have been drawn, I will come to the subject that is now directly before us. It seems to me that the debate on this bill has attempted the solution of problems which we are at this time not c:illed upon to solve.

The extremists on one side of this Honse ta.lk as if the people could and should get along without the horrid impositions of n. custom-house, which interferes with their freedom to purchase abroad and compels them to submit to:the outrage ofhanng to pay more for their imported goods than tl1ey would ha.\e to pay if the custom-house was not there to levy its tribute. And the indignation of this class might be very justifiable if the Government was of such an accommod:::,ting kind as to run along like perpetual motion, which is so much sought after, without something to make it go .

Another class of extremists on the other side talk as if there act· ually was a proposition before this House to abolish the tariff, stop the collection of duties, uttel'ly destroy the protection system, tear down the custom-houses, and turn the custom-house officials out upon a cold ancl unfeeling world to obtain a living in some other avocation.

It might be well to remind the extremists of each class, the advocates of the "buy and sell where you please" principle on the one hand and the advocates of protection by means of prohibitive duties on the other, that the theories of both if carried to logical conclusions would agree on one point, and that is, the Govemment, so far as customs are concerned, would have practically no revenue. Tear down the customhouses, so that you can buy where yon can buy cheapest, or build the tariff wall so high as to entirely keep out foreign goods, and the result will be precisely the same; no revenues will come in from that source. .And yet since childhood we have learned that governments were necessary institutions for civilized peoples, and that the support of such governments as ours requires a greatdealofmoney, which hasbeenchiefly collected from customs duties, and which will continue to be until some more perfect system is devised ..

.As governments are necessary, taxation is necessary. The government exacts of the cltizen a portion of his earnings in return for the benefits which it affords him and which are essential to his welfare and even to his existen~e. No sane man expects to receive something for nothing, and no honest man, whatever his condition or calling be, expects t o receive the benefits of government without bearing some portion of the burden which the support of that government entails.

Taxation to be equitable must be general. As the go-vernment bas its benefits for all, so should its obligations likewise be borne by all. And he who seeks immunity from bea.ring his share shirks an obligation that is inherent in citizenship.

If, then, revenues are collected at moderate cost; if they are levied and collected in a manner as little obnoxious and as little burdensome as possible-for any tax1 no matter how collected, is bound to be obnoxious and burdensome to some extent; if they are honestly and rea~onably applied when collected; and if such amounts only, and no more, are collected than are absolutely needed for the support of the government, efficiently, honestly, and economically administered· if all ~his .is done, then no fair-minded citizen, when be contributes his proportion for the general good, should complain of the obligations that come hand in hand with the benefits. If, however, these conditions

of taxation are not complied with; if the taxes are made and kept needlessly offensive, onerous, and excessive; if they are needlessly withdrawn from the channels of circulation or withheld from the development of our great public works and our national defense, then there 1vill be just cause for complaint, and the citizen will feel that the powers of taxation have been most grossly abused.

The abuse of Federal taxation, which is greater than all others, is that the Government is collecting more than it needt!; that tbe people who support the Government are being compelled to bear such burdens as are .not required to be borne. As the people have to pay for the Government, they do not want to, and they are determined not to, pay any more than they need to pay. It cost during the last fiscal year to conduct the Government, including a sinking fund of nearly $48,-000,000, the total sum of$315,835,428, or the sum of$5.74 per capita. The GoYernment collected in that time the sum of $371,403,277.66, or SG. 75 per capita. The people paid, therefore, considered on a purely rayenue basis, without going into the complex calculation of what was or was not paid by those who were incidentally benefited by the tariffthe people paid the sum of$5-'5,567,849.74, or about$1 apiece for every man, woman, and child more than there was any need to be paid. While necessary ta.xation is all right and should ba cheerfully borne, any needless taxation is all wrong. "Unneces..."Ury taxation is unjust taxation," and the people should not be asked or compelled to end me it longer.

In consideri11g this subject we should bear constantly in mind the fact that two dh;tinct systems of taxation now combine to levy their tribute upon the earnings of the people. The system that the fathers instituted and maintained has another system united with it which danger, ~mergency, ::mdcostuntold called to its aid, and which remains joined with it still, altho11gh the danger and the emergency are past, because some of the cost is left to be provided for still. The two systems combined are pouring into coffeTs now full to overflowing the moneys absorbed .from a circulation already not sufficient for the people's wants and fi·om earnings too scanty for their comfortable support. In this singular state of affairs the Government is getting needlessly rich in direct proportion as the people are getting needlessly poor; and if this continues and no remedy can be invoked and no relief given; if the people, through their representatives, can place bur· dens on which when no longer entirely needed they are powerless to take off or abate, then, indeed, do we behold a sad commentary on the wisdom and efficiency of republican institutions. ''The safest and-the simplest" remedy for such a state of affairs, as General Jackson ~aid,· "is to collect only revenue enough to meet the wants of the Government, and let the people keep the balance of the property in their own hands for their own p1·ofit. '' .

I believe, sir, that a great majority of the people of this country and a majority of members of this House will agree that the remedy suggested by General Jackson should be applied; but in the methods to be adopted there will be found a great diversity of-opinion.

This remedy for the existing abuse can. be applied in three ways: First. By making the entire reduction in customs. Second. By making it in internal-revenue taxation. Third: By dividing the reduction so as to let each system of taxa

tion bear a share. Each of these plans has its earnest advocates. Any proposition to limit reductions in taxation to customs duties

only would seem to imply that this system of taxation was more un- ... usual or was le3s justifiable or was more unpopular or was, on the whole, more burdensome to s;:;cietythan the other system; yet we .find that this system has been in force from the beginning.of our Government until now without any exception; that the other has only been for briefperiods nntill862. One has been the rule and not the exception; one has been constantly employed; the other has been a supernumerary only; one has always been considered neces5ary; the other has been gladly abolished or reduced when the opportunity afforded. The preamble of the first tariff act, which ha.s been so much quoted, stated that:

Wbe1·eas it is necessary for the support of the GoyernmeJ:AI;, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and for the encouragement and pro~ection of manufactures, that duties be laid on imported good'!, W!\re3 and m erchandise .

The objects of the tariff are stated here in the order of their importance:

First. The present support of the Government; Second. The payment ofthe debts which it may have previously in-

curred; and · . Third. The encouragement and protection of mannft:tetm:es. A few extremists h::tve chimed that this last functioa of a tariff has

no constitutional justification, and while they may be right, provided this function only is exercised, they surely are not right pro...-ided this function is exercised simultaneously with and secondary to the others. The Constitution itself had been adopted in 1788, only one year before, and it would be singular, to say the least, if the Congress in 1789 was not acquainted with its limitations or the intentions of its founders, or would so soon hav-e set tbemJ!Side. The instances of the re-commendation and sanction of this function of a tariff are so numerous in American h~ry and so many have already been cited that I will not occupy

• 3940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. MAY 10,

the time of the committee by adding any new instances or repeating those which have been already referred to.

But, sir, the gentlemen on the other side of this House reverse the order of the objects of a tariff and put the last function first whenever they find it to their convenience to do so.

That a tariff levied to foster manufactures or productions which bring in little or no revenue should be objected to by the classes which it doe3 not cenefit, I can readily imagine.

The duty on pig, bar, and ingots of copper and copper-plates of the same not rolled is 4 cents per pound. And yet the entire value of the amount imported during the last fiscal yea.r was $40, and the entire duties collected were 16.60. Such: a tariff, perform1ng virtually only the last function which I ha>e mentioned is either not needed or is entirely for the benefit of private individuals, and surely seems withon t j usti:fication.

On the other hand, a tariff_that performs all of its functions, which furnishes revenue such as is needed and protection ifit can-revenue as its object and protection as its incident, or re\enue first and protection afterwards-has the highest constitutional justification. .Any tariff levied on an article, when it is such as is produced here, is bound to furnish some protection, whether that protection or benefit be meant or not; and it seems to me, sir, that no one should object if a duty levied to pay the expenses of the Government should pertorm a benefit to somebody if it could. I quote iroru a speech by no distinguished member and Speaker efthis House [Mr. CARLISLE]:

The experience ofmankind has shown that it is almost, if not quite, impossible to devise any system or scheme of duties upon imports t.hat will not to a greater or less degree either injure or benefit private industrial interests, and I have never hesitated to say that I would rather benefit them than injure them; but what I mean to assert is that when the primary or principal object of the tax: imposed by public ~tuthority is to foster a private interest, it is not a legitimate use of the power of taxation, but it is simply spoliation.

Indirect taxation has long been preferred by our people, and, howe\er its burdens may be inveighed against, it is the only system of revenue collection that brings cert-ain benefits as a necessary incident to its levy, building up a di\ersity of pursuits which is essential to the comfort and happiness of our entire people.

Those advocating the first me hod exclusively, by making the entire reduction in customs, I believe to be in a decided minority in this House. With these ardent advocates it seems to be more a question of sentiment than a matter of practical legislation. A gentleman from Minnesota upon the other side of this House has been the first during this session to raise the cry of down with customs and bold on to direct taxation.

There is no proposition before this House to have free whisky. Whatever opinions some of us may hold as to the policy of endeavoring to make the United States do two things at the same time, collect revenues and dispense morality, it seems to me the gentleman from Minnesota [M:r. NELSON] may have been a little premature in his protests against the removal of whisky from internal tax. But there is a

· proposition in the bill undGr discussion to abolish the internal tax in great part on tobacco, and this proposition the gentleman from Minnesota bas expressed his opposition to before it was even up for discussion in this House. The gentleman admits the necessity of customs reduction more than sufficient to satisfy the ideas of the veriest extremists on this side of the House, but contends that the people should continue to pn.y the tobacco tax and be relieved of some others instead. It may be said that this article is not a necessity, and, unlike food and clothing, the people can use it or not and thereby pay a tax on it or not as they choo~e.

Bnt whether a necessity or not, our people do use it, and will continue to c~o so for all time. They do pay an unneeded tax on its use, and if this tax were modified as proposed by this bill they would save $24,-000,000, or if the entire tax was removed they would save $30,000:000, v.-hich is now needlessly exacted from their earnings. It is also an unequal tax. Is it just to make the man that uses tobacco pay more to support the Government than he who does not use it? Sir, if this money is sa,ed by the people is it not worth just as much to buy the necessities of life with as a saving in any other kind of taxation? If the bead of the family saves even the sum of $2 or $3 per annum by cheapened tobacco, does not that leave him that much more to support his family with? Every dollar saved from the tax on tobacco is the &'l>me kind of a dollar as that saved from the payment of any other ta.x. It has the same devices on each side. It will buy just as many loa Yes of br ad, pay just as much house-rent, go just as far towards ~mying a plow or a reaping-machine, a dress or a suit of clothes.

The gentleman says that the statesmen of certain European 'countries ,, must have found good and justifiable grounds for taxing it or they would not so universally have imposed a tax." He might have men-1Eoned also that thestatesme~ of most. of the countries of Europe ''ha>e fonnd good and justifiable grounds for taxing'' sugar also, which be opposP.s with so much vehemence, and derive large revenues from it. The taxing of sugar bas been in constant practice in this country, evidently for some good reason also, during our entire history, and yet the gentleman from :Minnesota proposes to holdpn to tbetobacco tax, whose imposition is no longer needed, and wipe out the sugar duties, whose imposition gives revenue to the Government at a less percentage of cost

in the collection than that obtained from tobacco, and also keeps alive an industry whose existence has been and is bound to be of some benefit to the entire country. I admit, sir, as the gentleman says, that so far as the tax is concerned ''whether we pay a tax on a hogshead of Cuban sugar or Virginia tobacco, makes little difference.''

But if it is the same, and if a cutting. off of one can do no harm, and the cutting off of another can !lo irreparable damage, why not cut offthe one the maintenance of which brings no compensating advantage whatever? Why not take off the one the removal of which will do no harm to anybody? Sir, the destruction of any great interest in this country which has grown up under a system of Government finance that has been in vogue since the beginning of our poll tical existence is a matter ofno small moment. Benjamin Franklin said, I believe, be that made two blades of grass grow where one grew before is a benefactor to the community; and the converse is equally true; he that destroys one blade of grass where two grew before is a cmse to the community. I say, sir, as I ha.>e said before outside of this House:

Any one industry that is destroyed will cause the people employed in it to swell the ranks of the unemployed and increase the competition among those seeking employment in the other industries. I believe that every new industry that is started. opening up new channels of employment, is a blessing to the co~ntry and to all the people in it, and the destruction of any existing industry, closing up one channel of employment, is a curse to the country and to all the people in it.

The removal of the tobacco tax can be aecomplished without doing any harm to anybody.

Remo>e this tax, sir, and do yon injure the calling or employment of a single man, but do you not confer rather an actual benefit on the producers? Do you take away the bread from a single mouth? Do you injure or destroy a single consumer for the products of your farmers and your mechanics, your workshops and your :fields? Remove it, and you remove burdens from the tax-payer indeed, and at the same time you do not put out the light of a single furnace fire, or stop the revolution of a single wheel, or bring want and de.Fi vation to a single fireside or a single home. Snch considerations as these have no doubt had their weight with the framer.s of this bil1, and such considerations as these will surely overcome the opposition to the removal of this tax

I do not believe that there is any danger of adopting a policy so short-sighted as to make the entire reductions in customs alone.

The second method, making the entire reduction from the internal revenues, has also its earnest advocates. The different bills that would bring this about are yet in the committee-room, and there they seem likely to rem.:1.in; hence there is no proposition of the kind now under consideration. When in time more sweeping reductions in the internal system of taxation are made, a just system of rebates should be allowed to prevent from ruin those who will have already settled the taxe3. These rebates should be allowed on unbroken packages only, to cover the cost or difference in amount of taxes that have been either reduced or abolished. ·

This view has been earnt>.stly adxocated by the d.istinguished and able gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], on tbeother side of the House, and is also held by a number of Representatives on this. Democratic conventions and Democratic Legislatures in certain States have urged and demanded this action again and again. It seems to me, sir, that the teachings of the statesmen and sages of the past have been departed from on more than one occasion to em brace the creed and bow at the shrine of sentimentalism. To advocate the large curtailment of internal taxation and its repeal as soon as practicable has the highest sanction for legislative action, especially to members on this side of the House, and recruits to that faith should be welcomed whensoever and from wheresoever they come.

A convention held at Chicago nearly four years ago, coming from the people direct, and whose explicit declarations are and must continue to be, until the next convention, the supreme Jaw and the infallible political creed of this side of the House as members of a political partythat convention singled out the system of internal taxation for the opprobrious designation of "war tax," and intimated that the present law might not continue by pledging the proceeds of that tax for a certain purpose "so long as the law continues." No one speaks of a law in that way that is considered to be permanent . . ln marked contrast to this, the members of that convention forcibly and explicitly declared their adherence to the other system of taxation, asserting that--

From the foundations of the Go\·ernment taxes collected a.t the custo;n-hous5 have been the chief source Federal reyenue-

And-such tbey must continue to be.

Again they asserted that-All the expenses of the Federal Government, economically administered, in·

cluding pensions, interest and principal of the pulillic debt-

can be obtained, under certain conditions which they mentioned, from custom-house taxation.

The members of that convention recollected doubtless how obnoxious the internal system had been. They recalled how it had only existed twice before, and then for brief periods only. They remembered the fact that the wisest statesmen, of whom Thomas Jefferson, · the founder of the Democratic party, was a conspicuous exemJ?lar, de-

•

i888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 3941 mantled and accomplished its repeal in the past. .And this course has been urged-not to the extent, indeed, that Ur. Jefferson did-by men who are here to-day; men who have grown gray in the service of the country; men who have uplifted the Democratic banner in this House in struggles where the rights and the liberties of their countrymen hung trembling in the balance, whose past services can not be obliterated, whose present patriotism can not be underrated, and whose splendid abilities can not be questioned, either upon this floor or anywhere in this land!

It is a system whose tremendous tn.xation of alcohol used in the arts and manufactures even the sentimentalists can not justify. It prevents the building up of a number of small industries in our midst which would make new avenues of employment for our people and provide additional consumers for the productions of our farms. The gentleman_ from South Carolina claimed that the inauguration of any new industry that required tariff taxation for its support was a curse, not a blessing; but it seems to me, sir, that even he will admit that it will be a blessing to any country if new industries can be started and new employmentsgivenandincreased consumption afforded, not by an increase but by a reduction of taxation.

This is a system of t.:-uation, sir, which follows the farmer to his toil, abridges his rights and his liberty, and says he shall not do what be will with the products of his orchards and his fields which his own labor and God's sunshine and showers have caused to grow ·and ripen for his use. It lays its tribute and its restrictions upon ~he harvests which his own exertions have garnered, and even in the chamber of sickness and suffering adds its exactions to the cost of the medicines which alone can bring health to his stricken ones. It is a system of governmental watching and prying into private af

fairs-a system which breeds, fosters, and rewards a ra-ce of informers nnd spies, and begets and gives temptation to corruption, evasion, and fraud, and all that is worst in human nature. It is a system which cultured Christian women have denounced in their conventions from the centers of civilization, and weeping mothers, with hungry children in their arms, have called down curses upon from their desolated mountnin homes; which has every crime, beginning at deception and end-ing at murder, laid at its door. _

These are two methods, Mr. Chairman, by which unnecessary taxation may be reduced, and if the choice were confined to one of these I should unhesitatingly choose the cond, the repeal in whole or at any rate in great part of internal taxes, and in doing so I should have as my guide the illustrious example of those who by precept held this view and by action put it into practice, and whose memories will be enshrined in the admiration and affections of their countrymen for all time to come.

I should also be ~'trrying out the views which I ba\e expressed to the people whom I have the honor to represent, and by whom they were indorsed in meetings all over my district without a dissenting ~k~ -

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a t11ird remedy for excessive taxation, and that is to make reductions in both systems. This plan is adopted in the bill now under consideration, and it seems to m~ that no bill is likely to pass which does not provide for this twofold reduction. I frankly confess that I should have preferred to see greater reductions proposed in internal taxation, and a less reduction proposed in customs duties; but if those who are opposed to any reduction in internal taxation can afford to go as far as they do in this bill, surely those who favor far more sweeping reductions can afford to surrender something also, and meet them half way upon that question.

I am glad to say, however, that this bill recognizes the fact, and in this respe.ct it is far superior to those which preceded it, and which met an early death in the two preceding Congresses, that there ~'tn be no satisfactory or successful solution of the surplus question without a considerable reduction of internal taxes.

The tariff on the productions of my native State has had reductions d-ealt out with a lavish hand. Bagging, bone-black, pottery, rice, sugar, certain early vegetables, shingles, lumber, and salt, all products of Southern Louisiana, have all been either considerably reduced or put upon the free-list.

With these sa.crifices proposed for us I can hardly be summoned as a proper witness to testify to the advantages in this bill. It bas had these advantages pointed out by able, earnest, and eloquent orators who are fitted both by ability and by inclination far more than I am for the task. I can not rejoice, sir, while Louisiana is injured, or willingly help direct the blow that is to fall upon her. But, sir, while this bill bas not been framed to suit all the views· that I hold or those of the people whom I have the honor to represent, not only in the schedules affecting their interests but in certain others as well, the friends of an honest reduction in taxation may be sure that we do not shrink from bearing our share of a reduction in the taxes which are now needlessly imposed upon the people. [Applause.]

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. Are you ready to put sugar on the free-list?

Mr. ·wiLKINSON. No; I have made no such proposition. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. Would it not be as just to put sugar

on the free-list as it would to put wool, a Northern product, on the free-list ? .

Mr. WILKINSON. I did not know before that wool was specially a Northern product, as the St.'\.te of Texas, I believe, is one of the two largest wool-producing States in the Union.

The gentleman bas not heard me advocating putting wool on the free-list but there are wool-producers on this floor and representatives of larg~ wool-growing constituencies who have advocated this policy and who are far better judges than I am a..<~ to whether the abolition of this duty will do material harm to the industry. On the other hand, men of eminence and of patriotism-men who have no sort of int.erest in the sugar industry, have earnestly advocated as good public policy the maintenance of the sugar duties.

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. Will the gentleman state--Mr. WILKINSON. As my time is limited, I prefer not to yield

further. I have answered the gentleman's question. Sir, the gentlemen on the other side of this House, or many of them,

at any rate, seem to have singled out the sugar industry of this country for destruction. We are threatened with wounds upon this side, death upon the other.

Denouncing as free-traders the Democrats of this House, they have themselves put forward free trade in sugar as thecreedofagreatnumber·of their members; and their principle now is not protection to all American industries, but protection to some American industries.

Idonotshrinkfromthefullestblazeofin:vestigationofthesugarduties. They will bear the closest scrutiny, as they.have done for ninety-nine years. I feel satisfied that this tax can even withstand the attacks ot the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE], with all his ability and all his parliamentary experience.

I desire to call his attention to the fact that in making his calculation of the value of the sugar industry he entirely omitted over four and a half million dollars for molasses, which i!> as much a product of our cane-fields as sugar is.

The gentleman from Indiana complains that the interest has beeh at a ''standstill '' and that ''still the industry languishes,'' notwithstanding the collection of about $1,000,000,000 from sugar duties since 1861. But, sir, has the industry languished, and has it stood still?

There are two eras in the history of sugar culture in Louisiana. In eaeh of these eras the growth of this industry contradicts the assertion that it has been or is a languishing industry. In the first era of its existence, in the decade between 1831 and 18-U, the average product of sugar was 77,200 hogsheads; from 1841 to 1851, 192,327 hog heads; from 1851 to 1861, 297,462 hogsheads. The second of these decades showed an increase in production as compared with the first of nearly 150 per cent., and the third of these periods showed an incrense over the second of over 50 per cent.

But the gentleill!1n seems to think it remarkable that the production now has not reached that of the exceptionally large crops of 1853 or 1861-the largest ever made in Louisiana. I would remind him, sir, that from a crop of only a little over · 5 tons in 1864,it increased to 144,881 hogsheads in 1870, or fourteen-fold; that between 1870 and 1880 it increased to 218,314 hogsheads, or more than 50 per cent., and that the crop last year was an increase over th:1t of 1880 of O\er 60,000 hogsheads, and while that was less than several of the largest of the ante-bellum crops, it exceeded those of 1855, 1856, 1859, and 1860. And this rehabilitation of the industry, this new birth and growth to sturdy proportions has been achieved under such disadvantages that even the most skeptical may well question whether it has stood still, or languished, or proved a laggard in the industrial race.

The war fell upon it with peculiar hardship and most destructive effects. The cane-fields were not like the farms, wberethe soldiers ·with the horses that had borne them to battle turned the sod, and scattered the seed, and ripened grain stood ready for the harvest where cannonballs had plowed the earth and armies had fought and bled only a few months before.

With levees broken and destroyed and :fields open to devastation from the floods; with sugar-houses dilapidated or burnt down; with costly machinery broken or destroyed; with ditches overgrown with willows and fields set in weeds, briars, and young saplings; with seed cane scarce and almost impossible to obtain-for remember that it tn.kes nearly five tons of seed cane to plant a single acre-it was ihe work, sir, of years, not months, to get well under way again, even. It took time, I admit, and it took money. It took strong arms anu brave hearts. It took dauntless courage, untiring energy, and arduous toil by night and by day to rebuild this industry, but we have done it. We fought the floods and they have been conquered. We have overcome the ravages of war, and in our factories and our :fields have adopted such implements and machinery as Americ:,tn ingenuity has devised and our means have permitted us to adopt. We have contended with reductions in the tn.riff amounting actually to nearly 40 per cent., with constant threats in each recurring Congress of far more.

We have conte11ded with free trade from Oceanica and bounties from Europe, with productions of Hawaii and Chinese labor pouring in unrestrained on the one band, and exports from France and Germa.uy ·

3942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - MAY 10,

artificially stimulated on the other. We have contended with falling markets and furnished to the consumers of this country this season sugar at 51' cents for which they paid 15 in 1869.

With these difficulties in its re-establishment, with this reduction in the duties, with this competition with partial free trade and bounty, with this tremendous fall in the market, it might not have been remarkable if it had languished or stood still, or evengone back a little. But remarkable to say, it not only held its own, not only did not stand still, but actually increased in production during that period-from 1869 to 1887-310 per cent.

The gentleman from Indiana said: For one I am not willing to longer burden the people with this tax-to longer

levy by this method a tribute on every table in the land to protect this limited and sectional industry.

In these three lines or less it is remarkable what misleading sbtements and illogical conclusions are crowded in. He first assumes that there is or has been some special burden in this tnx which the other taxes paid by the tax-payer did not possess.

Sir, in an equitable adjustment of Governmen~ revenues this tax will only be a portion of the amount levied by the Government for its necessary support. The sugar duties that will still be left in part will certainly be no more burdensome, and very certainly less burdensome, than many that will remain. I ask, sir, is it true that universal tribute is levied, or ever has been levied, whose prime object bas been to protect this industry?

I fmnkly confess, Mr. Chriirman, that I am not an impartial judge in this matter. I go further and frankly confess that I take more interest in the maintenance of these duties because under their encouragement so many of my people earn their bread than because they give such revenues to the Government. That is human nature, and human nature is the same in Louisiana as it is elsewhere. My views may be bin.sed by a regard for the welfare of my people before any other considerations, but sir, before I finish I shall call in the testimony of other witnesses whose judgments have not been biased by such reasons as mine may have been.

I find, sir, that some of the truest patriots and wisest statesmen have urged the maintenance of these duties, because it was wise public policy to do so. They recognized the wisdom of this policy, because t.hey were among the simplest, the surest, the most easily collected, and the least burdensome to the tax-payer among all the sources of our revenues. Our people, through their representatives, could never have prevented the repeal of these duties up to now if the benefit to them had been the only factor or even the largest factor in their continuance.

Why, sir, have those who cert..1.inly have been moved by no local or selfish interests advocated the maintenance of these duties in large part, at least? Why did the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BLAND], who stands in constant guard against wasteful, and sometimes even against liberal expenditures of the people's money-who, as much as any living man, is ever ready to lift the burdens that the people bear-why did he, when the sugar duties were attacked by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE], rise in his place to speak a word in their defense? 'Vhy did that clear thinker and master mind in that school of politics to which the majority of this side the House belong, the late Secretary Manning, in his report of December 6, 1886, take the ground that the sugar duty was one of ''the cheapest and ~st taxes to retain?'' After citing briefly certain objections to the removal of internal taxation on whisky and tobacco-from which views on that subject, however, I beg le::~.ve to dissent-he says with some elaboration and minute detail:

The price of sugar has fallen to an exceedingly cheap rate. Our own sugar crop is so very small a part of the total amount of sugar we consume that sugar ranks next to articles we wholly produce abroad, like tea and coffee, in suitability for taxation on the gwund that its consumption is universal, that the tax is easily and cheaply collected, that the increased price paid by the consumers is an unconsidered trifle, and that what is taken from the tax-payers goes into the tax-payers' treasury, not into a few private bank accounts.

Like the casting away of the revenue from coffee and tea in 1872, the removal of the tax on sugar, which gives us our easiest and next to largest single item of revenue ($51,778,948) at an annual cost of less than 90 cents per head, is ,now pres ed forwA.rd to avert the repeal of other taxes which are desired t{) operat.e on incidental and private benefit by enhanced prices to the dOlilestie consumers of a large domestic product.

These incidental and private benefits, in fact, are subject to all tlle deductions I have already mentioned, and are subject to the chief deduction that the endea>or to make our tax laws exclude foreign competition in our home markets promotes the success of that competition, besides effectually preventing the sale of our surplus product, our labor prod net in foreign markets. But the incidental benefit of the sugar tax to our cane·sugar producers, who are under the harrow of beet-root sugar competition and German bounties, which have driven them to imputed processes and already lowered the price of sugar more than the whole tax, is not got by excluding foreign sugar, for the great bulk of our sweetening comes from climates more tropical than ours. Nor does it prevent our sales in foreign markets of import~d sugar refined and increased in value by tl}e processes of American labor.

Sir, the gentlemen that I have mentioned, and others of that school as honest, as sincere, as patriotic as they, have been animated by no selfish desire-as I am pardonable in having- to benefit the State of

. Louisiana. They recognized the fact that sugar duties furnish a greater ratio of revenue to the Government and a less ratio of tribute to the industry than any other article such as is produced in this c<mntry which

' isupon the whole dutiable list. The economists ofthat school remem-ber the fact t hat w hUe the Government received $58,000, 000 in revenue,

it increased the price on an amount of home production only one-ninth of the quantity imported nnder the tariff. That is to say that for every $9 of revenue it gave only $1 of protection. It certainly did not come within that category which bas just been denounced by a State convention in Wisconsin, which creates a dangerous surplus, and ''At the same time indirectly taxes the producer of the West for the sole benefit of protected manufacturers, $9 for every $1 that goes into the Treasury."

Motives of local interest may h:1\e had some share in the successful efforts to prevent the repeal of these duties, but, sir, the loftiest sentiments of the wisdom and of the patriotism of disinterested men have . had far more. Upon ibis question fue veriest extremes of political opinions have met in perfect accord. The gentlemen that I have mentioned, eminent as they are in one school of economics, reasoning from their point of view, have arrived at n. conclusion on this duty precisely the same as did the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], the great ma.Rter of the opposite school of economics, and reasoning from an entirely contrary standpoint from theirs.

This is corroborative testimony of the strongest kind to show wh.'l.t little justice there is in the assaults of the gentleman from Indi::~.na.

It may be said that this article which produces revenue with such facility to the Government and at the same time such small cost to the individual bad better be put on the free-list, because revenues are not now so much needed as curtailment. I think, sir, curtailment in taxation is what is wanted, at lea.st as much as curtailment in revenue. A curtailment in revenue does not mean necessarily a curtailment in taxation and might mean just the reverse. Revenues migbt be diminished by increasing taxation. And however necessary may be a reduction in revenue, it will not do to forget that such reduction should be made as would most benefit the tax-payer. He is a very important factor in this problem, and one that seems to be occasionally lost sight of.

I have called the attention of the gentleman f1·om Indiana before to the fact that the present tariff on sugar is very considerably below tbe war-tariff rate. I speak of the acts levied in 1864, when the Government expenses were at their highest. From 1864 to1870 the rate was 3 cents on the lowest grade and 5 cents on the highest, or an average of 4 cents per pound. The rate was reduced in 1870, increased in 1875, and reduced again in 1883, until now it is 1 4 cents on the lowest and 3! cents on the highest. It is, therefore, now 381 per cent. below the war-tariff rate, and the present bill proposes to reduce it still further, to 1.15 on the lowest and 2g on the highest, or a proposed average of 1.97! now, against an average of 4 cents, or more than 50 per cent. reduction over the average rates of the longest period of war-tariff ta-xation. Thus, sir, the wa.r tariff (1864 to 1870) per pound was more than 100 per cent. higher than is proposed under the schedules of the bill now under discussion. The rate of sugar duties under this bill has been so curtailed that the proposed reductions, added to the repeated reductions made already, have reached a point when it is a gra>e question with those engaged in the sugar industry whether their li\elibood will not be seriously jeopardized and whether our industry can be sustained under them. But whatever difficulties t.he future may have in store for us, we shall endeavor to meet them as they arise and overcome them if we can.

Sir, the sugar duties were levied under the first act that was passed after the adoption of the Constitution. _ E•en the gentleman from Indian::~. will hardly urge that they were levied and kept up for fourteen years for the benefit of Lonisian:1o when during these years she was in possession of foreign powers.

And yet, the :first tariff act levied an average duty of 2 cents per pound, which was increased by four successive enaetments untiliu 1812, when duty was placed at 5 cents for mw and 18 cents for refined, or an average of 11! cents per pound, and from then on until the lowtariffperiods, commencing in 1846, it averaged 6! cents per pound. E\-en throwing in the low-tariff periods; I am within bounds in saying that the average tariff on sugar of all the tariff bills affecting that article from 1789 to 1861 was, per pound, more than 200 per cent. higher thau it is in the schedules of the bill now before this House.

The gentleman from Indiana speaks of the sugar duties as ''this monstrous taxation.'' Let us see if it is. The Government needs about $320,000,000 per annum to run it. The tax-payers have to pay this amount by taxation, no matter what is put upon the free-list. If a part of this sum is paid in sugar duties. does that make the taxation any more "monstrous" than if it were paid in something else? Sir, the sugar tax is one that has commended itself to our legislators as a source of revenue ever since the foundation of the Government. It gives a large revenue and at the same time very little burden to the consumer outside of the necessity of his contribution to snpport the Goyernment. It costs less to collect than any other large Government revenue.

The rich use more thn.n the poor, thereby contributing a greater share of taxation, as they should, by the consumption of it, and I am at a loss to see, sir, on what just grounds it should be singled out as ''monstrous'' by the gentleman from Indiana .

Pity, sir, that Madison is not here to learn from the gentleman from Indiana [ .Mr. BROWNE] that the taxation which he first proposed is so "monstrous!" Pity that he lived and died without finding out what a wrong he bad done ! I would that I could summon, to learn wisdom

1888. ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 3943 from the lips of him who has made this startling discovery, the Senators and Hepresentatives of all the Congresses from 1789 to 1883 who have thought otherwise. Most of them are where no voice can reach them; but members who have served with honor in the Congresses of the later portion of that period are here to-day, and it is not too late for them to learn what a woeful mistake they made.

If the dead could be here with the living there would be witnesses that passed the acts of 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1794, 1795, 1797, 1800, 1804, 1807, 1808, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1832, 1836, 1841, 1842, 1846, 1857, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1870, 1872, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1882, 1883-all t.:1.xing or leaving taxed this article-making an array both in numbera and in statesmanship beside which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BRO~TE] would be as a grain of sand among the millions of the shore, or as a little twinkling star in all that bright army whose steady light decks with splendor the firmament of heaven. [Applause.]

All these hosts, the names of so many of whom our lips in childhood learned to can patriots and sages-if the views of the gentleman from Indiana are just-were dullards, who had mistaken their calling, or, by reason of instituting and maintaining a taxation so "monstrous," deserve to li•e in history, not as we know them now, but as tyrants and oppressors of their people! [Applause.]

And what, sil.-, is to be the remedy for this "monstrous taxation?" 1 ''Pay bounties,'' he says. Only add a little more taxation and make I it a little more "monstrous." If, sir, the sugar duties are singled out

I

to throw overboard and other duties maintained as hip;h as now, will the tax-payer be a gainer by that rather than by some more equitable plan of revenue reduction? The $320,000,000 will have to be raised to support the Government and high tariffs kept up on other

' things that are more oppressive to the people than the sugar duties have ever be~n. '' W c must adopt a method of protection less costly,'' he urges, and in the same breath proposes to increase the cost of Government by adding to taxation a few millions of bounties now, which would be far more as the ind ~try gets bigger. Add fresh millions to the $320,000,000 that the tax-payer will have to pay everi under remodeled tax laws. Make the tax-payer happy, the gentleman proposes; but how? In lightened burdens? No! But by still more indulgence in that delightful occupation in which be is already such an adept, going down in his pocket for more! [Applause.]

Sir, this bounty plan will never pass Congress, or would never be , maint..'lined if it did, by the representatives of a people who could clailn with equal right bounties on wheat or corn, on mules or hogs or bacon. Sirs, on the part of my people I thank you for such :portion of your proffered charity as might have been meant for us. However well meant your intentions may be, we are not asking to be made the beneficiaries of any class legislation. We can not ask that ourselves, our families, and the maintenance of our pursuits shall be placed as burdens upon the shoulders of this American people. They have burdens enough upon them now, and I or mine do not care t6 add one jot or

I tittle nlOre ! If these plans are suggested to encourage and build up a great nn

tionalsugar industry, ofwhieh beets on the Pacific Coast and sorghum in Kansas and elsewhere are to be large components in the future, they will woefully fail of their object. ~ven if you gentlemen were sue· cessfnl in the first part of your proposition and could rapeal the sugar duties, I do not believe the American people would ever consent th::i.t you should substitute bounties in their stead, building up and maintaining thereby a :favored class by contri}}utions from the pocket3 of every tax-payer in the land. Sir, the present system of duties can encourage the different branches of the sugar industry, and there is no need to devise a new plan of encouragement, 'Vhich is open to the objections whieh this proposed plan bas, and which, in the manner that has been suggested~ has not even the justification of present Europ~an example.

Sir, thU,article bas ever been a fa-vorite subject of revenue, not only here but abroad. In an our years of peace, in all om: years of war it has performed no mean part in the support of the Government.

Gentlemen may say tlL.'\t the need for the collection of these large revenues is past. It is not past, sir, until the Government with its tremendous expenses is ready to go on without cos~. From 1789 to 1846: when governmental expenditures were onJy an a•erage of less than one-tenth what they are now, these duties were conside-red just and wise at an average rate per pound 300 :per cent. higher t.han they are now. Sir, the war has indeed gone. and its angry thunders hushed, I trust for generations to come, but the obligations of its plighted faith are here to. its credito.rs on the one h:mu and to its valiant defenders on the other.

The need for these duties, or at any rate such portion of them which this bill proposes to retain, is not past while we have our rivers to impro,c, our harbor-5 to deepen, our IY.lvies to build, our sen.coast to defend, and a government to uphold nnd support in its beneficent functions for the weJfure of its people and the honor and glory of its flag.

Destroy tl1is industry if you ,\·ill, gentlemen of th~t new creed, the "selected protection'' fuith, aml the Goverumer.t will go on at no lees cost than now.

Destroy this industry if you will and drive to distress the people who earn their brea.d in its pursuit, and give, instead, the glowing figures of your rhetoric, ·~md your apostrophes to a prosperity which will be gone. Abolish this duty under whose encouragement our forests have been felled, our lands reclaimed, our factories erected, and our fields made to support a population as numerous, I believe, in proportion to the area of cultivation as is supported by any other agricultural section in America-a source of revenue in war and peace alike, which all parties have found wise, expedient, and just, from the time of Washington, without a single exception, until now.

Destroy it, sir, if you will, and if you think to lighten the burdens upon the shoulders of the people by abolishing this tax and maintaining instead, unimpaired, others that are far more burdensome to the people, you will be grievously mistaken. Sir, those interested in sugar culture in Louisiana have never asked the imposition of any needless burdens on the tax-payers of this country in order that they might be benefited thereby. The revenue needs and wa.nts of the Government will afford incidental encouragement, if properly adjusted, to every existing industry dependent for successful maintenance upon the continuance of a tariff, ours among the rest.

Forget the precepts of Jackson, that we should produce in this country everything essential to our national independence, and learn no experience from the fact that the cause to which was due the origin of the culture of sugar in France was that in time of war the price went up to $1.25 a pound.

Unbar our doors to Cuba; and let her chief product pour in withou~ a hinderance. Little matter if under the guns of ::M:oro Castle our corn, our bacon, our hams, and our flour are made to pay tremendous tribute to the depleted treasury" of Spain.

Open wide our gates to the beet sugars of Germany and France, nnd send our hard-earned moneys across the sea to enrich the farmers there. What matters it to our own farmers if the products of their fields ara restricted by high tariffs at the pmts of those countries and some that are most valuable are not restricted only, but outlawed and forbidden to come in?

Unlearn, sir, the lesson that the wise Government experiments have lately taught, that the capacity of this Government for sugar production is not confined to the lands which lie along our Southern Gulf. Shut up the little fountain of supply which is trickling forth inN ew J erEey, and which may be destined to prove, to that State, the beginning of a veritable Rio Grande-a great river of wealth and comforts and blessinp;s to her people.

Shut your ears to the sounds that come from Kans.."tS, whose peoplewith an energy and nn intelligence which di.fficnltiea have not daunted, and 1·epeated failures have not discouraged-seem at last to have been successful in their efforts to found a new industry in that State.

Ignore, if you choose, the climatic advantages of Florida and the preparations now commenced to develop her resources, the steady increase of production in Louisiana, the rapid strides now being made in Texas both in improved cultivation and i~proYed manufacture, nnd the efi()l't to do what has never before been done in the world-to grow a.nd manufacture two sugar-producing plants, sugar-cane and sorghum, side by side in the same factory and in adjoining fields. Blind your eyes, to the bright prospects which seem in store for the States upon our Pacific coast in following that pursuit, and cease to remember that California haS long demonstrated her capacity for beet-sugar production, and now seems about to show her plains will produce in time from beets far more than her mountains gave up in gold.

Destroy this industry if you will, and constituents -whom I know of members on this floor from other States than mine will rue its destruction. Green vales of Kentucky, coal-mines of Pennsylvania, cornfields of Kansas, flour-mills of Minnesota-workshops and foundries of. Boston and New York, of Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Toledofurmers and mechanics of more than twenty-five States will then find one large purchaser of their products blotted from off the industrial map.

This industry, so different from others that we have, gives life to trade because it is so different. It diversifies agriculture, quickens commerce, builds up manufhctures. Wheat-fields ripen for it, wheels fly round for it, lathes revolve and anvils ring, and liquid metal is poured into useful f01'-ms for it. To carry its products rail-cars speed on laud and steam-boats plow tbe rivers and great ocean ships breast the seas.

Adopt this course, and hard may be the lot for years to come, not only of our;selves, but of others dependent in some measure on our existence whose injury you little dream of now. The distress will not stop with us. The ripple on the pond where some object falls spreads fast to the shore which is farthest from the spot where its stillness was firat broken. Many will go away and engage in other pursuits. The avocations now so full will have thousands more clamoring for work, and the laboring man far from Louisiana may yet feel the hardship of the bitter competition of others whose employment is gone for his daily occupation and his bread. Some would go West to raising wheat and corn; others to the States around to raising cotton. Hoist the farmer's flag, 0 Representative from Minnesota [!l!r. NELSOY], and inscribe upon it: ''Longlivecompetitors! Down with consumers! Morecorn; more

· ...

3944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. M.A.Y 10,

•wheat! This is our pressing need; our want long felt! Grow corn cheap enough not only to make the food., but to make the fire to cook it by; wheat cheap enough to undersell the Indian helot in the markets of his empress!" -

Strike down this industry if yon will, gentlemen of the" selected protection" faith! Put out its blazing furnaces; silence its busy sounds; devote its emerald fields to devastating floods and its dense population to distress; but the tall smoke-stacks of its factories will remain as lasting mo!luments to your lack of wisdom and of statesmanship, and mayhap, indeed, of humanity !

But think not that you can offer destruction in the one baud and prosperity in the other. You can not give life and death toget-her. Think not, sirs, to satisfy the qualms of conscience for an abandonment of principle by talking of bounties. The two systems of taxation that we have are one too many now. Pause long before yon try to write a third upon our statutes.

And seek to found no favored class by means of new bunfens upon the people. It were better fur by some wise plan, bringing relief to all and ruin to none, to join in some patriQtic effort to try and take the burdens off, not pile them on. [Great applause.]

[Ur. BRUMM withholds his remarks for revision. See APPENDIX.] Mr. BLAND. I would like t.o ask the gentleman to aru;wer the

question that I proposed to him. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is entitled to the

floor. [ 1\lr. CLEMENTS withholds his remarks for revision. See APPENDIX. J The CHAIRMAN. The hour has arrived at which the Committee of

the Whole, by order of the House, must rise. Mr. CLEMENTS. I desire to say that I yield the residue of my time

to my colleague [Mr. CANDLER]. The committee rose; and :Mr. McMILLIN having taken the chair as

Speaker pro tempore, Mr. SPRINGER reported thattheCommittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had had under consideration the tarift' bill, and had come to no resolution thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A message from the Senate, by :Mr. :McCooK, its Secretary, announced

that the Senate bad passed with amendments the bill (H. R. 1923) providing for the est..'tblishment of a life-saving station at the harbor of Kewaunee, Wis., asked a conference with the House on the bill and amendments, and had appointed as conferees on the part of the Senate Mr. PALMER, Mr. DOLPH, and Mr. GIBSON.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed witbout amendment bil1s of the following titles:

A bill (H. R. 339) for the relief of J. E. Pilcher; and .A. bill (H. R. 671) for the relief of the heirs of JohnS. Fillmore, de

ceased. The message also announced that the Senate had passed a joint reso

lution and bills of the following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

Joint resolution (S. R. 62) in recognition of the services of Joseph Francis;

A bill (S. 129) for the erection of a public bailding at Chester, Pa.; and

A bill {S. 554) to amend Title LX, chapter 3, of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

And then {the honr of half past 5 o'clock b:.tving arrived) the House, in pursuance of its previous order, took a recess until 8 o'clock p . m.

EVENING SESSION. The recess ha..ving expired, the House was called to order at 8 o'clock

p. m. by Mr. 1\Ic:liiLL:U , who directed -the reading of the following communication:

SPEAKER's RooM, HousE OF REPRJ[.SE::.TATIVES, May 10,1888. Hon. BEXTON M c1\1ILLIN, of Tennessee, is hereby designated to preside as

Speaker pro tempore at the evening session to-day. JOHN G. CARLISLE, Speaker.

lion. JoHN B . CLARK, Clerk House of Represen'atives.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. :l'tir. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of bills raising revenue.

'l'h~ motion was agreed to. TARIFF.

Tho House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, :l'tfr. SPRINGE& in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The House is in Committee of the Whole for the cousideration of a bill the title of which the Clerk will now read.

The Clerk read as follows: A bill (H. R. 9051) to reduce L<txation and to simplify the laws in relation to

the collection of the revenue. Tbe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. YARD

LEY] bas the floor. Mr. YARDLEY. Before proceeding I desire to yield fifteen minutes

of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BELDEN]. Mr. BELDEN. Mr. Chairman1 a glance at the provisions of this bill

would indicate that this wonderful production of star-chamber gestation ha-d been conceived in malice and brought forth in hatred of the institutions and the manufacturing establishments of the Northern States. I find by a careful perusal of the bill that as far as it was possible to do so the framers of this wonderful measure have:maintained the protction which the tariff affords to the principal industries of the South, and have allowed the Northern States to whistle for the breeze of protec· tion . . In the original bilJ, concocted by the majority of the Ways and Mea.ns Committee, the tariff on sugar was cut quite severely. Then came a cry from Louisiana, "We shall lose the State."

The State election was close at hand, and fears were entertained of tho effect of the first step towards free tra-de upon the future of the Democratic party. There was a conference, and as a consequence when the bill appeared in the Hous(' again we find that the sugar schedule has been fixed up so as to be less objectionable to the Louisiana sugar· planters. Here, Mr. Chairman, is a tax which is borne directly by every l10usehold in the land. It is a direct tax upon the consumer and has absolutely nothing to commend it, aside from the protection which it affords to the few planters of Louisiana who are b·ying to fly in the face of Providence and to force from the soil of the United States what it is incapable of producing, namely, a sufficient quantity of cane-sugar to supply the home dem::t.nd.

The sugar tax, Mr. Chairman, is about the only tax on imports which comes solely and directly out of the pockets·of the people, and the reason is that nine-tenths of all the sugar used in the United States to-day is imported, against one-tenth which is produced in this count1·y. Yet, sir, I fail to find in the wonderful message submitted by the President to this Congress one word or suggestion for the removal of this tax which, as my friend from Illinois LMr. CANNON] pointed out to-day, amounts to upwa,rds of $1 per capita per annum for the entire population. I have li tened with a great deal of attention to the speakeTs on the other side of this Chamber, but up to the present time I have failed to hear one -of them arise and advocate the abolition of ·~he tax upon sugar.

I have failed, too, to hear the first gentleman from the Southern Stn.tes advocate the repeal of the duty upon rice. Rice is another Southern product, and the rice industry can scarcely be said to l>e of the "infant" variety. Rice, 1't1r. Chairman, is a, si.c'1ple food product which enters largely into the domestic economy of nearly every family in the United States. The tax upon rice is borne by l~e poor man (if the theory that the tariff is paid by the consumer is well founded), for the pooT man uses more rice than the rich one. The tariff on rice benefits a few thqusand Southern planters, and is another tax upon the break1ast-ta.ble. The protection afforded by the tariff has not served to stimulate production to such an extent as to bring the inevitable reduction in price which competition has invariably brought in the cas~ of every manufactured product protected by the tariff.

Sugar, rice, and salt, Mr. Chairman, are necessities in every house· hold. Sugar and rice are taxed to the extent of 2 cents per pound and upwards by the Mills bill. The removal of the duties on sugar and rice would go a long way towards wiping out our surplus and would be a relief to the consumers of those products. Salt at present pays :1 duty of less than one-twelfth of 1 cent per pQund 1 yet the framers of this bill propose as a remedy for the gorged Treasury to remove the du ty of onetwelfth of 1 cent per potmd on salt and to allow the duties on sugar and rice to remain practically undisturbed. Yet when we consider that this measure was prepared by the eight Democrats of the Ways and l\Jeans Committee, and that of the eight, six are from the Southern States, and that New York, New England, and theothergreatmanufacturingStates, . except only Pennsylvani:11 were entirely ignored when the majority of the committee was selected, it is not surprising that the protection afforde~ by the tariff to the States of the South is to be maintained, e>en if the Northern manufacturing interests are all wiped from the face of the earth.

I desire to appeal to this Honse in behalf of a large sectioft. of my district. The manufacture of !"al_t, Mr. Chairm'an, is one of the oldest industries in the United States, and Syracuse is one of the first places on this continent in which the production of salt was begun. It is not, as is claimed for many of the industries of this country, a mere infant, but it has been carried on for more than one hundred years by the Indians and by the w bites in the vicinity of the city in which I li \e. It is argued that the tax upon salt is a burden upon the American people; yet,- Mr. Chairman, it is a tariff so light that I doubt if there is a tax in existence to-day which is borne with so little sense of burrleu as this one. Statistics show the average consumption of salt in the United States to be 50 or 60 pounds per capita. The tariff upon salt is only 8 cents per hundred pounds, so that it will be seen that the tariff, even if we admit for the sake of argument that it is paid by the consumer, does not a.mount to more than 5 cents per annum for each individual.

The President, in his annual message, said:

These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise t-he price to consumers o: oll articlt>s imported and subject to duty by precisely-the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who nurcbnse for use these imported articles. * -* * Those who buy imports pay tho duty charged thereon into the public Treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3945 But is the tariff paid by the consumer? I claim that in this in

stance, at least, it is not. On the contrary, the foreign shipper pays t.'lx upon the salt which he sells in the American market in order that he may enjoy the benefits of this market. That this is true seems to be amply demonstrated in the fact that the salt manufacturer of Syracuse, in spite of the protection which the tariff affords, sells his product. SJ near its actual cost that he really loses the interest on his entire imesiment instead of making a profit.

There was manufactured at Syracuse last year over 6,000,000 bushels of salt, which sold at an average price of 7.84 cents per bushel, making the price, after the passage of this hill-if the President is correct-3.34 cents per bushel. What nonsense!

In this connection I can only say that if the amount of tax paid upon a hundred pounds of salt is really born&by the consumer, it would follow that the protective benefit of the tax: would accrue in part to the owner of the salt works. It would seem, too, that the price of salt per pound would have increased since the tariff was adopted.

l\Ir. ·McCREARY, of Kentucky, in speaking of salt, in his recent remarks on the measure under discussion, said:

The salt manufacturers of this country are protected by a duty on imported foreign salt equal to about 100 per cent. This has had the effect of building up a number of wealthy and powerful companies.

Salt is a raw material in c!J.eese-making, butter-making, and in meat-packing-three interests that exceed the salt-making interest tenfold-but our tariff policy forbids our dairymen and meat-packers from buying cheap imported suit, and compels them to buy from the prot.ected home manufacturers in New York, Michigan, and Ohio, at a price which is nearly doubled by the tariff duty. ~

Yeti will show by testimony which can not be refuted that instead of the enormous profit of 8 cents per 100 pounds-for this profit would be considered enormous at the present time-our manufacturers have not made a dollar during the last three years, and the entire difference in the amount received from the refined product in excess of the cost of the brine and the charge for transportation and packing, went to the laborers in the salt fields and works. -

Before the policy of protection wa.'l adopted the price of salt ranged in the vicinity of 40 cents per bushel. To-day it is sold at less than 8 cents per bushel of 56 pounds.

If the tariff tax has been added to the price of the salt itself, will some gentleman upon the other side-some one of the majority of the Ways and Means Committee-tell this House by what arithmetical calculation the addition of 4~ cents, the tax on a bushel of salt, to 40 cents, the price before the present tariff was adopted, can be made to equalS cents?

The truth is, sir, that the discovery of fresh deposits of salt in one pla~e after another in this country, the improved methods of production, and constant, ever-growing desire on the part of manufa-Cturers to increase the supply, are more than sufficient to keep the price down to such a figure that there can be no danger of oppression.

Ten years ago, Mr. Chairman, the only s..1.lt works in the State of New York were found in the neighborhood of Syracuse. In the year 1878 the Onondaga district produeed a total of 7,1761197 bushels of all grades of salt. A.t that time the Warsaw field had not heen developed. In 1886 the total product of the same district was 6, 101,757 bushels, and to this must be added 6,056,060 bushels as the output of the Warsaw, N.Y., district, which has in ten years grown to beoneofthegreat salt regions of this country. I am advised also that a new deposit of salt has just beendh:covered in New York State. A. well sunk at Ithaca has traversed through 27 feet of solid salt of excellent quality.

If the present tariff is allowed to remain undisturbed this new field will doubtless add millions of bushels of salt each year to the production of the State, and it certainly will not serve to increase the price to the consumer. There is no ''crying demand'' for the removal of the present duty. It is not an onerous tax; it is not felt by any one; it does not cause the slightest distress; it does not increase the price of salt consumed by the average .American citizen to the extent of one cent a year. It simply acts as a bar to the unlimited dumping upon our shores of the cheap product of the poorly-paid laborers of Ubeshire and continental Europe.

I speak, Mr. Chairman: for the benefit of the laboring men of my district. 'I"here are employed in the salt industry in Onondaga County upwards of one thousand five hundred persons, who depend for a living upon their earnings in these salt fields. Many of these men -were born salt-makers. Their fathers occupied similar positions before them. They are not imported laborers brought here to drive out honest American citizens who have struck against oppression. They are not tramps and loafers who have no interests-at stake. They are as bard-working, as honest, and as industrious a class of people as can be foand in the United States to·day. Many of them have succeeded in saving enough from their earnings to buy small houses. It is not cant when I a. crt positively that tl).e removal of the duty upon salt to-day would entirely close up every salt well in the State of New York.

The reservation upon which the. salt springs are found in Onondaga County is owned by the State. Each manufacturer pays to the State 1 cent per bushel for each bushel of salt produced. It costs our people nearly 7 cents per bushel to manufacture salt. A. bushel of salt weighs 56 pounds. The actual cost of the salt at the wells, therefore, without transportation charges, is, approximately, $2.75 per ton. It is shown by the statement of the importers of English salt, who are a:sking that

this uuty be repealed, that:salt can be produced in Cheshire, England, for 54 cents per ton. The difference in cost between English salt and that produced in Syracuse is paid entirely to the laboring population and the three thousand five hundred people who are employed in our Stat~, and who must of necessity he deprived of their employment if this protcti ve tariff is to be removed.

I appeal to the chairman of the Ways and l\feans Committee, and ask him whether free salt under these circumstances would be consistent with his extreme solicitude about the poor man's blankets, upon which his bill imposes a uniform duty of 40 per cent. I appeal to his colleagues on that committee, l\Iessrs. BRECKINRIDGES, TURNER, \VILSO:N, ScoTT, and McUrLLL.~, not to wipe out this only protection which thereisforthe people who are dependent upon thisindustryfor their living. I sa,y to them, will you sweep away all protection from this product, of w bich 90 per cent. of the cost is the labor, and retain a duty of 2 cents per pound upon such necessary articles of food as sugar and rice, agricultural products of Democratic Southern Rtates, while the Northern agricultural products, with which the Cana1ians can compete, arc put on the free-list?

The employes of the salt-works in my district, Mr. Ch:..irman, are largely Democratic; and I feel that my colleagues from New York City, who are put down among those certain to vote for this bill, will not go so far as to deprive the people who are employed in the manufacture of this staple in Onondaga County of the protection which insures them their wages. It would be absolutely impossible to continue the manufacture of salt in competition with the English products if the t..1.riff is removed. Salt can be placed in New York City to-day, brought over, asitfreqnentlyis, asballastin ocean steam-ships, atalessprice than tho manufacturers of Syracuse cau place it there. This is due primarily to the fact that the British salt is manufactured for less than one-fifth of the cost of the New YorK State salt. The transportation from Syracuse to New York costs more than from Liverpoolto New York, for the simple reason that ocean steam-ships coming west for cargoes are com· pelled to carry ballast, and they find salt more remunerative than sand.

I would call the attention of my friends upon the other side to the statement which I shall submit with this, coming from one of the bestknown men in our State, theHon. George F. Comstock, ex-chief-justice of the court of appeals, whose probity has never been questioned, and the only thing that has ever been said against whom is that he has been used as a figure-head to give respectability to Democratic meetings.

Of the company which he designates as the Dairy Company, he was the founder, and he has been connected with the salt-producing interests of the State for upwards of twenty-five yea.rs. Judge Comstock bas kept himself thoroughly posted upon the subject of the labor and material used in the purification of common salt for purposes of the dairy ~nd the table, and is as familiar as any man in the State of New York with the items of expense in producing salt.

He says that there never was a more baseless assumption than that American producers of this article are unreasonably prosperous through their exactions upon the public. Accompanying the affidavit which b,e submits herewith be produces another signed by Thomas Molloy and John W. Barker, both Democrats, who have been identified with the same interest, and for whose veracity and trustworthiness he absolutely vouches. These men positively swear that for the preceding three·years the net receipts per bushel at the works was 6.617 of a, cent, after deducting the expense of sale and the State duty on salt, which is 1 cent per bushel, packing, etc. Tha actual cost of producing such salt was 6. 67 cents per bushel, making an actual net loss on every bushel produced. It would seem to need no demonstration therefore, l\Ir. Chairman, that the entire c6st of the salt, exclusive of the amount p:1id to the State for the use of the brine, has been paid to the laborers who worked in the salt factories and fields.

It is very natural, sir, that the foreign produ~s of salt should de· sire to strike down all the barriers which prevent the free admission of the· -products of their salt wells into the United States. The United Stat.es consumes at present about 1,500,000 tons of salt per annum, of which about one-third is now importedfromabroad. A.largequantity of this imported product comes in because of the erroneous impression that British salt is better than the American product. British fine table salt sells to-day in the markets of the United States for a price far in advance of the American salt of the same grade, even when the import duty is allowed. The reason for this is that some people in this country imagine that everything British is better than the American articles. The truth is, 1\Ir. Chairman, that the American salt manufacturers to day can prod nee dairy and table salt equal in every respect to that manufactured in England or anywhere else. This is demonstrated in the statements of the importers themselves, who complain that some .American manufacturers put their salt up in bags identical in every respect with the bags used by the British manufacturers and no one can tell the difference.

In all tests which ha.-e been made wherein the .American salt has come into competition with the foreign article, the .American mann· facturer has invariably come out ahead. In the four years between 1851 and 1854 the United States Government instituted a series of tests of the preservative qualities of Onondaga solar salt, as compared with

3946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD=HOUSE. MAY 10,

" the salb from Turk's Island. Three hundred barrels of pork were pa.cked with salt of lloth descriptions. The hogs were especially fut· tened and split in two, half of each hog being. treated ·with foreign salt, and the other half with Onondaga salt. The pork was shipped to difterent Army posts, and in nearly every instance the officer in command testified that the meat preserved by the aid of native salt was sweeter, better in appearance, more economical in the boiling7 and more acceptable to the soldiers.

In my remaTks I have referred to the salt industries of my own districts more frequently than to those of J).lichigan, Louisiana, or some of the other States where salt is produced~ because I know more of the facts relating to the Onondaga salt industries than I do of those in any of the other sections. Further than this, my district would be mme disastrously affected by 1he removal of the duty upon foreign salt th::::n would the salt interest of Michigan, for the reason that we are nearer the seaboard and consequen~Jy come into closer competition with the Liverpool s!llt brought over here as ballast than do the Uichiga.n manufootnrera.

I have said before, Mr. Chairman, that the removal of the duty, small as it is, npon salt would disastrously affect and probably wipe out the production of this commodity in the State of New York. I base my assertion in this respect upon well-known facts. For instance,- in the year 1802 there was in,vested in Bn.rnstable County, Massachusetts, $130,000 of capital in the salt industry. This investment paid a profit of 25 per cent. under the duty then collected, which was 20 cents per bushel, the duty having been increased in 1798 from 12 to 20 cents o. bushel, with an additional 10 per cent. when brought to this country in foreign vessels. In 1807 this duty was repealed, and was not reimposed nntil1813. From 1807, the year in which Congress enacted the legislation repealing the duty on salt, up to 1813 the product of the Massachusetts- salt-works steadily declined until it had almost entirely disappeared. From 1813, under the protection of the tariff of that year, the industry revived and extended stea~lily from year to year until1830, when the duty was again reduced, and from that time forward th.e pro-

. duction of salt seems to have steadily diminished. Our laborers to-day receive from $1.12~ to $2.50 a day, according to

the characterofthe work performed and the skill required. The highest wages· are of course paid for njght work. If you insist upon passing this bill in its present fo~ the result must be the reduction of wages in New York State to something like 75 cents per !lay in order to meet the cut. It is not likely that the men could afford to work at this rate of starvation wages. While they are contented and happy at present, they would be compelled to seek other employment if forced to the rutematiYe of accepting the lowerwage OT quitting the business. Consequently we may predict with absolute certainty that to repea1 the duty on salt will close up the great number of salt m~nufactories in _Tew York State.

Right here I call the attention of this House to the import::mce of the industry. The following tables, taken from the '"'1\Iineml Resources of tlie United States for the year1886," published by the Geological Snrvey~ gives the ·production. of the salt wells in the Onondaga district for tne past one- hundred years. They show, Mr. Chairman, that the industry has been steadily maintained and trm.t it has continued to furnish em_ployment fo:r a century to a large number of indnstrious and useful citizens. The following is a; statement of the number of bushels of salt made at the Onond:agn. sa.lt springs sin.ce June 20, 1797, the date of the fiistlease: · ·

Prail:Lretio17; o-j tlte tJn.ondctga diJH:rie-f, 1797 to 18861 inclusiue.

[Bushels of 56 pounds.]

TotaL

Production of tlle Onondaga district, etc.-Continued.

Yem-s. Solar.

Bushels. 182G ........ -,·-·-··-·--····-··-·-····-·· ...... -·-·-· .............. .. 1827 .••.•. - ••• .••..•.. ····-···········--···············- ·······-· ····-··· .••.•••.. 1828 .................... _. ........................... ............ ... ................ .. 182!) ............................ ..................................... .. ............... . 1830 .............................. ....................... · ...... . _ ..... .-............. . 1831. ......................................... ..... - ................ ·················· 1832 .................................................................................. . 1833 ................................................................ , ·······--·····-· 1834 ....................................... .................. ......................... . 1835 ............................................................. - .. ··········-···"· 1836 ................................................................................ . 1837 .................................................................. , .... ...... ..... . 1838.-. .. - . ............ - ............... ............ ...... ...... ......... ........... .

~:g :::: :·:::::: :::::~::~~::: ::::::::: :::::::.~~:~ :::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::

ll~I:I1i!f[~!:~~~;::l-i}]"!~:. Iii 1881. ................... ··········-··· ............. ~······ ... •.••.. 3, 011,4.61

i"::+;.:ii.+J::f:B~::=:=L;~::~~+t:~s ~i§

Fine.

Bushels. 811,023 983,410

1,16(};888 1,129,280 1,435,44& 1,5£4,037 1,652, 9!15 1,833,646 1,943,252 1,209,867 1,912,858 2,167,287 2,5'75,033 2, 864,718 2,622,30& 3,120,520 2,128,882 2,800,395 3, 671, 13! 3,408, 903 3,507,146 3, 68 476 4,394, 629 4,705, 831 3, 8!J4, 1S7 4,235,150 4,288, 938 4,826,571 5,068,873 5,584, 761 5,257,4.19 3,830,846 5,518,665 6,5<19, 250 4,130,682 5,315.694 7,070,852 6,504, 7'1.7 5,407, 712: ~,499,1i0 5,180,320 5,323,673 6,639,126 6,804,290 6, 260,422 5,910,492 6,0lB,321 5, 768,998 4.,361, 932 4.,523,491 3, 083, 9!)8. 3, 902,648 4.,387,443 5,364',418 &, 482, 265- ' 4,900,775 5, 3fll, 733 5,053,();){ 4,588,410 4,4.94,967 3,329,409

Totn.:t

lJw;hels. 81l,023 983,410

]!,100,.888 1.129,280 1,431},446 1,514',037 1,653, 985 1, 838,646 1,943,252 1,209,8G7 1, 912,&58 2,167,287 2,575,033 2, 864:,718 2,622,305 3,340, 767 2,291,903 3",127,500 4,083,552 3, 762,358 3,83&,851 3,951,335 4.,7'if1,126 5,083,569 4, 268,.919 4,614.117 4,92:!.533 5,404,52<1 5,803,347 6,082,885 5, 966,810-4,312,12 7,033,219 6,894,272 5,592, 2-17 7,200,391 9,053,'874 7,9-12,383 7,378,834 6,385, 930 7, 158,503 7,595,565 R,666,616 8,662,237 8, 748,113 8,374, 956 7, 930,925 7,460,857 6,029,300 7,179.446 5,3.92, 677 6,427, 983 7,176,197 8, 322,162 7,998,750 7, 911,236 8,340,180 7,497,431 6, 942', 270 6, 934,299 6,101, 757

From the same source I take a mble of the average price per barrel of' Micbjgan salt for-twenty-one years. This will show conclusively I think, tha;t the existing tariff, instead of increasing the cost of salt to the consumer1 has, by judiciously fostering the production and by the wise protection afforded against the foreign product, caused a steady decline in price, until now it has reached the point where a barrel of 5 bushels can be bought for 46 cents, exclusive of the package.

A1:erage price of MieAigan. salt in, di.jfe1·ent yem·s1 1866 to 188&, inelusit·e.

Yewrs. Price pel: barrel . . · Years. Pricepe~·

barrel. ------~------------I·~------H-------------------~-------

1 1860 ••, • ••n' .,. •, ••, • • .. • ••" ,.__"'on •·•

Bushels. l:B57 ····-····~~-·m••···-----· 51. so 1877 .................................... . 1. 77 1878. ____ ~··--···-·········-·

Sl-85 .85

25,474 . 1868 ···~········--·--~--·-··--- 1. 8.> 187!) .. ............... - .................. . L02 .75 .85 .75 .Sl .75 .90 .66

59', 928 1869 .................................... ~ 42,704 1870 .................................... ..

1.58 1880 ...................... .. ........... . 1.32 1881. ................................... .

50.000 1871-····--·············~· .. ·-~·· 62,000 1872 ·-·•-•••n•••••----··-····-· ';.5, 000 . 1&73' ·~··-··--·· .. ··-··-·-"·····

1,4;6 1882 .. ·-···--··~·--· ................ . 1.46 1883 ........... - •. - ... - ............. . L37 1884 .. ................................. .

90, 000 18'T4 .............................. - ...•.. L19 18S5 ................................... . 100,000 18';5- .......................... ; ........... . L 10 1886. ...... - .......................... . 154,071 1876 __ ......... -···----~-·· 1.05 1!32,577 175,44:8 319,618 128,282 450,000

. 200 000 m; ou ~.ooo 2'.1.3,000 3"...2,0DS 348,665 4.08,665 406,540 548,374 4.58,329 526,049 481,562 72G, 988 816,634 757,203

It is argued by the advocates of this bill tllat its passage would secure cheaper articles to the consumer. This argument is an absolute fullacy as far as it relates to salt. The history of the salt industrydlll'ing the last eighty-five years, :Mr. Chairman, shows conclusively tna.t American salt can oo supplied far more cheaply tium foreign salt. The immediate effect of the removal of the tariff would be, perhaps, a lower retail price, but this would not. long remain; just so soon as American manufactories had been closed up the price of the foreign product would ad vance once more. The foreign manufacturer sells his piOduct

· at cnst or below cost so long as competition exists; when that comnetition bas been killed off hls prices inevitahlyadvance.

Tile British manuiacturer is always. om: opponent; the policy of om British friend.<; has always. been to 1.-:ill off competition and then to monopolize the market at figures to suit themselves.

. ~

,·

•

I

' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3947 Mr. Chairma~ I have confined myself mainly to thls single industry will not mre to try the experiment of bettering themselves with lower

because it more closely affects the people of my district than it does'the wages. You gentlemen who have expended your eloquence in advoconstituents of any other member of this House; but I would be derelict eating this bill are vainly striving to gain "\Otes from the men who to the welfare of the people I represent if I should neglect to call the blow that your theories are unsound. They have intelligence enough attention of this House to the destmctive, inequitable, inconsistent, to vote for their interests, and I tell you here and now that they will and sectional provisions of this bill. · never indorse the men who ask their suffrages after voting to J:educe It is proposed to radically reduce the import duty upon window- their earnings.

glass, which is now sold at a bare fraction of profit above the cost of the Now, Mr. Chai.."'Dan1 I will present to the considerntion of this Houso labor and material used in its manufacture. If this schedule is adopted the affidavit of Judge George F. Co~tock and others, to which I bethe result will be that even with a reduction of 30 per cent. in the wages fore alluded. It is an argument in i tself against the proposed reducof the employes of the glass factories of Syracuse, the imported glass tion, substantiating in a m:mner that can not be refuted every statemade by the underpaid mechanics of Europe will drive our American ment I have made and proving beyond all question that domestic salt product out of the market. is now being and for years has been sold in New York for less than the

It is the fashion on the other side of this Chamber to tradnee and cost of production. villify the enterprising men of this country who chose trade rather than STATE oF NEW YoRK. County of Onondaga, ss : the profession of the law as a means of livelihood. Yet it is these men George F. Comstock, of the city of Syracuse, i:n said county and State, declares who have built up this country, and it is to them that Syracuse, my upon oath as follows: h 1 f h · I · h I have resided in said city fifty-three years, and for more than fifty years I

orne city, owes a arge measure o er prospenty. tIS tot em, too, have practiced in my pzofession ofthelawcontinuously,saveandercepta. term that is due the credit of the low prices which prevail in all the com- of six years when I was judge and chief judge of the cou1·t of appeals in said modi ties. We have heard a great many absurd statements relative to State, and one or twoshmter periods when I held public office. . . th d t hi h t th h f I thi a th oth More thrul forty years ago I came to be the possessor of a conSldera.ble Inte.r

. e a ~an ages W C ~ccrue o epurc aser O ~ O nt:o O~ e er estinthema.nufa.ctl.lXeofsalHromthebrine,belongingtotheStateofNewYork, Side of the ocean. It IS true that the finer grades of clothmg may be ~ which are found by the sin1..'-i:ng of artesian wells npon the lands of the State bought for less money in London than in t. he cities of the United States. situated in and contiguous to. the said cr':ty, the snid brine!! having been rt?serv~d B t · ll th d th Am · reh has t d taa and excepted when the State sold such lands or any portion thereof, which sard

u m a 0. er gra ~ e encan pu aser a grea, a van .,e. wells are now usually sunk to the depth of about 400 feet•. He can buym the Umtecl States clothmgthatforappearanee and work- It has been thecgstom of the State u:nde~ its law to sink these wells and to manship is infinitely superior to the EnO'lish French or German article raiEe the mine into tanks elevated above the sarface of the earth, and then to S has h ds f h d I

0 d! th 1 uf: f 1 th• distribute it through conduil loi!S or pipes to the different salt manufactories, . yracuse ~ ousan o. an s emp oye In e ~an ac~re O C.LO, - which are in all eases owned by private individual associations or corporations mg, and the Industry, like others of the North, IS to rece1ve a severe organized under the State laws. The State imposes a. tax or duty of 1 cent per blow if this bill becomes a law. bushe! to be paid by the J??:ivate ma~ttfucturersas.compensatiqn foJ! the use of

It tr!l- bl t l . d try . t'b.. ru· trict I t. the brine and for the serV1Ces afo:resrud. s .LAe8 a . ow a ne;a: Y every 1D; us: ' 1n .ue . s . :rep:res~ It is within my knowledge that for twenty-eight years lagt; past the business

One of OUI native-born Citizens conceiVecl and establiShed In our m1dst of making and selling salt.from the State brines aforesaid has been carried on a soda-ash manufactory alluded to by 1\-Ii·. :BuRROWS who said: con.til;tuously at a particular place in the city of Syracuse by associations or cor-

. . ' . . . . ' . po.rn.ttons created and orgaruzed under the laws of the State for that pmpose. Bu,t a more ~ormble ~ustra~o;t, if possible, of the ~un~ess of .the .PreSI- From the year 1860 to this time my interest in the salt business and my relations

dent s thea~ lS found m the his.ory of a recently established mdustry m lri~ own to its management have required and received from me all the attention which Sta~. PreVIous to 1884 there was not a. pound of so~-ash manufactured m the the engrossing duties of my profession would permit. Umted Stares. ·'Ve consume annnal}y 115,000 tons l.n the manufacture of gla~s 1 became in 1860 the president of a salt manufacturing corp.oration organized and other Amer1can products. Prev10us ~ 1884. _we unported every pound of It in the year 1860 in accordance with the general laws of the State enacted in 1848 at an o.verage cost of $!8 ~ton. A duty of $5 was Imposed, and. the So).vay Proc- for the formation of such corporations, and I continued to be such president ess Company was or~aruzed at. Syracuse, the only one on this hemisphere, at until the year 1872., when it ceased to do business except to wind up its affair~. a cost o! $1,500,000, '":lth a capaCity of 50,000 tons ~nnua.lly. It co~ence~ man- I was then judicially appointed reeeiver of its property. The debts of that comufac~mlfg soda-ash m January, 188-1. How has lt a.ffec:ted the price of ~hls com; pany have been p::~.id, and its shareholders have received djvidends on their modity. Was th~ dut~ of $5 add~ to the $!8, advancmg the cos_t to $53 a. ton. shares amounting in the aggregate to between 70 and 80 per cent. of the par On th~ contrary, It feU m tbe AmeriCan market as low as ~...8 a ton m th~ee years, value thereof a sa.ymg to the people annually of $20 a. ton on the entrre consumption of the I omit to state furthe;: deta.:ils of the history of that company because! a.ssnme U5,000 tons, or $3,500,000. that such details would be irrelevant, understanding, as I do, that the present

Another one, commencing as a poor boy, has established and made inquiry before th_e,House'of Representatives in Congr~ hs.s rciaf:ion rather to succe.::sful extensive works for m:mufucturino- refined steel, which were the present conditi~n of the salt manufaetme and trade m the Umted States.

~ • ' . o . The company which I have o.bove referred to took offices at. the commence· among the fu:st and are equal to the best m the Umted States, and have ment. of its business at the place in Syracuse :llready mentioned, occupied it caused the celebrated Sandei:§.on Company of Sheffield, England, to es- untH 1872, B?Jd dmin~ all th_at period bas. the cotl.ao~ of the great.er portion of tablish works ther~ under his supe~vision. . . ~~fu! =~: ~~r~1. on m and near to Syra.cuse m respect both to t4e pro-

In fact, Mr. ChaJJ:man, we have Ill our ID.ldst almost every conceiv- '\"hen it went out of business, as before stated, in 1872, it was succeeded, after able industry established by our own enterprising citizens, furnishing ?: short inte~val, by_an~Jher legally o~fa.niz:ed :liSsociation, which was c~l~ed employment to thousands of' honest industrious and thrivinrr work- The Amencan Dauy ... rut Compa?y, formed un~er the _same ~utho~ng . . ' ' "" . statute, namely, the act of 18!8. ThlS company carried on Its busmess.In the Ingmen who will (now that the mask has been removed) vote to sustain same general office in Syracuse already mentioned, and while so doing rearand not to strike down these magnifi~t ente:rprises

1 thereby prevent- ~zed !tself under a s.pecial authori_tJ: contained in a:n act passed i~ the year

ing disaster and }:uin to themselves 18'"· w~ch was a general act a.a.thonzm~ the formation of compa.mes for the . . · . transaction of "any lawful business." The new company adopted the same

The men who labor with therr hands m the State of :r\ew York will name with the word "'limited" at the end thereof. Both these companies may not be likely to sit idly by in the coming elections and permit the re- be considered as one for all present purposes, and they will be hezeinafter t ,.,.n of the men who are strivina to deprive them of their employment called the dairy company for the sake of brevity .

..u.. • • • • ~ • • I was the founder of the dairy company, became one of its managers and the by forcmg this legiSlati~n npon the: country. The mechanics of this president, and have so continued to the present time. n has been and now is country who were born on foreign shores came to the United States for a large producer of common as well as dairy und table sl.lt, and J?U<lh l~rger tbe purpose of bettering t-heir condition They know the value of pro- !ha.n any o~ ~.on or company. Froll?- the commencement of 1ts busm~ss

. . • • . . . rt has kept Its prmCipa.l and central office 1n Syracuse at the same place herem-tection because they have profited under lts bemgn influence. Theu' befoTe described, which is in the same block where I have for twenty years or sons have giOwn up and have become prosperous under the policy more kept _my own office as c~unselor ~t ~w. . . . which is rapidly makin~Y the United States the greatest manufacturing In the sa~d office:; as afo~es8tld, oeeup1ed snccessi'\"ely _by t~1e two assoe1a.tlons

· ' o . • . or comp::m1e:s herem ment1on.ed, there are safely depoSlted lD a vault. the books country on the face of the glolre. They will not belikelytomdorse the ofbasiness and account kept by them respectiveJy.and it i:s within my knowllegislation which reduces their wa-ges and diminishes their prosperity. edge that all !Jooks and accounts custom:a.rHyus~ ~the most ela~rate syst~ms This country is still vonng but it is vigorous and thriviniY. EnO'Iandi's of book-keepmg were so kept by the s:ud ass~:1.f.wns or companle:s~ecesslve-

J. '. • o o ly. Asbeforestated,.theyg~backto1800,apenodofnearlytwenty-eighliyears. commerce was not bmlt np In a decade1 nor e-ven m a century. Pro- In my relations to these associations the txwks were always accessible to me, tection is responsible for her commerce to-day. When the American tht;ir contents always known to me, andlhavehadoec...'\Sions to look into them St..'ttes were EnO'lish Colonies they were prohibited :from engaginO' in qmte too nume:rons nowt() be:reeall~ to memE?l'7· The ~vera! I>oaJ:ds of man-

e. • • • • !">. agers have held regnln.r weekly meetings., a.t wruch finan<:Ial and business state-manufactures. If thiS b1ll1S allowed to become a law the proh1bit10n ments were always read, and speaking genezally their entire bus:iness has been will be re-established, not by the Government of Great Britain, but by conducted with~nt co!lcealment,_and in the IJ?-OS~ open a:nd honorable manner. the very men who have b€ell elevated to power by the Iaborina people It has been the 1~var1able practice of the smd com~~m1es. to make up annual

o statements showmg the profit and loss aeeount of the1.r bus1ness £or the preced-themselves. ingyear. These statements have always been made up from eD!.ct and minute

Now, ~Ir. Chairman, I have had as much experience with the labor- entries of all and each of the items of ree~if}t and expenditur~ O<lcur.r~g in the • ing men of this country perhaps as any other member of this House course of the year, o.nd ~Y ~ve been m all cases the _bas~ of d~v1dends to

• • 1 1 . • • shareholders wheneve:rd:~~VldeEdswere made. I do not thinlotpo.ssible or con-I know them as intima.tely ~ any gentleman on this floor. I know ceiva.ble that shru:eholders were imposed upon or defrauded of their dividends that they are not to be fooled by the specious arguments of the free- by any system or prac?ce of fal~e or deceptiv~ book-keeping. These are the trade advocates. They are not fuols .. on the contrary they are usually same books referred tom the verified statementS of John W. Barker a.nd Thomas

'· . ' Molloy, hereto annexed. far bette_; posted upon matters of political economy than men who have The Dairy sau Compa.ny still conduats its bl.l.Siness at the place and in the had greater advantages. If the gentlemen who are trying to foree this manner aforesa~d. ~fit ha1;1 deceived itself, its shareh?lders, a.nd the public by bill through the Honse think they can hoodwink these neople they are ~e book-keep~g, 1b has aeted eontrary to a.ll conee1vable and pro~ble mo-d . . . r . tives. The assoCiates have always been as much. k> say the least,. m want of

oomed to disappomtment. The man who buys a p::ur of pantaloons regular returns for their investments as people engaged in other bran<lhes of for $1 can not be fooled into believing that he pays a tax of $2 upon industry, and common experience and ob~tion maybe appeal~ to as prof those garments because the tariff is 40 cents per pound and 3'5 per cent. th~t the company has no eon~ed fun~ held .m reserve. My own mterest on

d 1 Th :rkin f . thismanfacture,andmyparticularrelatwntotlsconductandmangementhave a va orem. e wo gmen o this country are a~d always have required from me at aU tim.es as much personal attention to the fi.na.ncial con-been, since the adoption of the policy of protection, better paid than ~ition of the companies aforesaid as my other pursuits wo.nld permit. Except t!teir fellows in Europe .. They know this! and the knowl~e is suffi- :aC:Sa:!;~t:!'sse~frc~~~a~~~e ~i~!~a!~nrh!~:\e:~allf ~es~:r~~~ e1.ent for them. Prosperity under protection has been realized; they mat.e acquaintance with. their financial concerns. I have kept myself specially

• '

/


acquainted at aU times with the cost of fuel and labor used in the production of salt, of annual repairs, of chemical sub tances used in the purification of com· mon salt for purposes of the dairy and table, of taxation and insurance, and other items of expense in producing salt. I have always participated in the making of large contracts for supplies of e"\'ery kind, and have been constantly consulted by my associates on every question of importance arising in the conduct of the said business.

The sources of the r evenue and receipts of the said companies have at all times been the proceeds of the sale of their products in the markets of this country. 'Vith the subjects of sales und current prices I have kept myself constantly familiar and for tne last few years those subjects have been the occnsion for particular attention and no small anxiety on my part. I do not conceive it to be possible that the prices actually obtained for salt sold in t'he market, as such prices have been publicly and generally understood and known, should be different from those entered regularly on the books kept by the said companies without my knowledge of the fact.

I do further say that Mr. John ,V. Barker, of Syracuse, was at all times the secretary of the aforesaid company organized in the year 1860; that· he conducted all the business correspondence thereof and was the selling officer who uniformly made the sales of salt in all markets, and that his knowledge of the entries on the books which contain a record of every sale was at all times perfect; also that Mr. '.rhomas Malloy was the treasurer of the said company during nearly the whole period of its existence, whose particular duty and function it was to enter all sales in said books and keep a full and correct record thereof.

I make the like st-atement as to the Dairy Salt Company of which the said Barker and Molloy always hav~ been and now are, respectively, the secretary and treasurer. I have been long acquainted with both these gentlemen. They nre both persons who are unusually competent to fill the positions they have occupied. Their standing is high in the business community, and their integrity was never questioned, to my knowledge. and as I verily believe. I refer to their statement annexed, which verifies the books of the companies aforesaid; and I accept such statement, corroborated as it is by my own relations to the business, of which the books are the record as absolute and undoubted proof of the accuracy of those books; nor do I believe it possible that I can be mistaken. It is known to me by personal experience, and by examination of the said

books, that they contain a faithful and honest repre«entation of the business of making salt from the brines of the State of New York and marketing the same as carried on by the companies of which I was the chief officer and by other parties engaged in the same business. I have not the remotest belief or even suspicion that the persons managing such business or interested therein have ever entertained so much as a thought of concealing the profits of such bust ness. These books are now in the custody of the company of which I am the first officer, and they are freely offered for examination in any mode deemed the most convenient.

My purpose in this paper is to state facts and not to give opinions. I can not pretend to know what are the grounds on which it is urged that in revising a tariff system domestic salt should be placed on the free-list. So far I have heard of no ground except the suggestion or affirmation that American producers of that article are unreasonably prosperous through their exactions upon the public. This assumpt.ion calls for no inquiry beyond the ascertainment of facts. .As to this I can say and do say that there ne"\'er was a mol.'"e baseless assumption than this, so far as .American salt produced in this portion of the State of New York is concerned; and upon the best information I can obtain I believe the condition of the same business and trade does not materially dift"er in any other part of the State. When producers in different localities sell in the same markets equally acceptable to them there can be no reasons leading to material differences in the value of their business.

I know of no way to solve the question of fact whether the production and sale of salt in the United States is a prosperous or an unprosperous industry (if that is the material inquii·y) than to ascertain by authentic evidence. In this Yiew my aim is simply to aid in the elucidation of the subjects so far as I am acquainted with relevant facts. The papers annexed are r eferred to as containing authoritative evidence more in detail which establishes the conclusion b eyond all reasonable cavil, that so long as tariffs prevail as the policy of the country the salt of foreign countries is the last article which ought to be admitted free of duty.

GEO. F. COl\1STOCK, Pt·esident American Dairy Salt Company.

Sul.;scribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of March, .A. D. 1888. WILSON R. HA.RE,

ltctaJ·y Pub~·ic, Onondaga County, Jltew Y ork. STATE OF NEW YoRK, County of Onondaga, ss:

Thomas Molloy and John W. Barker, of the city of Syracuse, in said county and State, declare upon oath as follows: ·

That the brines belonging to the Slate from which salt is manufactured are found by sinking artesian wells in the cit-y of Syracuse or immediately adjacent thereto to the depth of about 400 feet; that such brines are brought to the surface of the ground by the State with pumps and placed in tanks elevat-ed above· the surface and then distributed in conduit logs or pipes to the several manufact-ories of salt, which are in all cases owned by private individuals or private corporations and associations; that he, the said John W. Barker, has been interested in the manufacture of salt of the various kinds for fifty years and upwards; and that he, the said Thomas Molloy, has been connected with such manufacture for thirty years and upwards; that he, the said John ,V. Barker, bas been concerned in the production and eale of such salt for twenty-eight y ears last past in the capacity of trustee or manager and secretary of companies and associations organized for the manufacture of salt and doing business at one particular place in said city; and t.hat during all of such period it has been his particular function and duty to conduct the correspondence of such companies or associations and t-o make the sales in all markets of their productions. That be, the said Thomas 1\Iolloy, was appoir:.ted assistant treasurer in the earlies~ one of the companies just mentioned, in which Mr. Barker was secret-ary; that in the year 1864, after having been assistant treasurer for two years or thereabouts, he was appointed treasurer for that company, and that ever since that time he has been treasurer of that company or of another company, which established its business in the same place after the firs t one ceased to do business, for the purpose of winding up its affairs; and that it has always been his particular function and duty .to receive all the inoneys and funds accruing from the sales of salt in all markets and enter them in the books of the company to which they belonged.

Both the deponents do further say that the salt companies hereinabove referred to conducted and carried on a larger portion of the salt business with the connected brines aforesaid than any other person, corporation, or association; and that any true exhibition of the business of those companies would be a fair and f\ reasonable statement of the general business of manufacturing and selling salt in and about the city of Syracuse. They further say that all books of account and other books which are usually kept in the most elaborate and complete systems of book-keeping were always kept in the business of those companies; and especUllly they say that in such books were entered in detail-and by items all the costs and expense of producing such salt and marketing the same; also, of all sum~ of money or other available funds received from the sales of salt in nll markets; and thev do further say of their own knowledge that such books were faithfully and accurately kept, and do truly represent the items of cost and expense and of revenue and receipt for the whole period of time herein referred to; and they especially say that the said Thomas Molloy, in his capacity

of treasurer, always gave his personal attention to the keeping of said books; that he uniformly made the entries himself in person, or if there be any exception to this statement it wa.s only casual and accidental, so that no entries were ever made of the cost of ruaking salt or of revenue and receipt therefrom except by himself or uader his immediate supervision: and so far as any entries were ever made by any other person it was done under his direction and afterwards supervised -by him.

The deponents, therefore, deem tbemselYes entitled to say, and they do say, that the said books were correctly kept of their own knowledge. These deponents are advised that t-he present inquiry in the House of Representatives in Congress has relation to the recent history and present financial condition of the salt manufacture and trade in the locality aforesaid. The following statements, therefore, will refer to facts and details which lie within the last three years of the manufacture and sale of salt from the brines aforesaid by the .American Dairy Salt Company, which is one of the companies hereinbefore referred to, of which the deponents are the secretary and treasurer, as aforesaid. This company is much the largest producer of salt and dea]er therein among all the producers of salt from t-he brines aforesaid. It now has in its custody not only its own books but also aJl other books in which the records of the salt business are contained for the last twenty-eight years. '.rhcse books have never been kept secret, but have alw.ays been and now are open to the i.nspection of any person having a reasonable desire to examine them.

COMMON SALT.

The following is a true account of the production and dealing in this article for the last three years, namely, 1885, 1836, and 1887, reference being had to the said American Dairy Salt Company:

Common salt, 5,726,064 bushels. Total net receipts per bushel, $0.06617. The aforesaid net of $0.06617 represents tlle gross prices per bushel obtained

in market after deductingallexpensesof sale, to wit, State duty of1 cent, packing, shipment, transportation, selling, agencies, etc.; and therefore the same figures represent the total compensation received by the manufacturer for production yearly. In other words, the said figures arc the market prices of salt reckoned at the place of production aft-er taking out all the cost of marketing.

The actual cost of producing such salt was $0.0067 per bushel, leaving a difference between the net of sales and the cost of production of $0.00053 against the manufacturers. These figures show a trifling loss as the average result in the business of making and sell.Wg common salt for the last three years.

For information the deponents do further state that the above figures, repre· senting the cost of prod ncing common salt per bushel, mean the moneys actually paid out for fuel, for labor, for annual and ordinary repa.irs, for insurance and taxes of all kJnds on the salt blocks used in producing the common salt.

The r-esults above stated appearfrom the books of the company, which were kept as herein above set forth; and the deponents affirm of their own knowledge that the said books are accurate and true. .

DAIRY AND TABLE SA~T. r

The deponents further say that the amount of dairy and table salt produced by and !or the said .American Dairy Salt Company during the years 1835, 1~86, and1887, was: Bushels .... ...................... . ............ ............ ················· · ·~ ............. .... ..... ..... 1, 636, 819 Receipts on sales, net per bushel .. . . . . .. . ....... .. .. . . . . . ... .. ............ .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... . $-).164.9

Such net receipts are reckoned at the place of production after taking out of gross receipts all items treated as cost of ID!I.rkcting, namely, State duty, transportation, agencies, sales, etc.

Cost of producing was as follows : Common salt, as above ......................... ....... ......... ............ ...... ................. $0.0667 Labor of all kinds for conversion into dairy taxation on salt mills, in

surance, annual and ordinary repairs, chemicals used for purification 0. 082!

Total ................... ... ................. .. ..... .. ... ..............••...... ... .................... 0.14.91 The average differences, therefore, between the net of receipts as above and the

cost of producing dairy and table salt was $0.0158 in favor of the manufacturer. These results of t.he dairy and table salt business of the company aforesaid also appear on the books kept as before mentioned by items and details, and these deponents do affirm that the s:tid books are accurate and true of their own knowledge. They further say that in the above figures and calculations embracing common and dairy salt no interest whatever on capital invested in the construction of salt works of any kind is computed, and tlu1t no dividends have been made by the said company to its shareholder3 wit,hin the said three years.

SOLAR SALT.

The deponents do further s:ty, in reference to this article, that sixteen years ago , or thereabouts, a joint-stock solar organizat-ion was organized by and among certain -individuals and private corporations for dealing in the article of salt produced by solar evaporation, which said association established its general office in l:he offices then and ever since occupied by the .American Dairy Salt Company. This association comprehended a majority, but by no means all , of the parties then engaged in the manufacture of solar salt. 'l'be business of the association was conducted to the present time in such office. This deponent, the said John W. Barker·, being interested also in the manufacture of solar salt, was one of the original managers of such association, and .has continned to be one down to this time. He was appointed the first corresponding secretary of the association, and has continued in that situation to the present time. The records and business books thereof have always been kept in the same office occupied by the said American Dairy Salt Company.

This deponent, the said Thomas Molloy was appointed the original treasurer of such association, and has remained in that position to the present time; and both these deponent-s have sustained the same relations to the association which they have always held to the .American Dairy Salt Com]Jany, and have at all times discharged the same functions. They are, therefore, equally familiar with the dealings and books kept by such association . . The same general clerical force in said office has been equally worked for both of said companies. These deponents further say that during the years 1885, 18S6, and .1887, 8,196,650 bushels of salt were made by the producers thereof and delivered to the said association at the Sola1· Salt store-houses situated on the Eric and Oswego Canals. The proceeds of selling said salt in all markets w ere, net $0.078!3 per bushel, the price being in all cases computed as being realized nt the place of production and delivery, after taking out the State duty and the actual cost and expense of transporting the same salt-, of agencies and other items, if any.

COST OF PRODUCING SOLAR SALT.

The deponents further say that during the three years lasl aforesaid the actual cost of producing solar snit, including delivery at the store-houses, was from $).055 to i0.06 per bushel. The books kept in the office of the association aforesaid do not show the figures precisely representing such cost paid out by the producers, but they do show that the association paid by agreement to the several producers the price of $0.07 per bushel for original cost of manufacture and delivery. They further say that during the said three· yem·s the said association, in addition to the $0.07 paid or advanced as last aforesaid, paid to the manufacturers severally who delivered the salt the fu1"tber price, averaged during the same years, of $0.00843, which was the profit and all the profit realized ou the sales of salt over and above the $0.07 per bushel first paid for the production. This result as now stated is ascertained from the books of the said association now kent in the office of the said .American Dairy Salt Company, and thtl

•

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. 3949 deponents affirm or their own knowledge that the said books arc correct and true. They further say that in the above statement of the cost of production no int-ere ton the capital invested in solar salt works is charged.

These deponents do further say that the producers of salt from the brines aforesaid view wilh apprehension and alarm the proposal to place on the freelist the article of foreign salt by any act of national legislation so long ns the policy of the Government maintains an extens ive system of tariff duties. The inj ury to their interest~ would be greatly diminished in their judgment if un iv ersal or general free trade were to be inaugm·ated at the same time, because while the prices of American salt might and must be extremely low under such a policy there would be a compensatory reduction in the price of everything entering into the cost of prod ucing and selling the article in th~ United Sta tes.

And the fa cts a.nd figures exhibited in the foregoing statement show that for three yea rs last past common salt has been produced in this locality at o.n actual Jo s, although small; that dairy and table salt have been produced at a profit so infini tessimally small a s scarcely to entitle it to rank among the industries which 1ue profitable to those who engage in them.

'.rariff uuties on foreign manufactures are generally assumed to protect the col'l'esponding American product according to the amount of such duties. If this be true, or approximately true, it must be evident at a. glance that the manu fncture of salt in and about Syracuse must cease entirely under free trade in the art icle until foreign producers. having obtained control of the markets in this coun try, shall find it for their interest to raise the prices of salt to whatever s tandard will satis fy their interests or their wishes. Then, after our own saltproducing wo•·ks sh all have become decayed and valueless, we shall be likely to experience the difficulties in the way of getting back to a condition of tradE\ rendered healthy by competition.

.TOHN W. BARKER. THOS. MOLLOY.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of 1\farch, A. D. 1888. WILSON R. HARE, Notary Public, Onondaga County, New Yorl;.

SYRACUSE, N. Y., Mal'r.h , 1888. DEAR SIR: In reply to your communication of the 29th ultimo inclosing to us a

summary of the argument to be used before the committee and Congress in favor of free salt, the undersigned-a committee of salt manufacturers on the Onondaga .Salt Springs reservation-beg leave to make the following l'epresentations in regard to the manufacture of salt on said Onondaga Salt Springs reservation, located at Syracuse. N.Y., a11d in its immediate vicinity, and does not inclu de any salt wol'ks outside of the county of Onondaga, in the State of New York:

Firs t. That the salt springs on the said Onondaga Salt Springs resen·ation are the property of the State of New York, and tha.t the salt made on said reservation is under the super>ision of a superintendent of salt springs appointed by the State, under whose supervision all the salt wells for t he supply of salt water and the machin ery necessary to deliver the same to the various manufacturers are made. Said superintendent has also the control of all the salt m ade on said reservation , and he appoints a. corps of inspectors to inspect all sal t in course of m a nufacture to see that it is properly made and properly packed, and branded in packages of full weight. For these services the State, since the year 1846, has ch arged to the manufacturers the sum of 1 cent per bushel of 56 pounds on all the salt made on said reservation. This duty of 1 cent per bushel to the State was, when the law was passed in 1846, considered to no more than cover the actual expenses to be incurred by the State, and that no particular revenue sho uld be derived from the manufacture of salt.

The result up to and including 1886 shows that this duty has somewhat more than covered the expenses incurred by the State as shown by the State superint endent's report for 1886 on pages 7 and 8, said report being sent berewith a nd marked "A." The same report shows, on pages 9 and 10, the total quantity of salt made on the reservation from t·he years 1797 to 1886, inclusive.

Second. The kinds of salt made at this locality are as follows: Com mon fi ne salt, agricultural salt, Onondaga solar evaporated salt of the

different grades, namely, C solar, BC solar, F solar, standard solar, and ground solar sal t. For the mode of manufacture and uses of the above grades of salt we beg leave to refer you to a ealt manual issued by the different salt interests in this locality in 188i, which contains all this information and much more which may be of interest.

COST OF MANUFACTURE.

The a bsolute cost of the common fine salt made at the works of the American Dairy Salt Company, Limited-the most extensive manufacturers on there er• ation-during the year 1887, as taken from the books of said company, was 6.47 cents p er bushel of 55 pounds. This cost includes only the following items, namely: Cost of fuel, which is known as ''anthracite coal dust," the lowestpr iced fuel in the m a rket, $1.75 per ton of 2,2!0 pounds, deli>ercd at the works;

Per bushel of 56 pounds. 1\Iakinl! cost of fuel.. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ................................................................. SO. 0329 I.abor at l;2.12X to $2. 25 per day of 12 hours........ .... ................................ . 0259 Cost of ordinary repairs, insurance, and taxes......... ................................ . 0059

Absolute cost of manufa~ture..... ................................ ...... .. ... ......... .O&t7 To this must be added the duty of 1 cent p er bushel paid to the State..... . 0100 Als~ , office expenses, clerk hire, etc ..... ~ ........................ .. ...................... ... __ .005o

1\fak ing the actual cost..................................................................... . r:Jl'iYl per bushel of :56 pounds in the bins at the works, without including any intert:s t on capital invested in works or otherwise, or for any extraordinary 1·epairs.

During the year 1887 this company sold and shipped to New York 359,339 bushels, or, say, 8,984 gross tens of its profluct of common fine salt. This salt was sold on a credit of two to four months, without interest, and the gross umonnt recei>ed for the same delivered on board of canal-boat in New York \vas ~39.838.27. The actual cost of loading this salt at Syracuse and transportation to New York was $11,636.77; proceeds at works, $28,201.50.

An n\erage of 7.84 cents per bushel of 56 pounds, or $3.136 per gross ton,as ngainst nn actua l cost of 7.rn cents per bushel, or $3.188 per gross ton, as hereinbefore stated, sh owing an actual loss to the manufacturer of 5.2 cents per gross ton on all sales made in the New York market during the year 1887.

Per bushel. The actual cost of the F. F. dah·y and table salt, made up on the eame

hasis as the common fine s11.lt is .......... .. ....... .................................. cents ... 13.02 Add the 1 cent per bushel duty paid to the State ..... ......................... do...... 1. 00 Add office expenses, etc .............................................. ........................ do...... 0. 50

Cost ..................... . ................................................... ................ cents... 14. 52 The sale of this salt in Kew York market is mostly in small or car-load lots

shipped wholly by rail. It is also largely sold in bulli, the purchaser furnishing his own bags to pack the salt into at the works, and is sold at a price per gross ton delivered on car in New York, viz:

Per gross ton. The cost at the works is, say .............................. ......................................... $>. 61 Cost of rail transpo1·tation. ...... ........................... ............... ............... ... ... ... ... 1. 35 Cost of loading cars at Syracuse ............. ................. ............................... .. ... , .19

Cost on car in New York .................................... . ......... ...................... 7.15

During the year 1881 this salt has been sold as low as $7, and ranging from that price to $7.75 per gross ton delivered on cars in New York. If the salt was put up by the manufacturer in English sacks same as those used for English salt, the cost would be $3 per ton more, or, say, $10.15 per gross ton in English sacks, delivered on cats in New York. The total quantity of this Salt sold by the American Dairy Salt Company, limited, in the New York ·market during the year 188.7 was 59,173 bushels, or, S:J.y, 1,480 gross tons.

COST OF MAlo.lJFACTURB OF ONONDAGA SOLAR SALT.

There are situated on the Onondaga Salt Springs reservation about 40,000 vats and covers, 16 by 18 feet in size, covering about 1,000 acres of land, including the laud necessary for laborers' dwellings, store-houses, etc.

It would at this time cost to erect these vats and co'l"ers, including cost of store-houses and shipping facilities, not less than $50 per >at and cover, or in all ~.000,000. The annual production from the e works for the past five years from 1882 to 1886, inclusive, has been 69U bushels per vat and cover, or say an annual product in all of about 2,800,000 bushels. The actual proceeds of the product of between 36,000 and 37,000 of these covers, after deducting the 1 cent per bushel paid to the State and the actua l expenses of selling and cost of packages and transportation, for the five ye:J.rs from 1882 to 1886, inclusive, has been as follows:

Per bushel. In 1882 .............. . .. .. ....................... ..... . ............................................... cents ... 10.01 In 188~ ................. .. ........ .. ................ .. ...................... ........................... . do ....... 10. 50 In 1884 .................................................. .. ...................... ..................... do...... 8. 68 In 1885 ................. ................ ................... ..................... .. ...................... do...... 8. 25 In188G ................................................................... ....................... ......... do ... ... 7.85

H will be seen from the above that the net proceeds on this product are deCl'easingfrom yearto year, whichba.<i been occasioned bythesbarpcompetition at all points with recent large discoveriesoffossil salt, which is mined and thrown upon the various markets at very low prices, and, although the crop of 1887 is not yet all disposed of, it is ent-irely Eafe to say that the proceeds of that crop will not return to the manufacturer more than 7l cents per bushel of 56 pounds.

The cost of labor in manufacturing this salt is SL37t per day for ordin&;:y labor; $1.50 to $162-l per day for carpenters; annual city and county taxes 45 to 50 cents; superintendance, 30 cents; lumber, ordinary repa irs and other materials, 60 cents annually per vat and cover, making the a•erage cost of manufacturing not less than 6 cents per bushel of 56 pounds. This, on the proceeds of1886, would give to the manufacturer 1.85 cents per bushel, or say, about 2-l per cent on capital actually invested.

From the abo>e statements of cost of manufacture on the Onondaga Salt Springs reservativn {which statements are correct and can be verified in any way desired) it will readily be seen that the profits on the manufacture of salt in this locality are far from being as enormous and exorbitant as claimed in the free-trade summary you sent us, but that on the contrary they are in fact next to nothing, and that a repeal of the present duty on imported salt would absolutely wipe out all the salt industries in this locality, or ifthe Solar salt interest should be continued, it would compel the manufacturer to reduce the cost of labor and material from 40 to 50 per cent. and to be content with no returns whatever upon his capital actually invested.

As is said in the summa'ry of the free-trade arguments you send us, the manuf:J.ctUI·e at this , as compare:! with other localities, is in closer proximity to the sea-coast markets and has superior advantages in the wo.y of transportation, etc. (which is undoubtedly true), it would seem to follow that if the salt industries here were entirely destroyed (which would inevitably be the case in a very short time if imported salt was admitted free), that as soon as the works here were effectually squelched and the manufacture of salt in this locality discontinued, the result would be that one of the main competitors for the seacoas t trade would be out of the way, and that in consequence prices on salt for tbe::e markets would at once be advanced by the foreign dealers so as only to meet the competition in other and more distant localities. In other words, it may be said that the manufacturers of salt on this reservation, while making no appreciable profit, do now regulate and control the prices in New York and other sea-coast markets, and that with this interest knocked out, prices of foreign salt would be immediately advanced so as to meet and compete with its next nearest domestic producer.

The statement in the summary hereinbefore referred to, that foreign salts are superior in quality to the domestic, and that in consequence the foreign articles should be admitted free of duty, is wholly untrue and without a shadow of foundation in fact.. This favorite argument of the free-trader was exploded years and years ago. The different grades of salt made on this reservation are as pure nnd as well adapted to the various uses for which they are made as the same grades of salt made in any foreign count-ry. This has been for many years shown by the t-ests made by the United States Government and others, and the numerous certificates and testimonials from provision and fish packers. dairymen's associations, and individuals from all parts of the country, and the numerous analyses made from time to time, as are fully shown in the pamphlets herewith sent you, m,arked B, C, D, E, the one marked C relating wholly to the solar evaporated salt. Those marked B, D,andErelate to all of the various gra.des, but more particularly to the superior quality of our F. F. dairy and table salt .. In all cases where absolute tests have been made (and they are numerous) as to the quality of foreign and domestic salt, the salt made on this reservation bas come out yictorous in every case. We beg leave to refer you to the pamphlets heretofore referred to, marked B, C, D, 11nd E. The analyses, testimonials, and certificates contained in these pamphlets are valid and present arguments that

.should -satisfy any candid mind of the superiority of the quality of the saltmado on this reservation to any foreign al'ticle.

·we have only further to say that since the reduction of the duty in 1872 from 24 cents per 100 pounds in sacks and 16 cents in bulk to 12 and 8 cents per 100 pounds our trade to the seaboard market has gradually fallen off, so that in the year 1887 we shipped in ail but 564,685 bushels (which was sold without any profit to the manufacturer), while during the year 1871 (the year previous to the reduction of the duty to the present rate) there were 2,413,345 bushels shipped and sold in these markets, the proceeds of which gave to the manufacturer a Yery moderate profit. .

It will be seen from the above that nearly four-fifths of our market has been taken from us in consequence of the reduction of duty made in 1872, and that any further reduction wou:d most effectually wipe out the interest here;which is almost wholly dependent on the Eastern trade for its existence.

You1-s, truly, THOMAS G. ALVORD, WILLI.AM KIRKPATRICK, .T. W. BARKER, LYMAN STEVENS, WILLIAM B. BOYD, GEO. F . COMSTOCK,

Committee. Hon . .TAMES :r. BELDEN, .

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Hon. Thomas G. Alvord, ex-speaker of the New York assembly, ove:r


which he presided for fifteen years, n.dds his t->...stimony in the form of the following affidavit:

I am now and have been since its incorporation (for over thirty years) a trus lee of the Salina. Solar Coarse Salt Company, a. corporation under the laws of the State of Ne.wYork,engaged in the manufacture of coarse salt by solar evaporation, at Syracuse, in the county of Onondaga., the capital stock of which company is $150,000, fully pnid in, and to which was added, prior to the year 1880, in permanent fixtures, at least $50,000, which has not been added to or made a part of its capital on which are based its dividends.

On the capital stock of 150,000 we have made four dividends in five years., foregoing any dividends in 18&! and making in 1883 and 1885 each a 6 per cent. and in 1886 and 1887 each a dividend of 5 per cent. ayeraging 4.4 per cent. dividend for the five past. years. We made in these years on our plant of 60 acres, aggregating 3 20016 by 18 feet vats, an average of 206,000 bushels of salt of 56 pounds to the b~shel, but for the statement hereinafter made I have taken the re~;mlt of the year 1887, which is ahead in the average q~antity of sn.It made, an~ m the average dividend declared: Expenses ofprodnCII!g.220,000 bushels of salt, mcluding State duty $2,200, and taxes, $1,600-$13,000; d1v1dend at5 per cent .. on $150,000 capital, $7,500. The dividend left no appreciable surplus. The present duty ~m imported salt at 8 cents per 100 pounds on our crop of 12,320,000 pounds, $9,856, which if deducted fot free salt, would use up om· dividend and take f1·om the bare l~bor item $2,356, or about 30 per cent., reducing the wages of the laborer from $1.12,% per day of ten hours to 79 eel!~· This is, provided we continue:: the manufacture simply for the purpose of gtvmg our laborars a reduced per dtem, not sufficient for their daily needs, but must not such a result tthe legitimate outcome {)f free trade in salt), end in the absolute destruction of our plant, which, from its nature, can not be used for anything else, thus absolutely wiping out our capital and turning tin our case) thirty laborers to seek employment in other business?

THOI\IAS G. ALVORD. STATE OF NEW YonK, Onondaga County, ss: Thomas G. Alvord, of Syracuse, in the county of Onondaga, and Stat.e of New

York being duly sworn, says that the facts in the foregoing statement a.s made, and s~hscribed by him are true of his own knowledge and belief, a.nd in no case ha;e been overstated.

THO~IAS G. ALVORD. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of l\1arch, 18RS.

W lLSON R. HARE. Notal'y Public, OllOildagn County, New Yorl.;.

EXHIBIT A.

[From the o.nnual repo'tt of the superintendent of tho Onondaga Salt Springs for 1886.]

Table shotoing the net revemw derived from thJ manufacture of salt, and paid into the gene1·at fund since the d.uLus were reduced to 1 cent per bushel.

1846 .. .......... . ......................... . 1847 ........... ........... ...... .......... . 1848 .... .................. ....... ......... . 1849 ...................................... . 1850 ...................................... . 1851 ............................ ... ....... . 1852 .. ... ............................. .... . 1853 .............. ... .... .......... .... ... . 1854 ... ........................... ....... . . 1855 ...................................... . 1856 .... ·-··· · ······ ····· ············· ···· 1857 (deficit) ......... ... $0,603.01. 1858 ...................................... . 1859 ... ................. .............. .... . 1860 ...................................... . 1861 ...................................... .

$7,705.48 9, 717.63

21,941.46 20.153.69 15,104.87 13,337.55 19,284.61 29,557.19 Z:3, 711. &7 10,867.46 9,690. 79

1871. ................................... . 1872 ................................... ,. 1873 ... ................................ .. 1874 ............... ........ ....... ...... . 1875 .................................... . 1876 ....... ................... .... ..... .. 1877 .................................... . 1878 .................•.....•.•.........•• 1879 ................... ............ ..... . 1880 .. .. .... ....... ..... ..... .... .... ... . 1881. ................................... . 1882 ..• ............ ..........•....•.... .• 1883 ..............•.............. .. ...... 1884 ..... ... ............................ . 18R5 .................................... . 18S6 (deficit) ......... ~7, Oil. 79

34,507.08 33,991.78 15,130. 42 3,106. 88 5, 903. 66 4, 871.08 7,422. 99

14,803.43 23,221.62 1,313.30

20,04;5.52 21,204.30 4,056.03 3, 4-52.55 5,349.59

1862 ...................................... .

19,766.93 27,306.38 12,342.50 26,761.28 49,696.21 38,064.94 29,906.96 18,620.59 24,557.48 25,089.73 ::J7,244..06 41,211.09 24,411.38

----1863 .................. ... ....... ... ....... . 1864 ...................................... . 1865 ........................... ........ ... . 1866 ...................................... . 1867 .............................. ...... .. . 1868 .. ............ ....... .......... .... ... . 1869 ........ . ~···· ············ .. ····-··· 1870 ..... ...... ... .. ........ ..... .... ..... .

Total ............................ . Also aruount paid by comp·

troller on account of ex-penditures contracted previous to 1\Iru:ch 1, 1887, ::r7,000 ............................... .

(From pamphlets mentioned.)

ONO.mAGA SALT I~"DU TRY.

753,982.06

20,614..80

733,367.26

The Industrial Ilistory of the United States, by Albert S. Eowles, jm;t pub-lished, contains the following: . . .

"A great re>olution in salt manufacture was wrought by the utilizat10n of the valuable salt springs of Onondag-a County, ~ew York. T~ese were kn_own very early to the Indians. Father Lallemont 18 ~he first _white mal?- who 1s recorded as ha;ingvisited them. Da l\1oyne,a.Jesmt,mentlons them m 1653. In 1770 Onondaga salt was well known in Quebec and Albany,whither the Indians brouo-ht it. The whites first made s!l.lt there in 1787; in which year or the followi~ ... one the Oneida. Indians ceded the lands to the State. Leases were then gmnt;d to manufacturers, who sunk wells and went to pumping from the rlch salines beneath. But the State reserved the control of this mineral production to it,self, and soon took charge of the pumping.

"To such dimensions has the business grown that whole villages of vats and brick' blocks' for containing the kettles have sprung up around Syracuse."

The tariff reduction in 1874 put n. sudden check to the de\"elopment of the salt industry of Syracuse. "Blocks" worth 510,000 each were abandoned by their 0~~e:&::!v~d~~~e~}~h~~nstrous effects of reducing the tariff may be seen in the subsequent reduction of the amount of capital invested in salt manufacture at Syracuse. There was in;ested in 1872:

In solar salt works ............................................................... sz, 200,000

E ~F1:12}?~;:~::~;~::::~;:;;:~:;.;~;i:::::: :::::::::::::::::;:: ::m:m . ----- ss,ooo,coo

The census of 1880. the in>estment .. ...... ... ............ ........... .... 2, 286,081 Add to this the cash ropital........ ............ ... .. ......................... 1, 250,000

----- 3. 535, 081

.A shrinkage of................................ . . ... .. . ... . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. . . . ..... . 2, 463, 919

The salt works of Syracuse grew in importance and proportions until the maximum production was reached in.1870, when 8,748,956 bushe-ls were made. The reduction of the tariff in 1874. caused a. decline to 5,392,677 bushels in 1876, since which time there has been a gradual inet·ease in the amount of product.. The following table shows the number,of bushels of solar and common fine salt

produced during the last decade, t.he dairy salt, made from the common fine, of course, not increasing the runount:

Years.

1872 ........................................................... ..... . 1873_ ................................................... ..... ... - .. 1 74. ..... .. ................................. .. ...... ............... . 1875 ..................•............•................ , .... .....•...... 1 76 ............................................................... . 1877 ........... ........ .............................. .............. . 1878 .................................. ............................. . 1879 ...... .. ..... ..... ............................................ . 1880 ................................................................ . 1881. ....................................................... ....... ..

Solnr.

Bushels. 1,882,604 1, 691,3.39 1,667,368 2,655, 955 2.308. 679 2,525,335 2, 788, 75i 2, 9.37, 744 2,516,4.85 3,011,461

Common Fine.

Bushels. 6,048,321 5,768, ros 4,361,932 4,523,491 3,083, 998 3,902,648 4,389,4.43 5,36l,418 5,482,2&5 4,905 775

TotaL

Bushels. 7,930,025 7,460,357 6,029,300 7,179,446 5,392,677 6,427, 983 7, 176,1!)7 8,322,162 7, 998,750 7,917,236

The attached is the report upon the Government tests of salt to which I have referred:

CO)ll'ARA.T!VE MERITS OF FOREIGY AXD DO::IIESTIC SALT.

Attempts ha.nng been made to depreciate the quality of AmeriC!l.n manufactured salt, and especially to prejudice the minds of the friends of the protective policy against the purit.y and preservative properties of salt produced in this country, the salt ruanufacturers of Syracuse, in the State of New York, re poetfully submit for the consideration of members of Congre , in both branches, the following testimonials as to the merits of the article produced by them. It will be proper to observe here that the kind of salt referred to, n.nd mostly used for packing purposes, is called the "Onondaga solar or coarse salt "-a variety resembling '.rurk's Island in appea1·ance, and manufactured principally in the Stat.e of New York; but there is nothing t-o prevent the manufacture of this description at any of the sa.lines in this country ; or, under a suitable system of protection, to limit the amount to anything less than what is needed for consumption in the United States.

The first testimoniahl in relation to this production are derived from tho annual report of the superintendent of tho Onondaga Sa.lt Spring:J, in the year 1856, as follows:

[Extracts from said report.] REPORT OF GOVERNME..."'I""T TESTS.

Results of certain trials of Ononda.,ooa. solar salt and Turk's Island salt, instituted by the General Government during the years 1851, 1852, 1853, and 18:>4.

Compls.int having been made to the President in 1831 that the regulations of the War Depa.rtme11t in this respect unjustly discriminated against the ch:uacter oi the ::)olar salt of the State of New York, an order wo.s issued by Secretary Conrad, directing that 300 barrels of pork should be packed in New York with salt of both descriptions, in equal quantities, for the purpose of testing. by actual and thorough experiment, the comparative merits of the two kinds. The agent of the Onondaga manufacturers, N. R.andall, esq., was apprised ot this order, and the pork was put up in his presence, in New York 01ty, in November, 185l. The hogs were of the best quality, fatt.ened in the river counties near the city; each hog was split in two, and one-half packed with Onondaga and the other with Turk's Island salt. The barrels were distinguished by numbersthose containing Onondaga salt receiving the odd number, n.nd those with Turk's Island the even number.

Six barrels of thjs pork were sent to each of the different military posts along tho seaboard and at the South and West and in the year following a lot was shipped to California. Instructions were given to the commanding officers of the several posts to have two barrels of pork inspected in each of the three succeeding years by a regularly organized board of survey-the resn.lts to be reported to the Department at 'Vashington.

ADSTRACT OF REPORTS.

Trial made upon two b::nrels of pork (pn.cked as above stated) at Fort Trumbull, Conn., August 24, 1852.

No. 3L Onondaga salt: Color, the fat portions of a clean, white color; the le.'l.n of a clean, dark red. IL.udness, the meat of both the fat aud lean very hard and firm. Sweetness, very sweet and sound. Loss in boiling, 17t pounds; boiled one and one-half hours, weighed 131 pounds. Quality after boiling, was firm o.nd hard, same color as before, and of good taste. Weight, 1'9Sf pounds.

No. 32. Turk's Island : Color, the fat portions of a clean, fine, white color; lean of a clear, bright red color. Hardness, No. 32 not as hard and firm as that of No. 31. Sweetness, -.;-ery sweet and sound. Loss in boiling, 1H pounds; boiled as in No. 31, weighed 13! pounds. Quality after boiling, soft and liable to run, but had the same color, and the taste wu.s good. Weight, 198-f pounds.

Conditions the same in both barrels. Trial at Fort Mifllin, Pa., August 24,1852. Pork all quite firm and solid. -o

55 was the whitest; No. 55 appeared to bv tho u a rclest.. An oEensive smell iss ued from No. 56 on opening the barrel, which was not the case in No. 55. Throughout No. 55 the meatwa.s sweetest in smell. The piece boiled from No. 55 was the sweetest and firmest, and apparently the best preserved.

Trial at Fort Moultrie, S.C., August, 1852: The ox:n.mincrs sum up their obser>ations with the remark that •· the board is of opinion that for immediate use the difference between the two barrels is ;ery slight, but, judging from the a p pearance and retentive firmness of the pork·~ the twp banels, they think N o. !l1 will retn.in its preseut stat.e of preser;ation longer than No. 92." "The ins ide of the pieces in No.92 were of a slightly greenish tinge."

Trial at Castle Pinckney, S. 0., August,l852: The smell and taste of No.1 wM d ecidedly the sweetest and best fia>ored, that of No.2 being strong and rank."

Trial at Fortress Monroe, Va.., .Augus t, 1852: The board concluder! their e xamination by saying: "There appears to be so little difference in the qnalit ie of the two ban-els of pork that the board ca.n not cxpre s any decided opinion us to their comparative merits." . .

Trial at Key 'Vest, Fla., Augus t , 1852: To tho statement of the exammers 1s appended the following by Capt . .J. Vogdes:

"I concur with the board in the above report. I would, in addition, beg leave to state that the salt was much better dissolved in No. 26 than in No. 25. The salt in No. 26 tasted strongly of tho pork, whilst that of No. 25 seemed as pure as when it had been p acked. No. 25 was issued immediately (August24), No. 26 on the lOth of this month (September). The soldiers prefer 1 ro. 25 for eating meat to No. 26."

Trial at Fort Adam.S, R. I., September, 1852: Major Sherman concludes his

re!?J~t~~~ :opinion of the board that at the present time no essential di.trcrence can be found to exist be tween the two barrels of pork. They both appear

to c~I~~~ldJ~t~ss:dej! !ns~~~:'!~i:~~~J'~~~~s~l~ ~;;c carefully examined the said barrels of pork and tasted some of each (cooked and uncooked), and I am oJ opinion that the pork contained in the barrel (ma.rked No. 25 is preferable o.t this time to that contained in Nb. 2G_by 1·eason of its more fine appearance and

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE-. 3951 ,_

more agreeable taste upon the whole, and I should prefer ror my own usc the me:U contained in ba>rrel No. 25."

Trial at East Pascagoula, l\Iiss., August, 18.'52: "The board is of opinion that the pork examined is QJtcommonly good. Before it. was boiled the board was of the opinion that No. as was better than No. :I'l. After boiling there was no perceptible ditrerence between the two."

Trial at East Pascagoula, Miss., September 7, 1853: "The board is of opinion that the pork in both barrels is uncommonly good and very well preserved, so much so that it is uifficult to say which is the best; in the hardness and color there is a slight difference which would lead the board at this time to decide in favor of the salt in No.39."

Trfal at Fort Sullivan, Eastport,1Ue., August, 1853 : "Both pi-eces were found to be very good, but tl:ult from barrel No.3 was a little the hardest, a Httle t11e sweetest, and a little the best. The color of both was the same -and pretty white."

Trial at Fortress 1\-Icnroe, Vo.., August, 18.."3: Colonel Bankhead remarks: "The orderly sergeants of the companies report that they have used the en lire contents of the two barrels (No. 81 and No. 82), and give a decided preference to tll ;! pork in No. 81, being sweeter, more solid, and less loss on boilfng, and less rurected after the barrels were opened by exposure to the nir. Tho pork in N o. 82 exhibited a slight taint by being kept a few days before boiling."

Trial at New York, September:_29, 1853: The examination took place in the presence of the pt·incipal pork packers and pork dealers of the city.

"Banels Nos. 51 and 52 were opened in the presence of these geatlemen, and the results given were the unanimous opinion. No. 51, before boiling. Color: yellow on the surface, looking as if rusted; scraping the surface it showed white and clean.

No. 52. Color: bright and clean, both le-an and fat, looking as if just packed. Both sweet and firm. After boiling: No. 51. Color: yellowish on the surface, white and c1ean within. Hardness:

harder than 52, but attribute that to the hog being younger. Loss in boiling: 6 pound 3 ounces. Qlh'l.lity: very firm and sweet. Weight: 195 pounds.

No. 52. Color: fat, white; lean, pink; both bright; hardness: firm, but not equal to No. 5L Loss in boiling: 7 pounds. Weight: 199.

A number o! barrels of each kind were then opened . The result in color was, in all, the same. The barrels unevenly numbered were uniformly stained yellowish, whilst the even-numbered barrels presented the pork white and clean.

The pork in the uneven numbered barrels was invariably better cured. It was the unanimous opinion of the packers. that for sale in the New York

market, the even numbered ban•els would be preferred, because of the better color of the pork. But for long shipments the preference would be given to the uneven numbered barrels, the pork being better cured.

All olher differences, except the two last named, were deemed by them due to the age a.nd feeding of the bog.

Tri!ll at Fort W,.asbington, N.H., August,l853.-" Altogether the pork in 75 was superior to 76 in color, sweetness, and firmness, and fewer pieces rusty."

Tl"ial at Key West, Fla., August, 1853.-" Pork in No. '1:7 much superior to No. 28, and so preferred by the men."

Trial a.t Fort Miffiin, Pa., August, 1853.-" On opening barrel No. 57 I found that about 6 or 8 inches of brine had leaked out, and that the pork was slightly rusted.- Otherwise it was white, tolerably hard, and perfectly sweet.

No. 58 was full of brine. The pork of quite s. red color, rather soft, and had an offensive odor. Tho salt bad not penetrated or 'struck in' the pork. which is tainted and unfit for use."

Trialnt Fort Trumbull, Conn., August, 1853.-" No. 34, after boiling. had flavor decidedly rusty; No.33 not perfectly sweet, but much superior to 34."

Trial at Fort VanCouver, W . T., August IBM.- " The board is of opinion that the pork in barrel No. 61 is better preserved in every respect than that inN o. 62."

Trial at Fort Reading, Cal., August 30, 1854.-"Tbe flavor of No. 73 was better and more agreeable than No. 74, although N o. 74 was not quite so salt. Both 73 and 74 were considered excellent in quality, but the preponderance in favor of No. 73." At a previous trial, same post, in :February, the _report says : ''From the above experiments and tests, the board are of the opinion that No. 71 is a superior quality of pork, losing less in weight and generating less thirst-two

. very important points," 'etc. TrialatKeyWest,Fla.,A.ugust2·1,185-!.-"No. 29. Hardness: Firmer than usual

contr.actpork; fat and lean, no appearance of separation. Color : A little redder ,redder than usual contract pork; very healthy appearance, fat very white. ·Sweetness: Sweeter than the usual contract pork; no offensive smell on openipg barrel. Loss in boiling: 20poundsreduced toll}. Quality after boiling: Firm, sweet, of ..a good color, much more acceptable to the men than the usual contract pork; by the men considered the best pork they have ever bad at this post.

No. 30. Hardness: Rather soft. Color: Bright red; unhealthy; very offensive smell when barrel was opened. Sweetness : Sour before and after boiling. Loss in boiling: 20 pounds reduced to U. Quality after boiling: Soft, sour, greenish, and lean inclined to separate; not good pork; the fat bad separated

I from the lean in the barrel ; salt well dissolved. , Trial at Fort Moultrie, S.C., August 24, 1854: ''In regard to the color of the ,pork, the board is ofthe opinion that the pork in barrel marked 9S is superior, it having apparently changed its color but slightly since it was packed, whilst

' that in barrel No. 96 was changed to a. dingy yellow. As to hardness, that in 'barrel No. 95 is superior, being qu1te hard, while that in 95 has become somewhat soft. As to sweetness, 95 is supel'ior." Same after boiling.

In addition to the above the following ce rtificates and letters from experienced and responsible business houses have been furnished to the Syracuse manufa-cturers within a few weeks past: [From 1\Iessrs. Crowell & Paine, a. well-known provision house in New York.]

NEW YORK, May, 1856. GE::qTLEM:EN: In response to your request for a.n expression of our experience

i'n the use of" domestic salt," for curing fish, we would say: We have been for twenty years engaged in furnishing vessels going after fish, and supplying packers of fish with salt, and selling their fish for the fishermen; that for the last three years, since the "Onondaga salt" was introduoed into t.his market, we have supplied the fishermen with from forty to seventy thousand bushels each year, and do not hesitate to affirm that the domestic salt is superior in every respect to foreign sa.lt for curing fish.. It gives the fish a better appeamnce, and is more economical in use. In every instance where it has been used we na'OIC bad favorable reports from it, and ow· customers give it the preference to foreign salt.

Very r espectfully, CROWELL & PAI~E,

:1\Iessrs. ST. Jo:HY & AVERY, 6 Coc-nUes' Blip.

DcalQS in Salt, 103 Broad Street, Ntw York.

[From C. Nickerson & Co., a long-established and respectable firm inN ew York.] NEW YoRK, May 18, 1.866.

DEAR Sm: We take great pleasure in addressing yon upon the excellent qualities of the salt produced by the company for which you are acting.

We have bought your salt largely, both the last a.nd present year, and those parties who have used it most freely speak in the highest terms of its quality.

We have also sold fish which w ere cured with it, and they were of super ior color, being free from lime-spo ts, and leaving the surface of the fish free from sediments.

We feel free t o s~y that we think for curing codfish or mackerel your salt is · nn!"t:!rpassed, and but few kinds are its equal.

Yours truly, C. 1-.TICKERSON & CC.,

16 CoenCies' Sli'p. THOS. Y. A VERY,

.Agent of fihe Onondaga Salt Company.

[From Messrs. Cragin & Co., among t-he lo.rgest provision packers and dealers in New York.]

NEW YoRK, May 19, 1866. GENTLEMEN: \Ve have been extensively engaged in packing beef and pork

at Chicago, and inspecting the same in New York, for the last ten years. \Ve have used the Syracuse solar salt ext-ensively, and consider it equal to

any salt in use for packing and preserving provisions. Truly youJ:S,

CRAGIN &CO .. 400 ·west Twelfth Street, l!lt= York .

Messrs. ST. JoH::q & AVERY.

[From :Messrs. Wallace & Wickes, one of the most respectable provision firms in New York.]

NEW YoRK, May lG, 1866. DEAR Sm: In reply to your rcq_uest fo1· an expression of our experience of

the comparative value of the Onondaga and foreign salt for curing meat, would say: We are not. curers of meats, but ha 'e been large dealers in meats cured by both kinds of salt, and of late years we have found the meats cured with Onondaga salt t-o appear as well, sell as well, and keep as well as that cured by foreign salt.

Yours, respectfully, WALL ACE & WICKES.

Mr. T. Y . AVERY.

[From 1\Ir. James A. StetsoP-, New York.] NEW YORK, May 21 , 1856.

GE);TLE.llEN: I have been engaged in supplying fishermen with salt and dealing in fish for the last four years; have used the Onondaga salt extensively, and have found it equal, if not superior, to any kind of foreign salt. for curing fish, and therefore take g reat pleasure in recomn1ending it.

1\lessrs. ST. JoHN & AVERY. JAMES A. STETSO.N, 2 Ccentie1' Slip.

[From Messrs. Baker & Downs, a.n old established salt firm in Boston.]

GENTLEMEN : We would say in reply to your inquiry that we sold last season some 40,000 bushels of your Syracuse salt, mostly of the d~ription called Diamond F, to the packers and dealers in fish in this market, and it has in every instance given perfect satisfaction.

Yours respectfully, BAKER & DOWNS.

1\-Iessrs. ST. JonN & AVERY. BosTON, May 23, 1866.

[From F . Snow & Co., wholesale fish dealers, No. 4 Commerce street, Boston.]

To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that we ha.ve used ~reveral cargoes of Diamond F, Syracuse salt, and take pleasure in recommesding it as well adapted for all pm-poses connected with curing and preserving fish . We supplied several vessels with it last year, and they were so well pleased that they inquired for it this spring again, and prefer it to foreign salt ..

FRANKLIN SNOW & CO.

[From several of the most experienced provision packers and dealer.s in Chicago.]

To WHO:U: IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that we have for many years past been engaged in the business of beef and pm·k packing in this city and elsewhere; we have used both foreign and domestic salt, and have no hesitation in saying the solar or coarse salt manufactured in Onondaga County, State of New York, is fully equal in quality for the pr~servation of beef and pork to Turk's Island or any salt we have ever used.

CHICAGO, May 18, 1856.

A. E. KE~'"'T & CO. CALBUTERE, BLAIR & CO. TOBEY & BOOTH. CRAGIN & CO. S. FAVORITE & SON. BRAINARD, BURT & CO.

[Froml\Ir. A . Richmond, one of the most extensive dealers in salt in Chic:1go.]

This is to certify that for many years past I have been a dealer in salt in this ·city, and have sold very extensively the salt manufactured in Onondaga County, New York. From my experience in the sale of Onondaga. solar salt, for packing purposes, in competition with Turk's Island and other foreign salts, I have no he.">imtion in saying that I consider this s!Ut fully equal in quality to any other known to commerce in this country for the preservation ofmeats or fish.

.ALONZO RICHMOND. C~ICAGO, ILL., May 21, 18G6.

[From well-known and extensive packers at :ill.lwaukee.l To ivnolii IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that we have for many years past

been engaged in the business of beef and pork packing in this city and elsewhere; we have used both foreign and domestic sal~. and have no hesitation in saying that the solar or coarse salt manufactured in Onondaga County, State of New York, is fully equal in quality for the preservation of beef or pt>rk to Turk's Island or any other salt we have e>er nl!ed.

CHARLES H. WHEELER. JOHN PLANKINTON, LAYTON & CO. JOHN FURLONG & SONS.

[From se>eral old established firms in Detroit.]

To WHOM IT MAY CONCETIN: This is to certify that we have for many years past been engaged in the business of packing and curing fish in this city and elsewhere. \Ve haye used both foreign and domestic salt, and have no hesitation in saying that the solar sal t manufaclured in the State of New York is

3952" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

fully equal in quality for the preservation of fish to any other salt we hav ever employed for that purpose.

1\IOORE, FOOTE & CO. C. FITZSil\lMONS & CO. JAMES CRAIG. BISSELL & GILLETTE.

Also signed by B. Clark, p01·k and beef inspector for the Board of Trade, Dett·oit.

In the Genesee district of Western New York there are two salt blocks located at Mount Morris, N.Y., on the line oftheDelaware, Lackawanna. and "\Vestern Railroad, and known as the Ls.ckawanna. Salt Company and the Royal Salt Company, while in the same district on the line of the Western New York and Pennsylvania. Railroad, there are the-

Leicester Salt Company, at Cuylerville, N.Y. York Salt Company, at York, N.Y. Livingston Salt Company, at Piffard, N.Y. Genesee Salt Company, at Piffard, N.Y. Rr""<;of l\Iining Company, at Piffard, N.Y.

[From Mr. Alfred· A. Howlett, of Syracuse, N.Y .• for twenty years p!lst c01mected This latter company mines the-rock salt, instead of evaporating the brine. as with one of the most extensive 1\nd successful packing establishments in the is · . case with all the other companies mentioned. · West, their location being at La Fayette, Ind.) 'file shipments of salt during 1887, from the stations on the Western New York 1\fy DEAR SIR: I wa.s this day shown copies of two letters under date of Bos- and PennsylYRnia Railroad, are stated by Mr. GeorgeS. Gatchell, general sup-

ton, April24, 1866, addressed to Hon. Sam\}el Hooper, Washington, D. C., signed erintendent of that road, to have amounted to 79,194 tons, or a little more than by James Oakes, and James Oakes and others. 5 000 car loads. He further says: "'Ve expect the same to be materially in-

In speaking of the comparative values of Turk's Island and Mediterranean creased during the coming year." -salt on one hand, and domestic salt on the other, the writers, among other Of the companies in the Genesee district. it is believed that none have paid things, say that the first is" indispensably necessary for the purpose of packing dividends from the earnings of the years 1886 and 1837. The business has been provisions," etc.; and again, "American manufactured salt is not suitable to conducted without profit and in most instances at a loss. This is due in pa1·t to preserve provisions any length of time in hot climates." I the earnest effort put forl.h by manufacturers to improve the quality of their

I believe that the larger share of beef and pork packed in the United States, product, leading to costly experiments, which abs01·bed profits without yield-both for home consumption and export, is put up in the 'Vestern States, and in ing any immediate return, other than the increa,sed appreciation of customers. none other more extensively than in the Slates of Indiana and Illinois; ar.d During the past three years, the average quality of the salt produced in the from my own personal observation and experience I know that the salt used Western New York field has very rapidly improved, and it may be said, and that has been used in those States for packing for years back has been al- without fear of successful contradiction, that the best salt produced there, for most exclusively the Onondaga solar or coarse salt, and I challenge any pork dairy and packing purposes, is superior to the best pt·ocluced in England for or beef in the markets of th~ world to claim supel"iority over the packing of sin1iJar purposes. It would seem, therefore. from the standpoint of the political those States. economist., bad policy to destroy in its infancy an ind ustrywhich in the near future

I have been myself a beef an:l pork packer in Indiana for the last twenty-two pi"Omises to render the country independent. in this respect of foreign control. years, never packing less than 2,000 barrels, and from that up to 2:5,000 barrel~ In the district represented by this committee immense quantities of standard per year, and for a number of years back not going below 10,000 barrels wiLh salt for packers' use have been sold during tile years 1886and 1887, at a net price but very little exception, and that occasioned by in11.bility to obtain the Onon- of from $2 to $2.40 per ton of 2,000 pounds, the ayerage probably being about daga solar salt. !have used no other than the coarse salt made by solar evap· ~.25, prices which, as R.lready shown, have not paid the cost of manufi!.Cture. oration at Syracuse, Onondaga County, New York; and in all that time I hnvo In estimating the influence of the r emoval of the duty on sa.lt, we must connot been compelled to take back in the aggregate 3.)() barrals on account of fa 1- sider its relations both to the consumer and t.o the domestic manufacturer, and ure from any cause, and then none on account of f:tilure of the salt. The pork the t·ariff should be equitubly adjusted in such way that neither interest should and beef of my packing has been marketed year after year at the same point, be placed entirely at the mercy of the other. and I have always received without trouble in New York and elsewhere the Fine salt for dairying :purposes comes from England in sacks holding 224 highest marl::et price obtained for army beef or pork on the market. pounds and pays a duty of 12 cents per hundred pounds, equal to a. bout 27 cent

Having had a life-long experience in packing, dealing in, and lllnd in~ bee f per sack. The best quality of this salt sells inNewYork for about$2.25 per sack and pork, and having used myself and seen used by others all kinds o. s \It for or say 1 cent a pound. Onepoundofsalt is usually added tol6 pounds of butter, packing, !freely and conscientiously say that I would give as large a prbe per so the salt in each pound of butter costs in this market -fi:I of a cent. If now the pound for the Onondaga solar salt as for any other salt known to the commerce duty of27 cents a sack be removed and the market price correspondingly fall, of this country, for I consider it in all curative and preservative effects not in- there will be a saving to the butter-maker of about i of the present cost, equal ferior to any other, and for some reasons superior. to about y}e- of a cent for each pound of butter made. In other words, removal

No discrimination is asked for or expected on account of this salt by our ens- of the 12-ceut tariff on dairy salt will save the creamery and dairy men one ceut tomers, and the old prejudice against this salt, triumphantly exploded by the for everv 128 pounds of butter made. United States Government tests of 1851 to 1854, inclusive, is no more hetl.rd of I Is this sa7ing to the butter-maker or the consumer of butter worth the sued-among the beef and pork: dealers and consumers of this country. fice of the dairy-salt-making interest of the United Stn.tes?

A. A. IIOWLETT. Salt imported for packers' use and commonly known as ''Liverpool ground,,. llon. T. T. DAVIS. 1 t~sun.lly comes in bulk and pays a duty of 8 cent!? per hund!ed pound_s, equal to For the genuine and authoritative character of the foregoing testimonials I $1.60 per ton of 2,000 pounds. If .the. market pnce of salt m. t~e 1Jmted States

reference is respectfully made to Ron. Thoma'! T . Davis, representatiye from should ~e reduced to the extent md~cated by _these figures, 1t IS clear that the the Twenty-third Cono-1·essional district in the State of New York. domestic manufactur~r would ret;elve but 65 cents a to1~ for the salt that he

. _.. . makes. As fuel reqmred for makmg a ton of salt costs a htt.le over $1, the salt I also submit the statements of others engaged m the manufacture manufactories of this region, and in fact of all the salt-making regions of the

of this staple in the Onondao-a. and Warsaw districts, which statements United States, must inevitably close. With the salt works of this country closed

k .r th 1 . 0 and the plants dismantled, the market would be in t.he hands of the English spea lOr erose ves. manufacturers and prices would probably reach, if not surpass, those of twenty- ·

fExtracts from statement of salt manufacturers at Warsaw, N.Y.] fh·e years ago. We trust that such a condition of affairs may be averted. Abot_{tthe year1883, the discovery of salt in Western NewYork,dista.?t.about In ~1~ reports on salt it ha~ been _<;lassed as ara~ !fiaterial. We b~g to ~tate

125 milesfmm the Syracuse field, led to an extensiYe development of this mdus- that It 1S a !fla:nufacture~ article, USI~g larg~ quanlit1es of co~l, machinery, tron, try in that region, and with the result that standard common. fine salt was freely and wood m Its pr~ductwn, and, owmg to Its nature, themaJorpartof the plant -ol:fe red during 1886 and 1887 as low as 55 cents per barrel lbarrels worth 25 cents bas to be renewed 1~ three to five years. included\, being equivalent to 6 cents a bushel for the net salt. . . . Respectfully submitted.

As reo-a rds the assertion that a salt pool or trust has beeu orgamzed, w1th a v:cw ~the artificial elevation of prices, or the curtailment of production, the unde rsio-ned committee are not aware of such an organization, and are able to

·H. G. PIFFARD, of New York, S. T. KERR, ofPhiladelphia,

state iu the most positive manner that such does not exist, so far as salt district of \VcsternNew York is concerned; a.ud a general pool among the salt producing interests of this country could hardly exist without the fact coming to the knowledge of one or the other of this committee.

'l'uruing from these general considerations, we invite. the attention of your c ommittee t •) the salt trade of·Westcrn New York. T hts field embraces two con~ iguou;; districts, commonly spoken of as the Warsaw and the Genesee, lying within the counties of \Vyoming, Genesee, and Livingston. In the Warsaw district there are fifteen large salt blqcks with an aggregate capacity of about 5 000,000 bushels annually. These are the-

, Castile Salt Works, Castile, N.Y. Duncan Salt Company, Silver Spring's, N.Y. Silvet• Lake Salt Company, Perry, N.Y. Ken Salt Company, Rock Glen, N.Y. Eldridge Sl\lt Company, Warsaw, N.Y. Empire Salt Company, Warsaw, N.Y. Hawley Salt Company, 'Varsaw, N.Y. Gouinlock & Humphrey Salt Company, 'Varsaw, N.Y. Warsaw Dairy Salt Company, Warsaw, N.Y. Miller Salt Company, 'Vnrsaw, N.Y. Crystal Salt Company, Warsaw, N.Y. Pearl Salt Company, Pearl Creek. N.Y. LeRoy Salt Company, LeRoy, N.Y. The amount of capital invested in these works, according to the estimate of a

competent authority, is about $2,100,000, and the number of persons directly supported by this industry numbers about 2,000.

As regards the profits of the business in this district, this committee believes itself to be in possession of reliable information, to the effect that no company vaid any dividend'during the past year, two companies failed during 1887, and lrom the best information we can obtain we are persuaded that the production of salt in the Western New York district for the last two years bas not paid the cost of producing. Some companies ha,·e made a little, but others have lost more, so that on the whole the business has not paid.

We may further say that in consequence of the development of the salt manufacture the counties of Genesee, Livingston, and Wyoming are experiencing a prosperity never before known to them. Money is more abundant than ever before, labor finds employment, and the fRrmer and the mechanic find market for their products and their skill. Sa1 t is cheaper than ever before and of a. better quality.

Butter and cheese manufacturers formerly looked abroac(}, especially to England, for their salt, but now as good an article is furnished of domestic produc-tion and at a much lower price. ·

Should the duties on salt be removed and the price of the article correspondIngly decline, every salt plant in the States of New York, Michigan, Virginia., California, and Louisiana would be rendered worthless; the large amount of capital invested lost, and the laborer, the mechanic, and the farmer obliged to seek oth~r markets for their prod•1.cts.

C. T. BARTLETT, of Warsaw, N. Y. Committee.

FOREIG:Y Al'I"D DOMESTIC SALT.

Sm: In compliance with your re.ques~ the undersigned beg leave to lay be· fore you a short compendium of the relations existing between foreign and domestic salt, and we beg that this paper may be t:1ken in connection with, and

I as supplementary to the "memorial" recently addressed to you by us.

CONSUMPTION OF SALT.-The salt consumed in the United States is partly of domestic production and partly imported from other countries, and the 1·elativc proportion of domestic to foreign has been for-

Years.

1883 ...........•........................................ ....•..•..•........................ 1884 .......................................... ....................................... ..... . 1885 ..••••••••••••••••..••••.••••••••....••.••..•..••••••••.... ; ...•..... ..• .....• ••• ••••.. 1886 ........................ ························ ········ ··· ·· ··························

I Domestic. Foreign.

Tons. 774,029 894,369 879,769 983,385

Tons. 387,46') 405,749 403,422 380,104

These figures, compiled from Day's ~fineral Resources of the United States, [Government Printing Office, Washington, 18871, show a gradual increase in the_ demand for salt in this country, which demand was chiefly for salt of domestic manufacture; and the domestic production, to meet this demand, has increased nbout 25 per cent. in four years, while the demand for imported salt has actually decreased. It is a fair inference, therefore, that consumers to the extent of over 200,000 tons believe that they have found better value for the same money ia domestic than in foreign salt.

Kr:Nns OF SALT.-There are four principal kinds or grades of salt used in this country. The grades made in the United States are:

• "Common fine," corresponding to the English "Common." Dairy ~actory filled) corresponding to the English "Fine" (factory filled). Solar (Syracuse, California) corresponding to sea salt (West Indies, etc.). Rock salt (Louisiana, Western New York), corresponding to rock salt (Eng-

laud). "Common fine," and factory filled or dairy saU, is made both at home and

abroad, by evaporating strong brines in either wooden or iron vessels. The wooden vessels, called grainers, are long tanks containing steam pipes, and the iron vessels are large kettles or pans with furnaces underneath them.

Solar salt (American) is obtained by exposing the brine contained in the wooden tanks to the open air and without the nse of artificial heat. This industry is chieflv carried on at Syracuse, N. Y. But the demand on the Paci.fia coast for a good solar salt at a reasonable price has led, within a recent period, to the development of this branch of salt-making in California.

Sea salt (foreign) is usually obtained from ponds or small lakes connecting wiLh the sea. · Rock salt is mined much after the manner of coal, and is found quite near the surface in Louisiana, and at a. considerable depth (1,000 feet) at the Retsof mine ,

--

'

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3953 I

at Piffard in the western'part of the State of New York. (See circular Retsof ~ining C~mpany, Exhibit A.) Rock salt is furnished in large lumps for sal~ing cattle and horses, or crushed into small pea-sized fragments for hide-salting, acid-making, and otller_Purpo_ses. . .

Price ojsalt.-The selhng pnce of common salt at the vanous works m 'Vestern New York during the past two years has avemged less than $2 50 per. net ton (2 000 pounds), and in Michigan the price has been still lower. The fre1ght f1·om ~vorks in Western New York to Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York City is at present 10 cents per hundred pounds, aud to Boston 12 cen~. being somewhat higher than before the passage ofthe·interstate-commerce !t..'t~

Years. I Com.mon I Fine salt. . salt.

-----------------------------------J--------1883 ................... ............................................................. .. 1884 .............................................. ; .................................. .. 1885 ................................................................................ .. 1886 ...................................................................... ............ . 1887 ................................................................................ ..

8. d. 9 6 7 9 9 0 9 6 7 9

s. d. 26 3 25 9 27 0 26 0 24 6

The selling price of English common salt at Liverpool is nominally 7r0"¥-· per

ton (2,240 pounds), but large sales have recently been made as low as 6s . . fh.•. The The very remarkable but gradual fall in the price of English salt is probably · freight on this salt from Liverpool dnring the past three years has vaned from not due to accident or special benevolence on the part_of the man';!facturer, bu_t 1s. to 8s. accord ina to the port to which it is sent, season of the year, etc. The is unquestionably due to overproduction or great (chiefly) American compettaverage 'freight fo~ this period to the principal ports of our Atlantic coast has t' probably been less than 4.s. ~~~examination of a series of Falk's circulars re~·eals some very interesting

Salt of this grade it brought over in bulk and payR a. duty of S"cents per hun- facts relatin o- to the formation of a combination m· trust among the snlt-pro-dred pounds. . uucers of Eafgland to contt·ol production ·aa~d regulate pr ices, ::nct the,hope and

Dairy or factory filled is chiefly prepared from common salt by certam pt·oc- expectation that the American Con;;r<!s3 w1ll pass ~aws that wtll er~ab.e_ them to esses of purification, drying, gri~di!lg, etc., an':! fetc.hes at the works in Syra- recover the American trade now slipp:ng from then· gr.tsp. That English mancuse Western New York, andJl.ltch1gan from$;) to $6 per ton (2,000 i ' unds). A. ufaC'turers are losing money on tbeit·shipments to America is frank!yconceded, bet~r quality, made direct from the brine by more expensive proces;,e::s, fetches and the unprecedentedly low prices pr~vai.ling .can only be expla.med on tne a higher price. . theory that the Eng: ish makers are scllm;; m thlS market at prt~es greatly be-

English fine salt varies greatly in fl!lality; the lowe.r ?rad~s, e. a., ~nlk's b~wg low cost in order to discourage and if possible <:rush o_ut A.mencan manufactobtainable for 21s. free on board at L1verpool; Deakm sat 25s.; wh1le the htgh- ore with the ultimate result of a I"eturn to !.he htgh prwe3 they formerly obest grade, Ashton's, is not q~oted to the trade for shipme~t to America, as the 1 · ed (Exhibit B) entire quantity brought to th1s country comes through a srngle house, namely, a:;~e ~risis in the s~lt industries of America. and England is at hand, and the that of F. D. Moulton & Co., of New York, who thereby enjoy a monopoly of question for the American Congress t<~ decid~ is whic~l shall yield to the otbel:'. the sale of this salt in America. This salt is quoted in the New York market The fea'r has been expressed that 1f Enghsh s!1lt IS shut out of the Amenin sa.cks at $25 per ton. 'l'he duty on this salt is 12 cents per 100 pounds, equal can market domestic manufacturers will fvrm a pool or trust for the purpose to $2.68 per ton. - of putting up prices to an unreasonable figure. This fear is basel~ss.

The sacks in which En.,.lish fine salt is b~ught to America pay no duty, but 'l'he salt manufacture of England is practically confined to 3: smg;l~ co~nty, the American salt manuf~turer using similar sacks is obliged to pay a duty of Cheshire, and an English pool has been formed and can b~ re~d1ly m:un~amed. 40 percent. on t.hem, or on the material from which they are made. _ The salt. manufacture of this country, on. the other.h~~;nd, IS ":1dely dtsll;'abuted,

English lump or rock: salts cost in Liverpool about 7s. to 8s. per ton, and until and experience has shown that an American pool 1s 1mprachcable, for If an at-_ quite recently was sold to the American consumer at a very large advance in tempt were made to unduly raise prices new territory would be developed to

p~~~ salt fl'Om Tm·k's Island and the Mediterranean is held in the Ne'W York 0~~~ i;,lt deposits ;n Western New York alone cover an area of over 2,000 square

market at from $8 to ~12 per ton. Just how much of this is profit to the importer m iles under which there is a stratum of rock salt 60 or 70 feet in thick: ness. we are not prepal'ed to state. U~til1:ecently there e~isted among the imp<?rte;s 1\lichi'gan posst"sses an equally extensive deposit or the raw material, and other of sea salls in New York a. combmat10n or pool whiCh controlled the pnce 1n lo~alities are abundantly supplied. America. is fully equal to tile task of furthat city. andjt was not until American rock salt fron;t ·westt.rn N~w York was nislainooall the salt needed by the domestic consumer, and at a reasonable pl'ice. freely offered in the Ne~ York market at comparat1ve~y low prices that con- Remo;e the present duty destroy domestic manufacture, and you _make our sumers were able to obtam coarse salt at a. reasonable pnce. entire country, as a great' portion of the civilized world now is, tributary to

Oosl ojmanufacture.-The eomparati':e cost of man?f~cture of salt in this conn- Cl h · try and in England involves a. compar1son of the or1gmal cost of the plant, the ~~~e ~~~muu!cation from Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co., already referred to, cost of repairs, the fuel used for evaporating the ?rine, and the_lab~n: emplo?·ed corning from a h'>use that has so long been identified witl_J. the E1~glish sa!t.inin raking or lifiin"' the salt from the pans and gramers and puttmg 1t m the bms. terests, merits careful consideration, as they are unquestwuably 1n a pos1hou

The first cost of"a sa.lt plant in America is about double that of ~n Eugl~sh to be well informed as to the matters of which they speak. ~lemust, however, plant of the same capacity, due to the gre:;ter cost of the w_ood antl11·on whiCll ·join issue with them on some points, both of fa.ct and inference. enter into their construct10n, and to the h1gher wnges rece1ved by the masons, These gentlemen, the sole agents for .Ashton's English ~airy salt, atta~k the carpenters, and laborers employed in the.work. 1\Incll ?fthe m~chine_ry is lia- quality of American salt, especially that prepared for da1ry use, speakrng as

. ble to rapid deterioration, and the large u·on pans, costu;1g say ~.000 tor a pan C 11 100 by 30feetjn size, will requirea~nually repa_us amount.mg to fu!ly 20 percent. o .. 1~se:rican brine is full of lime, gypsum, and other foreign matt~r, ~hich

· of their prime cost. These repatrs are relahvely more expens1ve than they can not be wholly eliminated by any process of manufactm·e. Enghsh IS free would be in England. from these injurious elements."

All of the boiled salts, that is, the grades know~?- ~s "common" and ... fine" These statements we o.bsolutely and categorically deny. The fact is, there is (iactory filled), necessitate the use of large quantttles of coal and !he employ- absolutely no "lime" (oxide of calcium) in American brine . Gypsu~ (sulph~te ment of much labor. . . of lime) does exist in American brine also, and to a great extent m Enghsh

Coal is cheaper in Eno-land than here, and the rate of wages pa1d 1n England brine. As, however, butter-makers use salt, not brine, the purity of the manu-is about onc·halfthat which is paid in America for similar services. • . fact'ured ai·ticle is alone in qnestion.

The cost of fuel for evaporating brine in this <;ountry we can state with some From an analysis made by Dr. F. E. Engelhardt, formerly New York Stato exactness based on the actual production of salt and consumption of coal dur- chemist, we learn that Ashton's salt contn.ins-ing the ru~nths ofDecernber,January, and February just passed, at one of the Per cent works in \Vestern New York. · 97 75

fu~~~~1! fi~~~e o~~:~~~~~·~:rbbu~::~T.0!rssl~z';~~er ~:~(~~ ~0~~~~~,®0.93 f~r §:N;h~~-~·r·li~~::::::::::::::::::~:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::.::::: 1:21 The rate of ~ages paid in 'Vestern New York to rakers and lifters of salt JS From the same authority we have analyses of several American salts, as fol-

$1.50 per day, and the actual cost for labor on the salt above referred to amounted lows: to $4,403, equal to $2.66 per bushel, ot· $L06J?er ton (2,000_pol~nd~). A ton of s:Ut No. 1. therefore costs for fuel and the labor of rakmg and puttmg m bl?S ~2.29. Da1ry Per cent.

:lj fletqi~i;:: i~sff~~~d:d~~:r~~s~1:0 ~{ {:~fl :~~o~~~0tl1~~ &IJ~!;~~~~ ~fdp~~~l;g · §~l~h~at~-~i'ii~;;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::·: :::: ::::·:·::::.:·::.:: 98:~g and putting on cars, the expense of selling the product, and the expenses of ad-ministration are not included. . . . No. 2.

ra~r:;i:fl!~;;~:f~~\~!t~~t:~~~~~~~~~ill~~~:~l:~i:a~~Ef:~n!i= 1

i~Feh~~:~:~:~~~::-:-:-:-:-:.::::.:::::-:-:-_:::::::::::-:-:-::-::::-:.:.:_:::::::::.:·:·::::::::-_::-:-:-::.:_:::::.::_:: ::::.::_:_:::: :::!! proved machinery, as cheaply in this .}Ountry as m E?gland, and t~at solar salt Sulphate of lime....................................................................... . .............. .16 can not be made and gathered as cheaply by Amertcan labor as 1t can by the From Dr. Goessman, director of the :i\Iassachusetts State Experimental Sta-native Portuguese, Italians, and \Vest Indian n~groes. . tion, at Amherst, we have an analysis of American dairy salt, y~elding-

In a. communication from Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co. to your comm1ttee, a · Per cent. statement is made as to the comparative expense of laying down a. ton (2,240 pom1ds) of Syracuse and a ton of English salt in ~ew York. It is t~ere sta~ed Pm·e salt .......... .............. .... .... ......................... .............................................. 93.52 that it costs $4.20 to deliver a. ton of Syracuse salt m New York, wh1le Eoghsh Sulphate of lime ................................................................................. : .......... 1.01 salt can be placed there for $3.32 if admitted free of duty, which is entirely in From Prof. c. F . Chandler, of New York, an analysis of Amencan dairy salt, harmony with what we have ourselves stated abo'l'e. . . yielding-

The inference of F. D.l\Ioulton&Co., "thattheAmerlCa.nmanufacturertakes Per cent. the full adYa.ntage of his position in extorting from the consumer every cent that he can consistentlv with keeping out the foreign article,'' and "that the Pure saJt. .... ........... .. ............................. ......... ................................................. 99.69 American manufacturer is rcceivjng an unduly la.rge percentage of_Profit," are Sulphate oflin1e.................. .... .. .......................................... .. .................. ..... . .04 not warranted by the facts, ns the cost o~ producmg Syracuse salt lS probably From J. F. Geisler, official chemist, !';ew York l'tlercantile Exchange, we have

·greater than even that of~\ estern Ne~ 1 ork. · . . . I a direct comparison between English and American common salts, as follows: l\Iuch valun.ble information concermng the relatiOns of English to Amencan

salt will be obtained from an examination of Falk's salt circulars. Fro~ these English-circnlars, covering a pel'iod of several years, we find that the average pnces of . . . . Per cent. English salt at Liverpool have been as follows: · Pure salt ............... ; .............. .... .. ........... ....................................... : .. ....... 98.57

Years.

1872 ............................................. .. ................ : .................. . 1873 .............. ........... .... ..... .. , .................. ........... ............. .. 1874 ... ................................................................. ...... .. .. .... . 1R75 .......................... .... ...................... .... ........................... . 11!76 .... ............................................................................ .. 18i7 .... .. ...................................... ............ ....................... .

" 1R78 .. : ........ : ............... .. : . ." .. ; .................. ............................ ..

~~:::::::::::::::::::::~:-::::: :: :~::: ::::::- :::::::::::::::::: : :: :::::::::: : :: .:::: ::: 1881 ............... : . .............. .......... : ..................... ......... ... ...... .. 1882 ..... ........... ........... ....................................................... .

.XIX--248

Sulphate of lime.. . ...... .. ............... ............... ..................... ......... .............. 1. 28

Co:~.on Fine salt. Am;~~~~t ........ .. .. ....... ...... ..... ................................................................... 98. 88

s. d. 10 6 15 0 16 0 12 0 10 0 9 0

10 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0

s. tl. 35 0 40 0 42 0 40 0 31 0 28 0 28 0 27 0 26 0 26 0 26 0

.Sulphate of lime..................................... ... .............. ... ...... ...... .. .... ...... ... . 97 The utter falsity of the charges preferred by :Messrs. F. D. Moulton & Co.

against the purity of American salt is shown by the above. . F. D . M. & Co. further s~ate that "salt evaporated from sea-water ts very

strong and remarkably free from impurities, and on this account is preferred by packers and others to American salt." The true fact is, that repeA.ted analyses, both hel'e and abroad, show that sea-salt produced by solar ~v,~poration usuu.lly contains but 95 to 96 per cent. of pure salt, the balance c?n~1stmg of various impurities. We are surprised that F. D. M . & Co. are so 1ll-mformcd on the question of the purity of sea-salt. .

We are not in a position to know what the preferences of Amer1can rueat -packers may be, but will simply state that to our knowledge over 2,~ tons of salt wereshioped by one works in Western New York to the packers masingle Western city, during six months ending December 31,1887.

/

3954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MA_y 10,

That the dairymen of America. do not universally prefer English or even Ashton's salt, is shown in the "memorial" previously addressed to;your committee. Additional evidence on this point may be obtained from the advertising circular of one of the American companies. (Exhibit C.)

In F. D.l\Ioulton & Co.'s communication it is stated that the cost o~ining and crushing rock salt at Piffard, N. Y., is from 50 cents to $1 a ton, and that the company receives for the same from SS Ito 57 a. ton. The officers ot the mining company have stated to the undersigned that the co t of mining this salt and putting it on the cars is fully S2 per ton. They further state that they do not recei-ve the prices named by Moulton, and offer in evidence an account of sales with that house (Exhibit D).

In conclusion, the undersigned desire to express their candid belief that the American saJt industry will not be able to survive the removal of the presenL duty on sa.lt; and that with this industry destroyed, the trade will be almos t wholly in the hands of the English, who, with their American agents, will reap the profits that will inevitably accrue from the advance in price to the consumer.

We do not believe that other conclusions can be arrived at., or that it is the desire of your committee, m· of Congress, to bring about this state of affairs.

Respectfully yours,

MAncn, 1888. Hon. RoGER Q. MILLS,

Chairman of Committee on Ways and Means.

H. G. PIFFARD. S. T. KERR.

Mr. YARDLEY. I now yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ATKL.~SON].

Mr. ATKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in saying that I am a believer in the American policy of protection as applied in imposing duties upon the importation offoreign commodities which come into competition with the productions of the United States, and after a. careful consideration of the arguments which have been adduced against this policy my fuith in its propriety is still nnshaken. I support it not solely becn.use it is of advantage to American manufacturers in giving them the opportunity to supply the markets of the United States, nor only bec:mse it has incren.sed the wages and raised the standard of li>ing among the working masses of the country, but for the reason that it has been and will be of advn.ntage to the whole country .

I trust that I am not so narrow in my views nor so lacking in patriotism as to favor a policy that would be of advantage only to the district which I have the honor to represent or to the State or section in which I live, and which would be injurious to the people of other districts, or

needed relief to the thousa-nds of indigent n.nd disabled soldiers, their parents or wid~ws and orphans, or in smoothing the declininO' years and giving some adequate reeompen e to the bmve men who, when the nation was threatened with destr11ction, freely offered their lives to protect and preserve it.

But none of these suggestions have met with favor from the party in power, and a ca.ll upon some of our people to surrender something they are now supposed to enjoy is regarded by our rulers as the highest statesmanship.

It m..'1y not be improper to contra5t in this connection the difference between the present and the culmination of the reYenue-tariff period in 1857.

President Cleveland complains of the exceEsive a.ccumulation of money in the Treasury, due, as bis frien ds allege, to tbe protecti>e t:rriif; President Buchanan complained bec:lluse the Treasury was empty, the effect of the revenue k'lriif of 18-iG.

Protective duties ha~e filled the Treasury, and Demxrn.tic statesmanship is not equal to the task of applying the money to any good purpose. Bub in 1 57 there wa.s less currency circulating among the people than now; a. condition of things exi terl. which was described by Mr. Buchanan in his first annual message, Dec0mber 8, 1857:

The earth h3.S yielded h er fruits a.bunda.ntly, n.nd has bountifully rewarded the toil of the husb ndman. Our grea t st pies have commanded high pt·ices, and, up till within a brief period, our manufacturing, mineral, and meolmnic:tl occupations !lave larg·cly partaken of the gener 1 pros peri ty. 'Ve have posse -ed all the elements of material wealth in rich abundance, !l.lld yet, notwithstn.nding all these o.dvantages, our country, in its monetary intere ts, js at tho pTesent moment in a.deplomble condition . In the midst of tmsurpasserl plenty in all the productions of agriculture and in nll the elements of nationnl w ealth we find our manufactures suspended, our pu blic woks retarded, our privat et terpri es of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of usefulln.borers thrown out of employment a.nd red uced to want.

The revenue of the Government, which is chief.ly derived "from duties on imports irom abro:td, hns been greatly reduced, while the appropriations made by Cong-ress at its last session for the current fiscal year are very large in amount.

Under th63e circumsta nces a. loan may be required before the close of your present session; but this, although deeply to be regretted, would prove it to be a slight misfortune when compared with the s uffering and distress prevailing among our p eople. With this the Government can not fail to deeply sympathize, though it may be without the pow~ to afford relief.

States, or sections. Under a revenue tariff in 1837 the United States Trea ury was empty, I would not wilJingly insist upon the adoption or perpetuation of a while ~400,000,000 of gold in. ·en from the mines of Cdifornia in the

system of government that wonld build up one portion of this country preceding eight years had been sent abroad to swell the coffers of the at the expense of the rest, nor would I ad vocate a. policy that wonld British Empire; in 1887 the silver and gold ha.ve accumulated at home. favor a class or classes of our people and impose undne burdens upon In 1857 our money was in the hands of foreigners, onr manufuctories the others who are equally entitled to the benefits of just government. were suspended, our public works retarded, our private enterprises of :Bnt I conceive that the paramount duty of the Government is to de- different kinds n.bn.ndoned, and thousands of u seful laborers thrown out velop the resources of our common country, and this embraces the dnty employment and reduced to wn.nt; in 18 7, under the syE tern inaugnto provide for the employment of all our people so far as this can prop- mted by a Republica-n administration, which has thus far escaped muerly be done, either directly or indirectly, by legisla-tion. For the tilation n.t the banda of its free-trade enemies, the money is in our own wealth of a country does not consist only in fertile lands and prolific hands, we find our manufacturers actively at work, our public works, mines supplemented by a genial climate, but over and above n.ll these, so far as the Executive has permitted appropriations to be mn.de thereutilizing and making them product ive, are the skillful hands which, for, in full progress, private enterprises vigorously pushed, while the guided by intelligence and stimulated by a. fair reward, create out of wage-workers n.re generally employed at remunerative wages. that which before wa.s unproductive the varied commodities which · In 1857 our manufacturers had snrrendered, not upon the call of the fill our marts and figure in the census reports as the wealth of the President and for the public good, but b~1.nse the American market nation. had been occupied by the products of foreign manufacturers. Our gold

We can not legislate for all mankind, bnt we can and shonld in the and silver had been sent abroad to pay for goods thn.t could and should first jnstance so shape our policy as to give our own people every possi- have been made n.t home; n.nd onr people, by renson of this lo s of the ble advantage in their own land. precious metals, were too poor to buy. If the pre ent situation is aln.rm-

And I do not favor a policy which invites "our ma-nufacturers in the ing, the condition of the country in 1 57 wn.s deplorable. Intelligent emergency that presses upon ns to surr~nder something for the public statesmanship can avoid the present danger, but the money sent abroad good,'' as the President in his message suggests. I do not believe thn.t to pay ad verse bn.lances of trade can not by :my laws of our frn.ming the interests of one set of men are so hostile to the interests of the rest be brought back. The President says thn.t we are confronted with a that any surrender need be made or shonld be demanded, nor do I be- condition n.nd not a theory. The condition tha.t he deprecates n.nd delieve that o'br own manufacturers, or mechanics, or miners, or laborers sires to change is the circumstance that the revenues are in excess of shonld relinquish their ability or their right to supply the wants of the the expenditures of the Government, by reason of which large sums of American people. If the carpenters, and joiners, n.nd milliners, and money are locked up in the Treasury vaults instead of circula-ting dressmakers, and blacksmiths, and tailors, and masons, and butchers, among the people. This state of things i productive of evil, and a and bakers, and plasterers who are so carefully enumerated in this re- remedy must be sought. And right here is where we are confronted markable message have the power to build our houses, make our cloth- by a theory. It is the President's own theory; not his own in the ing, and supply our food, is there any go()d reason why the miner and sense of having originated it, but his own because he has adopted it skilled artisan nnd the men who by means of their capital and energy from others and thus made it his. make the work of the miner and the artisan productive, and put their Theory is defined to be ''a plan or scheme existing only in the mind, products upon the market, should be deprived of their ability to supply opposed to practice,'' :md the term is here correctly applied, for never in us? the history of our country has such a plan been adopted in practical af-

As in historic days the motto of "no surrender" brought honor and fairs. He assures us that it is not a question of free trade and at once renown to the men who upheld American interests in the presence of proposes to place upon the free-list a vast number of articles which are foreign armed foes, so I shallinsistupon ' ·no surrender" of any Amer- producecl in the United States and which he affects to believe can be ican industry, especially when a. surrender of existing right v;ill give supplied for a less money price from abroad. He proposes that we shall an advantage t~ forei<Tn coillpetitors. This surrender is called for be- h aYc free coal, free wool, free iron ore, free salt, free lumber, and says eause there is a. surplus of money in the Treasury which is withdmwu I that the question of protection and free trade is not involved. He misfrom the business of the country, and the President believes that we t:llies; what he proposes is free trade. The advocates of free trade recare, in consequence, likely to be plunged into business distress. o<!llize his pl::m as in full n.ccord with their teachings and belief and

This will probably be so unless some intelligent way of expending promptly mlJy to his support, while the friends ofprotectLon see in his the snrplus income can be devised by those who are now unfortunately recommendation that '' mw materials u ed in manufactures'' shall be in power, n.nd of this I confess I haYe little hope. It has often been admitted into our port.s under a reduced duty, or without duty, an atpointed out that the income of the nation might well ue applied to the tempt to bribe manufacturers and divide the friends of the protective payment of the public debt, to needed public improvements, in fur- policy. The admission of anythmg free of duty which competes with nishing greater facili tleS for the education of the people, in giving much- American productions of a like character is contrary to the men.ning n.nd

.

.

'

1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSF. 3955 spirit of the policy of prot~ction, and a surrender of any one articl.e is a I for in her speech fr~m the throne on February 9 last, she declared surrender of the pri~ciples upon which the whole policy is based. that-

But while the message of the President carried consternation to the The pro:<>pects .of commet·ce are more hopeful th:1n any which I ha>e been

Producers of America who were by it summoned to surrender there n.ble to po~nt to m many yea~. I C!eeply regr~t. that the1:e has been no con·e-la h

·' · h · al l if t th' · t' spondmg Improvement obsen:-able. m the.cond1t10n ofagr1culture. were p ces w ere 1t met w1t umvers approva no en us1as 1c . . · b h f; 1 h h applause. Our commercial rivals, who have long sought to pierce and The pr~spec~ <?f Bntish commerce ecame ~oTe ope o w en t e

. destro the armor which secured the market of 60 000 000 of consum- Democ_r~tlc position was announced h! the Pl'esident, and the hea~t of toy 1 d h'h tr' dfi i ~swhocontrib theBntishQueenwasgla.ddened. HsheweretheruleroftheUruted

erst d outhr. owntopeo~ e,laf:n f~ JC ~ • amti~ .orethgl·snem"·~ket recei·"ed- States, also, she would probably put as much pressure upon the Demo-n e no rng oui we are 1om pa.tuClpa on 1n ~ , • . 'd f th' H el tb f thi b'll th p · th · t n· , f th · f th p- ·de t as contained in his me~_ cratic S1 e o IS ouse to com P"' e passage o s 1 as e resl-

e ID ~ 1~~ncv 0 . e Tie~s 0r e ... esl n . . · . ·15 dent is now said to be doing. sage with ghouliSh glee. These commercial r1vals saw m the clis- Ur Ch . th li f t ti · t" 1 · 'ts d tance, perhaps, but none the less clearly, their approaching triumph, · auman, e P° CY_ 0 . pro ec 0~ 1~ na: wna m 1 scope, an to be celebrated upon the prostrate forms of dead or dying Amerjc:m based upon w~ll-defined p~m.cr~>les. It IS not mtended to benefit one industries, and their loud hosannas over the message were for a while class no~ one mterest, but 1~ lS rntended to encourage and dev~lop the 1 t h'1d' h · tb i - bo n Nearl ever British journal productiVe forces of the nation for the benefit of the whole nat1on. If

a mos c 1 t 18th In e r exu ora ce. Y Y the manufacturers are to have free coal and ore and wool that these sanTghpreaL nsd 0 pe mt e ~~e. things may be cheaper, I may ask, at whose expense? Of couTSe, at

e on on os savs. th f th A · 1 d d th Am · f: d 'Ve shall be much mist;ken if the effect of this sta.te communication will not ~expense 0 . ~ ~encan an -o~ner an e encan a~~er an

be to strengthen considerably the c..\Se of free-tnders in all pat'ts of the wocld. nnner, for thelf ngh ,s to the Amencan market are to be sacrificed for It will be regarded as a ~te~ in the rjgbt direction by all who believe in the the benefit of somebody else; and if chea.pness alone is desired the soundness of free-trade prmc:ples. reason for cheapening only the raw materials of !lli1nufhctnre _is not ob-

The London Globe says: vious-. Why not give the consumer the benefit of the greatest possible T~e President, it is trne, _do~s not c.'\.11 his new de.P.arture by tbat ugly nm~e;. reduction in price and admit the finished product free? The logic

on tue contrary, he wa.xc:~ Jr:.dt~·mmt F.~ the suppoSition that he ho.s come- o' et which would abandon the farmer aud the miner to their fate would to free trade. But to Amencau e:u·s tne whole mess ge must be redolent of , . . . . . Cobdenism in a slightly modifier! form. * * "' This remarkable utternnce not ieel called upon to stop until the legitimate conclusiOn lS reached, will ~ecerta~n to exercise an ab.~olutelypc::ramountinflnt?nce on the nextP;e."i- and this would be free trade in e>erything. That the free-traders dentlal.elec;tlOu. Party names a~ld !?arty ties arc throw.n mto h~tch-potch. Fhe themselves recocrnize this as the loaical result is shown by the fact that governmg 1ssuo ut the contest W1H he betweea protectiOn and free trade. ll h dn~th l · .r. '=' f th d 1 dl , a a\e an·aye emse ves m .~a>or o e message an ou y pro-

The London Specbtor says tnat the message has- claim thems~lves the supporters of its author. struck: a blow at Americ.:ut protection. · The ''raw materials used in manufactures '' to be admitted free may

It adds tl!a.t tho President- to-day be iroo ore and lumber and wool, but. after them would follow has tired a. shot at the protec~ior:ists which will be all the more e!fective for his the next higher forms into which the~e things may be made. Carey, refusal to discu63 the tbeoreiic issue. answering the question, What is raw material, says:

The London Satnrday Re-view says that the messagedeals with a question which is as interesting to Engli.J>hmen as .Amel'icans.

And it adds: · · President Clevtland bus devoted himself entirely to tne tariff': It is impos

sible to recast this without touch in~ direclly the pockets of every citizen of the United States, and iudil·cct~y intluencing the commercial interests of the world. The President and the Democratic lee.ders have finally decided that they have nothing to gain by keeping ruensure any longer with the protectionists. They hava, from whate•er motive. reeol>cd to" adopt a free-trade policy. Nothing can be more explicit than the President's language. "The simple and plain duty wh1ch we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an econom.ical operation of the Government, and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury." In America this mea,ns free trade.

The Scotchman s:1ys of the President's proposal to reduce duties: It may be admitted tha.t large reductions in the duties on imported manu

factured goods would produce great distress in many pa,rts of the country-Meaning the Unitetl States, and adds:

The free importation of iron, coal. and wool would ben. great boon to British producers. * * • If it were accompanied with reductions in the tariff upon cotton, woolen, and other manufactures the artisans of this country would derive a marked benefit. from it. If once the Unit-ed States finds herself on the foad to free trade she will hardly know ~here to stop.

The London Iron and Steel Trades Journal says: The facts set forth in the P1·esident's message, though uy no means new, m·c

now brought so prominently under the notice of the American Congress and of American citizens th&t a violent stimulus must be given tcr the party which advocates entire freedom of trade.

The London Iron says: The inessagf\ of President Clevel:md to the United States Cong-ress is the pre

liminary to a movement which we trust will gain in strength. The London Ironmonger says:

Dealing with the messag-e as it stands, it would certainly seem to indicate a . greater leaning towards free-trade principles on the part of the United States Cabinet than has been observable hitherto. · In a leading article the London Colliery Guardian for December 16 says: If President Cleveland should be ~~eble to cany out his plan for admission into

America free of duty, one of the fi1·st effects which would be produced on the English iron b·ade would be the transfet·ence of much of the enormous stocks of pig in the Scotch and Cleveland markets to United States ports. Shipments of hematites from Scotland and from the west coast of England would also in crease. The it·on-ore n:ti nes of Lancashire and West Cumberland would be certain to do a. greatly enlarged trade with the United States.

In an article on" Tbe coal tradein 1887 and its prospects for 1888" the London Times says: ' If President Cleveland's tariff reforms are carried, English goods and iron and

steel largely will go to the States in greatly increased proportions. AN E~D OF BRITISH EXULTATION.

Suddenly all these expressions of sympathy and delight with the President's message have practically ceased in England and Scotland. The London Pall Mall Gazette· gave the following warning, and it has been heeded:

English free-traders would be well advised if they moderated the ecstacy of thei~ j~b~tion m;er President Cleveland's messa"ge. Eyery word which they say m tts favor w1ll be used as a powerful arg-ument agamst the adoption of its rooommendalrons.

:But this warning seems to have been lost on the Q11een of England,

All theproduct.ions of the earth are, in their turn, finished commodity n.nd rnw materials. Coal and ore are the finished commodity of the miner, and yet they are only the raw material of which pig-iron is made. The latter is the finished commodity of the smelter, and yet it is but the raw material of the puddler and him who rolls tbe bar. The bar aga in is the raw material of sheet iron, and that in turn becomes the raw material of the nail and the spike. These, ill time, become the raw material of the house, in the diminished cost of which are found concentrated all the changes that have been observed in various stages of passage from the rude ore lying useless in the earth to the nail, t.he spike, the hammer, and the saw requli'od fo::.- the completion of a modern dwelling.

1\Ir. David A. Wells, in No. 7 of his Economic Disturbance Series, states that-

With the exception of Great Britain, Holland, Sweden and N orwa.y, Denmark:, and possibly China, there is not a state in the world claim.ing civilization and maintaining commerce to any extent with foreign countries which ba.s not within recent years materially advanced its import or export duties. Russi.1. commenced raising her dnties on imports in lW, and has continued to do so until the Russian tariff at the present time is in a great degree prohibitory and one of the highest ever enacted in modern times by any nation. the aggregate value of its importations for 1&!6 being returned at only $194,450,000, a reduction of about 25 per cent. in three years, or since 1883. Italy and Austria--Hungary raised their tarilfs in 1878; Germany in 1879; France in 1881; Austria-Hungary again in 1882 and 1887; Switzerland in 188.5; the Dominion of Canada in l.SR3 and 1087; Roumania in 1836; Belgium and Brazil in 1887; while in the United States, owing to the decline in the prices of goods subject to specific duties, the average ad >alorem rate of duty on dutiable merchandise has advanced from 41.61 per cent. in 1834 to 45.55 per cent. in 1886.

If these other nations see proper to restrain the importation of foreign goods which compete with their own productions, are we to assume that they are mistaken in doing so? Have they not been taught by experience that their own producers and manufacturers need the help that is giYen them by protective duties? It can not be alleged that these nations, embracing republics, kingdoms, and empires, acted :in ignorance and wholly without consideration in thus incre:;tsing their tariffs, and it is assuming a. great deal to presume that the majority of our Committee on Ways and Means and their free-trade backers understand the art of government better than the statesmen of these nations I have named. But the statesmen from Texas and Arkansas and Kentucky and their compeers prefer the British system of free trade, and they propose to force its principles upon us and compel us to adopt some of its practices.

They appear to act in happy obliviousness of the fact that England for more than five hundred years was under protective :k1.ws and for only 1orty-two years under f1·ee trade. That before she adopted free trade she had developed her manufactures until she believed that she was invulnerable and could successfully compete with any and all other nations in the markets of the world; that by means of her highly improved machinery, her trained artisans, her natural resources, and her vast foreign and colonia.} possessions, acquired by war after war and' bloodshed succeeding bloodshed, she could defy the world commercially as she defied the Tarious nations. Before her conversion to free trade her protective system embraced the prohjbition of the exportation of machinery and raw materials, the emigration of skilled mechanics1 and the importation of all manufactured articles which she could produce herseu·. Tbe violation of these laws was punishable by fines, imprisonment, maiming, and death, and they were rigidly en: forced. By such means she succeefled in building up, perfecting, and maintaining her industries until she believed she could furnish the

.

3956 ~ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

whole world with manufactured goods. Her colonies were spread in eYer.v direction, and every one was expected to -be an addition to her market.

India, long noted for the manufactme of the finest fabrics ever known, became a part of the English market. Years ago the East India Company annually reGeived of the produce of the looms of India 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 pieces of cotton cloth. In 1800 the United States took 800,000 pieces, in 1830 not 4,000. In 1800 Portugal took 1,000,000 pieces, in 1830 only 20,000, and now none a.re exported, and production has almost ceased. The poor Indian wea>ers were reduced to absolute starvation; numbers died of hunger. And what was the sole cause? The presence of the English cheaper article. Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, have all been duped by England into adopting in some shape low tariff or free trade, and they have now seen their mistake and corrected it by the adoption of high tariffs .. While England was able to induce other people to buy her goods, their own manufactmes were suppressed, and when they began to work 1or themselves she had every advantage in her favor-capital, skilled workmen, improved machinery, ships, and markets. Now every European nation has asserted its industrial independence and is engaged in the race for industrial supremacy. But so great a1·eheradvanta.ges that they are compelled to pay less wages and hedge themselves around with protective tariff's in order to compete with her at all. And now it is asked of us that we shall surrender our advantages to her and admit her goods untaxed into Qur markets in equal competition with our own people, who bear all the burdens of our nation. Shall we 1all into the trap from which other nations have just lately libe:ated them-selves? I hope not. -

TRUSTS.

Gentlemen assert that this bill is so adjusted a'3 to defeat the so-called trusts or combinations which have recently sprung into existence and threatened to destroy some of the ad vantages which it was hoped would ,bf:} derived from free competition amongst American producers. Duties have been lowered on sugar, and copper, and steel mils, and other things in the production of which combinations exist or are suspected, and we are told that the purpose of these reductions is to admit the foreigner into onr market upon such terms as will enable him to successfully compete with the trusts and combines of which we now hear so much. SeYeral objections suggest tliemselves to this policy.

First. It is an admission that we can not by law regulate such combinations, and we therefore call upon foreigners to save us from the consequences of our own impotence. It i desirable that all the commodities named should be produced in America. for Americans, and the

- admission of foreign commodities to our markets involves to this extent the production abroad of what we should make at home, thus leaving labor unemployed and resources undeveloped.

Second. The remedy proposed is inadequate, and does not meet the evil complained of. The coffee trust, coal oil trust, the cotton-seed-oil trust, the whisky trust, and many others would not be in any way affected by the so-called remedy, because there can be no competition in tnese n·om abroad, and yet their exactions may be as burdensome as the sugar or steel combine.

Third. 'rhe proposed remedy would be defeated wheneveracombination would be made between producers on botb sides of the Atlantic,

- as is illustrated by the copper trust, which, originating in France, has been made to embrace the civilized world and controls production and prices everywhere.

Free-traders prate about the the formation of these so-called trusts and attribute their existence to the protective tariff, for it seems that no enthusiastic ad vocate of free trade hesitates to misrepresent the facts in the interest of his favorite theory; but in fact combinations to corner the market and enhance prices are as old as history. By a constitution of Zeno, Emperor of the East, who reigned from A. D. 474 to 491, all monopolies and combinations to keep up the price of merchandise, provisions, or workmanship were prohibited upon pain of forfeiture of goods and perpetual banishment. If the evil bad not then existed it is not likely that a remedy would have been provided.

The offenses of forest.<tlling the market, the engrossing of any commodity with an intent to sell it at an unreasonable price, and of monopolies and combinations to enhance prices are indictable and punishable under the common law, and were denounced by a statute of Ed ward VI, passed A. D. 1552, which imposed severe penalties for these crimes. And I submit that in the light of these historic precedents it ·is ridiculous to attribute the existence of trusts and combina~t ons to the effects of a protective tariff. Men ha>e combined to advance what they believe to be their interests from the beginning of history, the greatest ''combine" of modern times having been the Southern Confederac.Y, which was organized to secure the perpetuation of human slavery and the adoption of free trade.

Trusts of home growth can and will be suppressed or restrained by home-ruade laws; trusts of European growth can not be affected by American laws, save as their products can be taxed by our tariffs. It is false to say that "trusts" are creature3 or in ::tny way results of the

"' protective tariff, and it is silly to assume that delivery from the power of home trusts to the power of foreign trusts is a desirable thing.

The present protective tariff was adopted March 3, 1861; it has been in force for twenty-seven years, but it is only lately that ''trusts"

have een formed in any commodity protected by tariff duties. The coal-oil trust, the whisky trust, and the cotton-seed-oil tr!IBt were all formed long ago, although neither the production, distribution, nor con~ sumption of c~al-oil, whisky, or cotton-seed oil is affected by taritll:;.

WOOL.

Wool is placed on the free-list by the s:>-called revenue reformers. Its production is a source of revenue to the American farmer; if placed upon the free-list his revenues from this source will surely be diminished. Who demands this sacrifice? Is it the manufacturers of woo leu goods? We find that they protest against it. In a petition presented to this House thev say:

The undersigned, manufacturers in New England, recognizing the principle of protection as national and not provincial, and consequently equally applicable to all the industries of the United States; repudiatiug"auy distinction in this connection between so-called "raw m aterials" of domestic production and "finished products," whether the output of mines, farms, or work.sho ps; claiming that the American policy should benefit alike all citizens, whether engaged in agriculture, manufacturing, or mining; that the industries of the country are interdependent and mutually sustaining, and the people of the different sections co-customers and co-consumers. do therefore respectfully submit that no article, "raw" or otherwise, of home production should be added to the free-list or inequitably changed in the tariff' rates.

And to the same effect is the action of the Philadelphia Boa.rd of Trade, which..-

&solved, That while the revision of the tariff and the laws governing the ta;iff may have become necessary, no Jaw should be passed which would tend to cripple, break up, or destroy the home industries and home markets of the United States.

Resolved, That the extension of the free-list of imports into the United States should be only of such chat-acte r as will aid the further development of manufactures, and that no free importation of any article shou1d be allowed that will milltate against any of the industries of the c~untry.

If ma.nufacturers oppose the removal of the duties from wool and the principal commercial bodies lift their >oices against i t and the farmers denounce it, pray state what men or class of men desire it. Has there been a single petition presented praying for the removal of the duties upon wool? I have seen none; I have he:1rd of none. The profit of the farmer upon the wool he raises has been so small that no considerable body of citizens of the United States bas asked that it shall be diminished. Only theorists demand the removal of these duties. It is well known that woolen clothing is cheaper now than ever before in the his~ tory of this country, and at no time could a laboring man buy more o:r · better with a month's wages than now. But cheapness should not be the sole aim of life, especially when it means the degmdation of human labor. All the products of the woolen mills of the class generally used by the masses of the people are as cheap here as in a free-trade country, and this is especially so of blankets and ready-made clothing. The fact that we have domestic competition, skilled artisans trained to the work, and the large and constant demand of the best market on earth bas contributed to reduce prices so low that all persons who have empioyment are well supplied. The workingman can purchase clothes from $5 to $12 per suit as good as can be bought for the same money abroad. He can buy a pair of good blankets which will last a lifetime for $,), and the same low prices prevail for all ordinary woolen goods.

And in this connection we must not overlook the important tact that only a very small proportion of a li,tborer's income goes tor woolen cloth~ ing. This is so well known that no complaint has ever been heard from the laboring men about the high price of clothing, and it is equally well known that our laborers and their families are better clothed than the laborers of any other nation. This crus:tde against the protective tariff upon wool has been conducted by the free-trader upon a specious and deceptive plan. He tells the farmer that free trade in wool will increase the price and benefit him; he assures the manufacturer that it will decrease the price and benefit him; the laboring man that it will make his clothing cheaper through foreign importation; the manufacturer is told that he can make goods cheaper and thus keep out the foreigner, and give him in addition a share of the world's market, while at the same time the importers and their foreign allies are intriguing ancl working to place wool upon the free-list.

If they succeed somebody will be cheated, and it will not be the importers or foreigners. Clothing will not be much cheaper; if the powers of the farmer to purchase are much reduced the manufacturers can sell less, while the amount of goods imported will be increased, and the market tor home production to that extent will be diminished. But · uppose the farmers produced the wool and gave it to the manuiac~ urers for nothing-did not get a cent tor it-how much would a suit cf clothes be reduced in price? Five or six pounds of wool will make sufficient cloth for a suit of heavy clothing. If the wool is worth, ready for making into cloth, 60 cents a pound; the wool that enters into a suit worth $25 to $30 would cost $3. GO. The highest class wools only pay a duty of 12 cents a pound. If the duty were added to the price it would only enhance the price 7~ cents tor an entire heavy suit of clothes. If the duty were off wool and 72 cents were saved in the cost of each suit, how much would be saved to the we.1.rer? Not one cent. The trifling difference would be lost in the cour.:;c of trade, and would probably be distributed between tbe manufaeturer of the cloth, the jobber, the wholesale merchant, thflmechanks who made up the goods, and the clothier from whom the clothing is at last bought.

In 18 1 we produced 272,000,UOJ ~t1mls of wool in the United States, and we imported in the ft,;c .. ll year e:uling June 30, 1881, 56,-000,000, making an aggregate of 328,000,000 pounds, out ofwhic:b. we

. 1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3957 exported 5,500,000 pounds, leaving for the consumption of the country....-32:t, 500,000 pounds. Our populat-ion was then over 50,000,000 of people, and the amount of wool, if di5tributed per capita, would have been but· ~ pounds each. The duties on wool vary from 12 cent-s a pound for the finest imported wool to 2~ cents for the coarsest kinds, and most of that i~ported was the latter sort. But admitting (or the sake of the argument that every pound of wool consumed was enhanced in price to the full extent of the maximum duty, t-he whole additional cost of woolen clothing to each person in the United States would uvemge only 76 cents.

'The rich, who buy more woolen clothing and of finer varietie3 th:tn the poor, would pay much more than this proportion, while the poor would pa,y much less. All the money that would be saved to the poorest man by removing the duties on wool, if the price were reduced to the ext-ent of the duties, would not pay for tlre tobacco he uses in a month. At best it would be a mere trifle; in practi~l mercantile affairs it would amount to nothing. But what will be the effect of the removal of the duty upon the wool-producers of the country?

Mulhall (Hi<;tory of Prices) states that the production of wool bas more than doubled since 1850-that is, the increase has been three times faster than that of population, th~ clip of aU nations summing up~ follows:

Countries. 1830.

Pounds. Europe........................... 630,000, COO United Sta~................. 90,000,000 lli ver Plate.................... 25, 000, 000 Australia........................ 43,000,000 Cape Colony........ . ......... 48, 000, 000

1860.

Pounds. 715, 000, 000 112,000,000 56,000,000 70,000,000 68,000,000

1870.

Pounds. 807. 000, 000 151,000,000 167,000,000 197,000,000 101, 000, 000

1883.

P <ltmds. 660,000,000 300, 000, 000 305, 000, 000 421,000,000 122, 000, OOJ

I----------:-----------:-----------1-----------Total.. ....... ...... ...... 836, 000, 000 , 1, 021, 000, 000 1 1,426, 000, 000 1, 818, 000, COO

The marvelous increase in the production of wool in Cape Colony, Australia, and the River Plate country is without a parallel in history. It is due to the fact that in these places land is cheap, the climate is well adapted t-o sheep-raising, no feed need be provided for winter, and the wages of the natives who are employed in attending the sheep are very low indeed. Against such competition as will come from these countries, if unrestrained, it will be impossible for our farmers to com-

. pete; and if wool is placed upon the free-list, as proposed by this hill, its production in this nation will soon practically cea-se.

The majority of the Ways and Means Committee assert in their report that if wool is pla-ced upon the free-list our manufacturers can "make their goods cheaper and send them into foreign markets and successfully compete with the foreign manufacturers." But before we can reasonably expect to send woolen goods into foreign markets, to compete with foreign-made goods, we should first supply ourselves, which we have not yet done.

It appears that in 1887 we imported $45,000,000 worth of woolen goods. These imported woolens not only bore the cost of transportation from abroad bnt.also paid duties.

Before we can command the markets of the world with woolen goods we must supply our own market with $45,000,000 worth of woolens and must also red nee the price not only below t.he cost of woolen goods sent to our country from abroad,· but must in addition pay their transportation to distant countries in order to sell them there. This we can never do and pay existing wages to the mechanics who make the goods or existing prices to the farmers who now produce the wool. No proof is offered by the advocates of free wool to show that the removal of the duties on wool will enable us to manufacture woolen goods for export; they ask us to take the fact for granted because they say so.

This is easily disproyed. We have a full and abundant supply of cotton of every quality desired; it is produced in our own country, so that no foreign transportation charges need b~paid upon it, and our . opportunities to use and manufacture it are superior to those of any other nation so far as cheapness and abundant supply are concerned. Our operatives engaged in manufactures are as skillful as any in the world, and our machinery is equal to the best. .

Foreign wool will be brought to us with additional transportation charges upon it and subject to the losses incident to long-distance carriage. Our cotton cloths are in demand in the South American markets, where woolen goods are unsuited to the climate; and yet with all our facilities for manufacturing, and with a market near, our exports of manufactured cotton in 1880 were only $10,000,000 out of a total domestic p1·oduction of$210,900,000 worth of such goods; and in 1886 our exports had nsen to only $13,959,934.

The following table shows the extent of our exports of cotton mlll:mfactures for ten years:

During tue fiscal year ended June 3o-

i~~::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ·si~:~:~g

~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::: :~: r~: g~ 1882 • .. .... .. ... .. ... .. . ... .... . .. . .. .. .. ... . .. . .. . ... .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .... .. .. . .. .. .. . ..... .... ... .. ... . 13, 222, 979 1883 ...... ...... ...... ..................... ...... ............... ...... .... .. ...... .................. ...... 12,951, 145 1884 ... .. . ..... . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . .. . . . ... . ... .. . .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. ... . . ... .. . ... .. . ........ 11, 885, 211 1885 ............................................. ... :.. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ............... 11, 636,591 1885...... ............... ................ ................... .... . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . ... .. . ... ... ...... 13, 959, 934

From the above statement it will be seen that the average annual value of the exports of cotton manufactures for the last ti.ve years (1882-'86) amounted to $12,731,128, and the exports of 1886 were but a trifle in excess of those of 1881.

On the other hand, the average annual value of cotton goods imported in the last five yeai'S exceeded $31,000,000.

If we ca.q not export cotton goods, with all our ad>antages, how can we succeed better with woolen goods, e>en if the wool is admitted free of duty and will be cheapened if it is placed upon the free-list? Hut I do not believe that the removal of the duty upon foreign wool '\'\-ill ultimately reduce its price.

In 1864 the production of wool in the UnitedStates was 142,000,000 pounds; in 1874 it was 181,000,000, and in 188-t it was 308,000,000 pounds. We imported in the same years 43,8-10,154, 54,901,760, and 70,596,170 pounds, respectively. In twenty years our wool production was increased 166,000,000 pounds, while our import-s were increased only 26,756,016 pounds. At the same relative rate of supply we will soon furnish our own markets with wool f1·om our own flocks, and no f01eign wool will be needed.

Quantities of wool prod·uced, imported; exported, and 1·etained for consumption in the United States from 1864 to 1885, inclusive.

Total pro- Retained Calendar Production. Year ending Imports. ductiouaud for home

year. June 30- imports. con;;:ump-tion.

Ponnds. Pounds. Fotmds. Pounds. 1864 ............... 142,000,000 1865 ................. 43,SH, 15-i 185, 84Q, 154 184, 69-J, 691 1865 ............... 155, 000, 000 1R66 ................. 76,532,214 231,532,214 229,707,554 1866 ............... 16u, 000, 000 1867 ...... ........... 16,551!,046 176, 558,046 175,632,041 1867 ............... 168,000,000 1868 .. ............... 24,121,803- 192,124,803 ISS, 764., 516

.1868 ............... 180,000, 000 1859 ................. 39,275,936 219, 275, 926 218,489,122 1869 ............... 162, 000, 000 1h70 ................. 49,230,199 211.230,199 209,367,254 1870 ............... 160,000,000 1871 ................. 68, 0.58, 023 228, 058, 028 226.727,522 1871 ............... 150, 000. 000 1872 ................. 12'2, 256, 499 272, 256, 499 269, 849, 591 1872 ............... 158, 000, 000 1873 ................. 85,496,049 243, 496, 049 2..'16, 380, 534 1873 ............... 170, ooorooo 1874 ................. 42.939,541 212, 939, 541 2:J5, !;()3, 78-i 1874 ............... 181, 000, 000 1875 ................ 54,901,760 2;s.5, 901, 760 23~. 156,099 1875 ............... 192, 000, 000 1876 ................. 44,642,836 236, 642, 836 235, 019, 642 1876 ............... 200,000, 001) 1877 ................. 42,171,192 242, 171, 192 z:m, 002, 636 1877 ............... 208, 250, 000 1878 ................. 48,449,079 256, 699 '079 250, 399, 004 187&.. ........ ...... 211, 000, 000 1879 ................. 39,005,155 250, 005, 155 U5,839,755 1879 ............... 232, 500, 000 1880 ................. 128, 131, 747 360,631,747 356, 791, 676 1880 ............... 240,000,006 1ll81. ................ 55. 964., 236 295, 964., 236 2\10,38-5,247 1881 ............... 272,000,000 1882 ................. 67,861,744 339, 86]. 744 335, 913, 729 1582 ............... 290,000,000 1883 ................ 70,575,478 360, 575, 478 356, 500, 961 1883 ............... 300,000,000 1884 ................. 78,350,651 37R, 350, 6-51 376, 035, 557 1884 ................ 308, 000, 000 1885 ................. 70,596,170 378, 596, 1 70 375, 492, 82-:> 1885 ............... 302, 000, 000 1886 ................. 129, 084, 958 431, 084, 958 429, 849, 242

It will be seen that until1885 there was a gradual increase in the amount of wool grown in this country. This increase in the production of wool, it will be observed from the table, is-very gradual. From its nature it was not susceptible of sudden enlargement. The acreage in cotton or wheat may vary very greatly in successive years, but with wool there~can be no such variation.

Our flocks have grown slowly under the intelligent care of their owners, the sta~istics of this industry being as follows:

Sheep. 184n ........................................................................................................ 19,311,375 1 ;)0 ........................................................................................................ 21,723,221 1860 ....................................................................................................... 22,471,274 1870 ................................................................. , ...................................... 28, 477, 951 1880 .............. .............................. : ........................................................... 42, 192,074 1885 ........................................................................................................ 50, 360,213

Not only has the production of wool increased actually but relatively to the number of sheep. Owing to favorable and permanent legislation wool-growers have improved their flocks by raising better breeds and thus increased the weight of fleeces. In 1840, according to t.he census, the average weight of farm fleeces was 1.85 pounds; 1850, 2.42 pounds; 1860, 2.68 pounds; 1880,4.79 pounds. Says Mr. Dodge, in commenting on this:

"The improvement in density aud weight of fleece constitutes the great adyantage that the manufacturing demand has made rather than increase of price, which tends to steadiness and chea.puess in material and product, by the full development of the manufacture."

Another point is the higher value of American wools. The imported wools of the last tive years constitute nearly one-fifth of th_e quantity manufactured, but it is little more than a. tenth of the value of wool manufactured. This suows that under a. sufficient tariff American growers have gone into the best qualities of wool. With this enormous increase in production, has the price been increased to the consumer? Not at all. I give the total average prices, in gold, of domestic, tiiJe mediu.m, and coarse-w11shed fleece wool for each year from 1859 to 1884, and let the reader judge for himself:

Cents. Cents. 1859 ................................................... 49 1872 ................................................... 62 1860 ........................ ........................... 48 1873 .................................................. 48 1861. .................................................. 39 1!!74 ................................................... 47 1862 ................................................... 45 1875 ................................................... 43 1863 ................................................... 52 1/:!76 ................................................... 37 1864 ................ ................................... 43 1877 ................................................... 40 18r>5 ................................................... 51 1878 ................................................... 38 1866 ......... .... ............ ..... ..................... 43 11'.79 ................................................... 36 1867 ................................................... 37 1880 ................................................... 4!) 1868 .................................................. 33 1!!81 ................................................... 42 1869 ................................................... 37 1882 ................................................... 42 1870 ................................................... 40 1883 ................................................... 39 1871. .................................................. 48 1884 ................................................... 33

These t~bles could be extended back to 1832, and the fa.ct would be revealed that, with two single exceptions, wool has never averaged as low as in 1884; that the tendency has been a steady increase in production, improvement in

I

-


quality, and decrease in price,'arid yet. in spite of all, tbe Democra.tic'party now proposes to destroy by a single blow the important industry that h s grown and flourished so under protection by opening our·ports to the f1-ee wools of Australia and the Rh-er Plntte country. This amounts to the Confiscation of the property of the farmers , and every sheep·grower in the land should prote t againstit. ·

Tbe market for fine wool bas been almost completely supplied, and the importations have been prineip:llly of the coarser wools. In 1835 we imported clothing wools vn.lned at $2,262,824, combing wools \alued at ~669,604, and carpet and other simiL'll' wools valued at $5,947,495.

Duties more or less protective in their character have been imposed upon wool from the very beginning of this Government, and even the low-re\enue tariff of 1846 imposed duties upon imported wool. If foreign wool is now admitted free of duty it is probable th::tt our market will be flooded with wool from abroad and the prices of domestic wool will be broken at once. Wool-growing will become unprofitable and our flocks will be slaughtered, competition between American and foreign wool i.Jl CC!l.Se, and our markets will be surrendered to the foreign product.

The supply of domestic wool no longer competing, the increased demand for toreign wool to supply our own markets 1\i11 advance the price, and we will find ourselves paying hig?er ~rices for in~erior_foreign wools than we now pay for a better quality or the domestic artlcle. This was the history of prices under the revenue tariff of 1846, and I see no reason to doubt that this result will follow the pernicious legislation imposed by this bill.

In 1880 there were 382 establishments enga~ed in the manufaeture of silk in the United State:J. The capital invested in the industry was $28,189,400, and 31,337 hands were employed.

In that year raw silk was imported to the value of e12,024,699, and the manufactured product was valued at $34,519,723.

In the &'liDe year our imports of manufactured silk were valued at $31,460,947. The raw silk imported was free of duty, while the manufactured silk had charged upon it an average duty of 58.98 per cent. Here we have an instance of free raw materials such as is contended for by the free-traders, with every facility for its manufaeture in th~ United States. The machinery used was of the best clasa, and skilled workmen, many of whom had learned thmr trades in the factories of Europe, were employed. The product of the American looms was superior in quality to that imported, and the duty on foreign silks was higher than upon almost any other fabrics. In fact, it was the high duty that first induced our people to ~ngage in the manufacture of silk.

But with free raw material, skilled workmen, good machinery, and a high duty on manufactured silks, we were not able to supply our own markets. The theory of the gentlemen on the other side is that with free raw materials our exports of manufactured products will be increased. Why was there not a large exportation of American silks after raw silk was placed on the free-list? But the beneficial influence of a protective tariff was well illustrated in the growth of the silk industry of the United States. In 1870 we imported only three millions' worth of raw silk, while in 1880 our imports were twelve millions, and in 1886 eighteen millions of dollars' worth, while the value of manufactured silk imported was reduced from thirty-nine millions in 1882 to twenty-ejght millions in 1886. Silk goods were first manufactured here in 1867. Witboutaprotective tariff we would import all the silk goods we use; with protection we manufacture more than ·one·half. We employ more than thirty-five thousand people at this industry, and a-dd $40,000,000 annually to the value of the raw materials imported before they are placed on the market for consumption.

SALT.

Salt, too, is placed upon the free-list by this bill. Imported salt in ba~s and barrels now pays a duty of 12 cents a hun~red, and salt in bulk a dutyof8 cents a hundred pounds. In l&S6 we Imported 2,406,-305 barrels, paying duties amountin~ to $706,3-24, or aboutl.l6.cents of duty to eaeb person in the United States. The domestic productions for the same yea,r was 7, 707,081 barrels, and this was furnished by the States of Michigan, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, California, and other States. In Louisiana, Nevada, and Utah deposits of salt are found, and this rock salt is mined and pla-ced upon the market. Elsewhere it is prep..'l.l'ed by the evaporation of brine, in some localities by solar heat, in others by artificial beat. Michigan heads the list of salt-producing States, her output in 1886 having been 3, 677,-257 barrels. The fuel used is in most cases the offal of the saw-mills, the salt works and mills being located side by side, and the sawdust and other offal being utilized in evaporating the brine. The history of the sn.lt industry in the United States shows a progressive decline in price with increase in the quantity produced.

In 1860 the salt productof Michigan was 4,000barrels andcost$2.35. In 1887 her product was 4,000,000 barrels, costing 58 cents per barrel, · including the cost of the barrel, 20 cents. Salt is indispensable in the household as well as in commerce and manufactures. If there is anything in the world in which we should be self-supporting itissalt. It is highly imprudent in n.s to rely upon foreign countri~ for our AAlt supply, and we should not permit other nations to make this country a dumping-ground for their excessive stock.

We have here the'' raw material of manufacture," the rock and the brine, and according to the theory of the maj~rity of the Ways and

Menns Committee we should send out salt into the ''markets of the world," tha.t great undefined re~don which they have not yet located. But the reason that we do not sell salt abroad and that it is imported here is that the foreign rates of wages are not quite one-half of what are paid in this country, and the removal of the duty will result in either. the reduction of the wages df our people or a large influx of foreign salt, with a corresponding loss of employment to both labor and capital. The foreign article comes as ball..'\St or at nominal freight and is sent into the country from the seaboard until it meets the domestic article. The removal of the duty will enable it to reach a further point inland than now and it will thru usurp a greater portion of our market. No better .salt is made anywhere than in the United States, and every consideration of safet-y and p::ttriotism requires that we shall maintain this industry.

If our industrial independence is to be maintained and our national safety provided for, we must be prepared to furnish our own clothing and our own food, and salt is indispensable to the production of the latter. The revenue from im_portations of salt is insignificant, while the removal of the duties may destroy the salt industry of the United States.

cpA.L.

Under the pending bill "mineral substances in a. crude state and metals unwnmght" are to be admitted free, except when otherwise provided, and no duties are imposed on iron ore and bituminous coal. What will be admitted free under this provision of the bill? "Crude" is said by lexicographers to mean "in a raw state, " " not changed by any process of preparation,'' ''unrefined,'' as common crude salt. Coal and iron ore are not mentioned in any of the schedules of this bill, and there can be little doubt that they are placed upon the freelist as "mineral substances in a crude state."

A similai: expression in the existing tariff law has been held to embrace all ores not otherwise provided for, and to include limestoneand sand. Iron ore and bituminous coal have each a duty of 75 cents a ton imposed upon them by existing law. It is remarkable that these important products me not placed upon the free-list by name, so that attention might atonee have been given to the wrong done by exempting them from duty; but the dark-lantern methods pursued in framing this bill seem to have crept into its verbiage and a part of its destructive purposes is left to interpretation instead of being clothed in honest expression. A duty has been imposed upon bituminous coal from 1824 until the present time, and the importance of the coal industry demands that its interests should be protected, and that the miners engagoo in its production, the owners of our coal lands, nnd the vast capital invested in its transportation should be permitted to have their own market. No one bas charged that excessive profits have been made in the production or transportation of bituminous coal, and no bituminous coal "trust" has anywhere appeared as a bogy to frighten the free-traders. -

The average cost of bituminous coal at the mouth of the mine in Pennsylvania is estimated to have been during tll.e last year 80! cents a ton, many mines having been worked at a loss to the operators. The production of bituminous coal in Pennsylvania for 1886 was 26,160,735 short tons, and the aggregate production for the United States for the same year was 73,707,957 short tons, against 5, 775,077 tons mined in 1860.

That this vast increase of production was largely due to our protective tari.ff goes without saying1 and the low prices a.t which it is now produced is an illustration of the unvarying rule that prices have declined under domestic competition.

But if coal is placed upon the free-list the coal from Nova Scotia, which is mined at tide water and shipped upon vessels at the .mouth of the mines will compete with domesti-c coal all along the Atlantic coast as far south as Baltimore, and to the extent that the market is supplied from this source our miners will be deprived of employment and mine owners of a market.

Chinese labor is employed in the Nova Scotia mines, wages paid them are of the lowest, and it is currently reported that they have no houses there, but live inside the mines like the beasts tha.t draw the miners' cars. I ask, is it fair that American miners should be snbiected to such competition?

The wages of our miners are now too low, strikes occur in which the fault too often lies with the mine owners; but Chinese competition may destroy the ability of the men to strike, and this perhaps may enable a few heartless mine owners to score new triumphs over poor American wage-workers. It can not be that coal is placecl upon the tree-list in order to carry on t the President's idea of ''free raw materials of manufacture ' 1 for the coal we ha.>e is already free. As it lies in the mine it is~he free gift of nature to us. It costs absolutely nothing until capital bas een expended in developing the mines n.nd the miner has gone down into the recesses of the earth to bring it w the light of day. If any part of the market is taken by ~oreign coal, i t will be a. blo'Y to ~nr labor and capitn.l as unnecessary as it will be bru.m.ful to AmeriCan mterests.

mo:s- oRE.

The amount Gf iron ore :producecl in the United States in 1886 was much larger than in any previous year, and is GStimated at 10.000,000

.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3959 gro stons,and theamountofironoreimportedwas1,039,433tons. The imported ore com':!S from Cuba, Spain, Algeria, and Elba. Slave labor is employed in its production in Cuba, while the laborers engaged in the mines of Spain and Africa consider themselves well paid at 25 cents per day.

If iron ore is put upon t}:le free-list American miners of iron ore will be placed in competition with slaves and lazzaroni., and if this is done to cheapen the price of iron ore this cheapness comes at too great a cost. The average of wages to our own miners is shown by officiai reports to be from $1.40 to $2.08 per day, and if iron is to be cheapened by the introduction of free forei_gn.. ore this cheapening must begin with the labor of the men who are engaged in its production.

The advocates of this plan do not openly and directly propose to reduce wages, but they aim at the same result in this in~rect way by substituting the products of foreign labor at starvation wages for the products of the Amerrean workingman, and thus depriving him of work. The question that arises is, shall American labor engaged in the production of iron ore and coal be protected as well a.-, the labor that is employed at the furnace and the forge? What is the reason for placing these articles npon the free-list? The supply of American ore is unlimited in extent and of every variety suitable for steel as well as iron. If there is a necessity for importing other crude materials there is none in this. Under a protective duty home competition can be relied upon to meet the wants of our iron and steel manufacturers, with every variety of ore at the lowest cost consistent with fair wagesrto American labor. We should not relyupon importations for that which we can ourselves supply. American ore can not be exported; why not give it the borne market? The splendid growth of our iron and steel industries, under protection, is without a parallel in the history of the world. Production of the i1·on and steel industries of the United States since the

· close of tiLe civil war. [Net tons of2;000 pounds.l

~.a ~ ~]. 8 O:ai OaS'"' 1i)C:SQ3 $.4;...0

s:iOIJ5 .!i .... m ~ ~ ..... ~~

cl -~~] 1 0'0 ~.,rn 0 ·c; . s a .... ,.. s -~ m ~ -o·~ ,.. ~]§

,.. lll.bl ~~ ,..

'In ~ Q)

~ ffi~~ l~~ c::l era;= G)

~ 0 <P-o !>< ~ ~

,.. 00 Ill Ill 1-1

1865 ......... 931,582 500,().18 356,292 ·········· ······· 356,292 15.262 63,977 1866 ......... 1,350,3-!3 595,311 430,778 ... .................. 430,778 18,973 73,555 1867 ......... 1,461,626 579,838 459,558 2,550 462,108 22,000 73,()73 1868 ......... 1,603,000 598,286 499,489 7,225 506,TI4 30,000 75,200 1869 ......... 1, 916,641 642,420 583,936 9,650 593,586 35,000 69,500 1870 ......... 1,865,000 705,000 586,000 34,000 620,000 77,000 62,259 1871. . ....... 1,911,608 710,000 737,483 38,250 775, 73.'1 82,000 63,000 1872 ......... 2,854,558 941,992 905,930 94,070 1,000, 000 160,108 58,000 1873 ......... 2,868,278 1,076,368 761,062 129,015 890, fJ77 222,652 62,564 1874 .. . ...... 2,689,413 ~. 110,147 584,469 144,944 729,413 241,614 Gl,670 1875 ......... 2,266, 581 1,097,867 501,649 290,863 792,512 436,575 49,243 1876 ......... 2,093,236 1,042,101 467,168 412,461 879,629 597,174 44,628 1877 .......... 2,314,585 1,144,219 332,540 432,169 764,709 637,972 47.300 1.878 ......... 2, 577,361 1,232, &!6 32t,890 559,795 882,685 819,814 50,045 1879 ......... 3,070,875 1,627,324 420,160 693,113 1,113,273 1,047,506 62,353 1880 ......... 4,295,414 1,838, 906 493,762 968,1,75 1,461,837 1,397,015 74,589 1881. ......... 4, 641,564 2,155,346 488,581 1,355, 519 1,844,100 1, 778,912 84,606 1882 .......... 5,178,122 2,265,957 227,874 1,460, 920 1,68l '794 1,945,095 91,293 1883 .......... 5,146,fl72 2,~.920 64,954 1,295, 740 1,360, 694 1,874,359 74,758 18Si ......... 4,589,613 1, 931,747 25,560 1,119,291 1,144,851 1, 736,985 57,005 1885 ......... 4,529,869 1, 789,740 14,815 1,079,400 1,094,215 1, 917,350 41,700 1886 ........ 6,355,328 2,259, 9t3 23,679 1, 768,922 1, 792,601 2,870,003 41,909

And in the presence of this vast increase in production there has been a marked diminution in price, as shown by the following table: PRICES OF IRON A..."'fl> STEEL "0].-:DER A RE~-uE TARIFF AND lTh"DER PROTECTIO::s'

The prices given in the following table embrace the revenue-ta.riffoeriod before the war o.nd the last fourteen yell.l"3 of the protective-tariff period, which was u he red in by the Morrill tariff of 1861. In these fourteen years the inflation of values eaused by the expansion of the currency as an incident of our civil war had passed away. These prices are yearly averages of monthly quotations for No. 1 anthracite foundry pig-iron, best refined bar-iron, and iron rails, all per gross ton, at Philadelphia; nails, per keg, wholesale, -at Philadelphia; and steel rails, per gross ton, at Pennsylvania mills.

Prices under the revenue tariffs of 18!6 and 1!:!57.

Prices under onr present protective tarifi'.

Years. ;pig- . ~ar- Iron Cut pjg- Bar- I Steel Cut

_____ 1_I_ro_n_. _1_ro_n_. _ _ ran_·_s_.n __ ail_s_._

1 ______

1_ir_o_n_. iron. rails. nails.

Years.

i~L::::::::::::: ~~ ~k~ 'S69 ... Si::w· 1874 ...... ..... . 1875 ........... .

1848. .. ............ 2&} 79. 33 62t 4. 30 1876 ........... . 1849.. ............. 22;f 67.50 53t 4. 00 1877 ........... . 1850 ............ _. ~w.. 99.54 47V 3.65 1851............... 2It 54.66 45j- 3. 30

1878 .......... .. 1879 ........... .

1832-..~ .. ~ .. ·• 22t 5 .79 48f 3.~ 1880 ........... . 1853_ ............. 3fit 8.'3. 50 77t 4. 50 1881 .......... .. 1&H............... 36r m. 33 sot 4. 60 1882 .......... .. 1&'55 ........ ...... 27t 74.58 62f 4.10 1883 ........... . 1&'56 ............ ,_ 27t 73.75 6it 3. 94 1884 ........... . 1&'57.... ........... 26! 71.04 64t 3. 72 1885 ........... . 18.58.. .... ......... ~2-!- 62.29 50 2. 50 1886 .......... .. 1859... ......... ... 23t 60,00 49-g- 3. 96 1887 .......... .. 1860... ...... ..... . 22t 58. 75 48 3. 13

S30t $67. 95 0:.9(~ S3. 99 25! 60. 85 "68t 3. 42 22t 52. 08 59t 2. 98 18t 45. 55 45t 2. 57 17t 44.24 42t 2. 31 2It 51.85 48t 2. 69 28l., 60. 38 67l 3. 68 25t 58.05 61t 3. 09 25;f 61.41 4.8t 3. 47 22t 5u. so an 3. 06 19t 44.05 30;f 2.39 18 40.32 ~ 2.33 18t 43.12 34t 2. 27 21 49.87 87t 2. 30

Average ..... 26ti71.'52j58i' 3.87jAv~ --z2t 52.11f5t3tr2.9

These figures show that pig-iron, bar-iron, and nails have been cheaper under protection than under a revenue policy, and that steel rails have been sold under protection at much lowe1· prices than ir-on rails were sold under a revenue tarifl:',

But notwithstanding the'decrease in price, American wages have been maintained, and the men e::ngage~ in iron and steel production have been better paid, better cla.d, and better fed, have lived in more comfortable houses and have given their children better educational advantages than any other iron and steel workers on the face of the earth have been able to afford. Although we have achieved this vast result in our production of iron and steel, we have not been able to supply our home market.

The following table shows the foreign values {)[ all our imports of iron and steel, induding fire-arms, h!lrdware, cutlery, machinery, etc., from 1871 to 1886:

Years. Values. Years. Values. Years. Values.

lBn ............... $57,866,299 1877 .............. 519,874.,399 1883 .. ............ $47,506,306 1872 ... ., .......... 75,617,677 1878 .............. 18,013,010 1884 .............. 37,078,122 1 73 ............... 60,005,538 1879 .............. 33,331,569 1885 .............. 31,144,552 1874 ............... 37,652, 192 1880 .............. 80,443,362 1886 .......•...... 41,630,779 1875 ............... 27,363,101 1881. .... ......... 61,555,077 1876 ............... 20,016.603 1882 .............. 67,075,125

The total importations of these sixteen years aggregate $716,173,711 in foreign value. Their cost to our people was, however, much more than this sum-importers' profits, ocean freight, and other charges, bringing the total cost up to almost, if not altogether, double the foreign value.

These importations were admitted because the articles named were produced more cheaply abroad than they could be made in this country, and this was only rendered possible by the fact that wages abroad were lower than here. The cost of producing a ton of iron is 73 per cent. labor, as shown by the following carefully-prepared and well-authenticated table:

Anthracite and bitu- Charcoal. minous •

Labor in producing raw materials................................. SIO. 26 $9.62 Labor in transporting raw materials.............................. 1. 78 3.17 Labor at furnace, including repairs................................ 1. 91 2. 44

1---------~--------Total cost of labor................................................. . 13.95 15.23

Taxes, insura.nce,commissions,ofl:iceexpenses, interest, freight, traveling expenses, royalties, etc..................... 5. 22 5.18

1---------1---------Total cost ofs. ton of pig-iron................................ 19.17 20.41

Percentage of labor cost to total cost ....... ~ ...... ~.......... .... 73 74

Let us give all this labor to Americans and not to foreigners. WAGES.

Official investigations show that the rates of wages in the United States were in 1879 more than twice those of Belgium, three times those in Denmark, Germany, and France, once and a half those in England and Scotland, and more than three times those in Italy and Spain. At the same time the prices of the necessaries of life are lower in the United States than in any of the foregoing countries, and the relative prices of necessaries of life and wages it is believed have not materially changed since that time. In 1884 it was estimated by competent authority that assuming the produce of labor to be one hundred, in Great Britain fifty-six parts go to the laborer, twenty-one to capital, and twenty-three to government; in France forty-one parts go to the laborer, thirty-six to capital, and twenty-three to government; in the United States seventy-two parts go to the laborer, twenty-three to capital, and five to government.

The hearings before the Tariff Commission in 1882 brought out a very complete comparison between the wages then paid in this conn try and in Europe. The result is on record. It is that in industrial pursuits generally the standard of wages is at least 60 per cent. higher here than in Britain, and the difference is still greater against every continental country.

This conclusion is established beyond controversy. Our mills and factories while peopled with men and women whom we are proud to call American.-,, are not the work-places of those only who are native born. In them you will find working side by side Americans and Irish-Americans and German-Americans, all receiving like pay for similar services, and in estimating the rates of wages no one asks about the nation~ ality of the artisan. Why are these foreign mechanics and artisans and laborers here? They have left friends -to whom they were attached, have braved the perils of the ocean and begun life anew in a strange land. They came to better their condition, and have found that with the same amount of exertion they can secure more of the comforts and conveniences of life than they could secure at their old homes, and to these they may here add luxuries which were unattainable abroad.

They earn better wages here than in Germany, or Ireland, or England, and their increased earning power is not due to their increased

..

•

/

3960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-=HOUSE. MA"Y 10,

efficiency, but because the American rate of wages is higher than in theconntrics from _which they came. No verbal juggling about bigb wages occasioning low cost of production can wipe out this stubborn fact.

If a man gets $1.75 in England for puddling a ton of iron and $5.50 for the same services in Pittsburgh, it cannot be successfully contcndea that the cost of the production of a ton ofiron in Pittsburgh is not increased by the enhanced Yalue of the labor employed. And the relative wages of all labor is substantially the same. Between 1861 and 1886 the number of foreigners who came to our country was 8,620,664, and these were mostly mechanic.:; and la.borers. Why did they come if not to better their condition? Of this vast number bnt few have returned. How many American mechanics and laborers, have gone abroad to better their condition? I have never beard of a single one who did this.

Under the benign influence of the legislation placed upon the statute-books of the nation•by the Republican party, our manufacturing establishments have grown until they are second to none in the world. The character of their products has equaled those of the older nations, while the wages paid are higher tb:1.n in any other nation.

GROWTH OF AMERICAN MANUFAcruRES.

In 1850 the product of our manufactures was ................................. $1,019,106,616

In 1f~~~~~~~·.·:.::::·.:·:::.::::··.·::::.:::::·::::.·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::····$7G6;"74'5;·oro 1, 885, 8tH, 676 J p. 1870... ......... ..... .... ......... ........ ............ . ..... . ... ...... ... ...... .... .. .. .... .. .... 3, 385, 860, 334

In 1~8~.~-~-~ .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::. :· .. ~~:.~~: .:~~:.~~ 5, 369, 57il, 191

In 1~(~:~~~-i~'d'):::::::::::::::::::::::::·:·::.".'.'.".::·.::::: :::::::::·: .. ~!.:~~·-~~~~~~ 7, 000, 000,000 Increase ........ ................................................... ... $1,630,420,809

Notwithstanding the terrible civil strife, destroying the lives of hundreds of~housands of our young men, and exhausting many of our States, the growth of our manufactures between 18Ci0 a-nd 18i0, under a protective tariff, was almost double the increase under the revenue tariff of the preceding decade, while the growth from 1860to 1888 is almost 400 ller cent., in round numbers $5,114,138,324.

The tot.al wealth of the United States in 1880 was $43,642,000,000. The total wealth of Great Britain in 1880was$43,366,000,000. Chambers' Journal for January, 1884, declares that statisticians after calculations "pronounced the United States to be not only potentia,lly but actually richer than the United Kingdom." It bas been alleged by the friends of this bill that labor does not receive a fair share of the prodnets of manufacture in this country; and as :Mr. Edward Atkinson bas been quoted as authority by the gentleman who made the opening speech in this debate [Mr. MILLS], I, too, willreadfromhisworks. Of $1,100,000 product of a cotton mill be shows in his "Margin of Profits," page 23, that 91. 62 per cent. goes to the laborers, 7 per cent. to the owners, and 1.3A per cent. to the payment of taxes; or putting it in figures, $1,007,A20 of the $1,100,000 of product goes to wageearners. That the condition of the workmen is beUer now than ever before is shown by the same author, who says:

A hundred years ago, as nearly as I can make it out, it took more time and more hard work for a family to get their clothing than it did to-get their food. Now it takes a. great deal less time to earn money to buy clothing than it does to buy food. ·where a man spends $100 a y ear for uncooked food for his own use , he need not spend more tha n $4.0 a year for his c lothing, ready made, including his boots and shoes and hats. It is a great blunder to say that while the rich are growing richer the poor are growing poorer. It is onl y the poor who can't work well , or who won' t work well, who grow pQ9r while the rich are gi'Owing rich in this country. The best times for the manufacturer are the times when h e makes the most money, and they are always when the wages are highest, and not when they are lowest, because wage-earners are their principal and most important cust-omers.

Agaln I quote: The men of special skill, who are at the head of their trades, are 100 p er cent.

better off to-day than they were twenty years ago and more. 'l'hat is, they can buy twice as much clothing, food, fuel, and as good a shelter to-day for a year's wages as they could buy twenty years ago with what they earned then .

The a>erage carpenter, mason, painter, or other mechanic, who minds his own busine sand keeps the control of his own time, can buy nearly twice as much, but not quite. '.rhe average factory operative can buy two-th irds more than he or she could buy twenty years ago with a year's wages; and the coutmon laborer C!\n b uy 50 per cen t . more.

But gentlemen assert that the profits of the manufacturer are enormous, and they quote the census of 1880 to sustain their position. Mr. Edward Atkinson shows l10w worthless such estimates are:

It is a comruon blunder, made even by many members of Congress who ought to know better, to try to find out what were the pro tits of manufacturing in 1880 from the figures of the census. F or such a purpose the figures of the census are mere rubbish. All that you have in the census, and I know of what I speak, for I framed the forms of many of the questions, especially in the department in which I took the cen us myself. I say tha t all you have in the census which is of value and which can be made use of w ith safety, is the gross value of manufactured products: the cost of the materials; the number of employes, and the sum of their wAges; but when you undertake to al'l'ive at profits by deducting cost of material and the sum of the wages you are all at sea, because no statement was asked and no answer was given as to the cost of depreciation, the cost of iusm-ance, of taxes, of administration, of interest, of loss by bad debts, of di$tl'ihntion by railway, or of many other elements which used up the greater part of the 4 l pel' cent. which is erroneously assigned as the profits of capital. The year l880 was a very prosperous year, and the capital invested in manufacturing, mechanic, and mining arts in that year probably did earn f1·om 6 to 10 per cent., but on tile average not more than 10, and probably not as much.

Protection bas brought with it not only a development of the productive forces of the nation, bot it bas cheapened prices also. Thede-eline in the annual average ·currency price of some of the leading com-

modities in the New York market from 1850 to 18 6 is shown in the following table:

[ Prepm·ed by Mr. Joshua R eece, jr., of the New York Journal of Comu::crce.]

Middling Standard Standar:l Bleached Standard Gl by64

Years. cotton,per sheetings, drillings, shcctings, prints, per pri nling-

pound. per yard. per yard. per yard. yard. clot hs, pe r ~ ·a rd.

C(:n.t-s. Cents . Cents. CenL<l. Cents. Cents. 1850 ........ 12.3! 7.fn 7.97 14.96 1U.G2 5.19 1860 . . ...... 11.00 8.73 8. 92 15.50 9.50 5.44

~~··· .. I 23.98 14.58 14.98 2~.50 12.41 7.14 1 . 0 ........ ll.51 8.5L 8.51 12.74 7.41 4. 51 1886 .. ...... 9. 28 6.75 *6. 25 10.65 G.OO 3.31

*Including 1881 and since, the prices of standard drillings are net; r aw cot-ton prices are also net for the entire period.

MARKETS OF THE WORLD.

But we are told by the majority of the Ways and Means Committee in their report upon this bill that with free raw materials we can send our manufactured goods out into the markets of1he world. Where are these markets? If we go to Germany, or France, or Italy, or Russia we find them hedged in with protective tariffs, and straining eYery effort. to supply their own markets as well as to produce a surplus to sendabroad. Oftbe "world's market" Mr. David A. Wells says:

With the introduction of new, more effective, and cheaper inethods or instrumentalitiesofproduction, every nation of advanced civilization has experienced, in a greater or less degree, an increase in the product of nearly all its ind ustries save those which are essentially handicrart in their character, with not only no corresponding increase, but often an actual decrease in the number of laborers to whom regular and fairly remunerative employmentconstitult>s the only means of obtaining an independent and comfortable livelihood. EYery country with accumulating productions bas accordiugly felt the necessity of disposing of its surplus by e::::porting it to the markets .most freely open to it, and, as a. consequence, that has happened which might have been expected conld the exact course of eYents have been anticipated; namely, increa~ed competition in eYery home market, engendered by increasing domestic production and the efforts of foreign producers to export (introduce) their surplus; fiercer competition to effect sales of t.he excess of competitive products by the oellt' rS of all nations in neutral markets, and nn almost irresistible tendency toward a universal depresi.ion of prices and profits, and, to a greater or less extent, a displacement of labor.

It is also to be noted that as the capacity for industrial production hlet"eases and competition to effect sales becomes fiercer the more feverish is the anxiet.y to meet competition-especially on the part of foreign rh-als-by producing cheaper goods; and that this policy in the states of continental Em·ope, and more particularly Germany, is antagonizing efforts to shorten the l10urs of labor and restrict the fact-ory employment of women and children. and is also tending in a marked degree to do away with the heretofOTe general practice of suspending labor on Sund •ys.

In Saxony it is stated that-Sunday labor bas become usual in most factories and workshops solely under

the stress of competition, so that the hours of divine service are alone excluded, and these only from absolute necessity.

Are we to surrender our own· market to foreigners and follow the ignis }atuus of "markets of the world " into the "fierce competi t.ion" and ''feverish anxiety to meet competition'' that be describes and encounter the "universal depression of prices and profits" with the abandonment of the "heretofore general practice of suspending labor on Sundays" in order to succeed in doing so? I hope not.

But we have here in our own nation the best market in all the world. ·Sixty millions of enlightened people with abi1ity to boy and a disposition to consume, who are alongside our manufacturing establishments, furnish a better market than we· ean possibly secure elliewhere. Let us keep our own market for ourselves. England never once repealed, remitted, or abated a protective duty on any foreign goods until long after her superiority was established and she could produce cheaper than any of her competitors. Let us learn a lesson from her and maintain our duties so tbat we can retain our own markets. Every patriotic consideratio~ requires that this shall be done.

England must export manufactured products, because her very existence depends upon it, for her own markets are too limited to take the supply that can be produced by her own factories, and we look in vain for markets that are not already occupied and fully supplied.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing clearer or traer in human reasoning than that labor is the source of we~lth, and that its freedom and diversification are the measure of i ts productiveness.

Universal history testifies that not a single nation on the globe bas reached independence and wealth bot such as have firmly maintained a protective policy in the regulation of foreign trane. Protection is strong bec..'l.use it is national; because it bas rendered possible the brilliant industrial achievements of the last quarter of a century; because it is conservative and not wasteful; because it builds up and does not destroy. It means the defense of American interests, of American labor and capital, of .American commerce, and of American homes. It gives to our own workmen the preference in doing the work that may be required to be done for t.lle benefit of the American people. It has canied us safely through a civil war, it bas brought ns wealth and prosperity as a nation, and it should be maintained.

With our experience we may well say: Labor is discovered to be the grand conqueror, enriching and building np na

tions more surely than the proudest battles.

(Applause. J

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3961 During the deli"Very of the· foregoing remarks the h~mmer fell. reductions of taxes that has been made in the last twenty years have Mr. HOLl\:IAN. I hope the gentleman's time will be exiended. been made by the Republican party. Gentlemen upon the other side The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is now speaking in the time of talk much about oppressive taxes and the necessities for reduclion,

:mother gentleman. but when have they ever reduced the taxes of the country? For five Ur. HOLMA.N. I still trust that there will be no objection. long years they have had control of this House, and yet during that Mr. YARDLEY. I will yield the gentleman additional time if he time not one dollar of taxes has been reduced. The tree is known

desires it. by its fruits, and a political party is judged by its record, and that the l\1r. ATKINSON. I should be glad to haveafew minutes longer. people may know just what has been done by both parties in the last Mr. YARDLEY. Then I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman. twenty years, I offer in evidence an extract from the "views of the Mr. ATKINSON resumed and concluded his remarks, as above. minority of the Committee on Ways and Means," as presented by the Mr. YARDLEY. 1\Ir. Chairman, I do not flatter myself that in the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McKINLEY]:

closing days of this debate I shall be able to present any new views or By the act of July 14, 18i0, the reduction of the revenue from customs duties offer any suggestions but what have practically received the attenti;:;n was: and consideration of this House; but I have the honor to represent upon Free-list ......... :..................................................................................... $2,403, ooo this floor a district whose hills are black with the smoke of the furnace Estimated reduction from dutiable list............................................... 23,651,748 and whose valleys echo the sound of the shuttle and the loom-a dis- Tot11ol.. ... ~ ... ................................... ... :..... ............................. 26,054,748 trict of more than one hundred and seventy-five thousand intelligent, By the act of May 1, 1872, tea and coffee were placed upon the freeprosperous, hopeful people, who believe that their great manufactur- · list, making a reduction of... .. .......................................................... 15,893,847 ing and agricultural interest.s will be seriously affected by the de- By the act of June 6, 1872, tariff duties were further reduced, and the reducstruction of the system of protection; and therefore for them, and in tion by the-their name, I solemnly and earnestly protest against the passage of this Free-list ................. .... .............................. - .................... ~ ..................... S3, 345• 724

, . Estimated reduction from the dutiable list ........................................... 11, 933,191 bill. ---

Less than thirty years ago: when the Democratic party went out of Total.. .......................................................................................... 15,278,915 business, it left the country with its credit impaired and its Treasury By the act of March 3, 1883, from tariff-bankrupt; but to-day we are confronted with the anomalous condition Free-list.. .... ~.... ....... ..... ...... ....................................................... .. ..... $1,365,999 of an outstanding debt and an overflowing Treasury. :More than $80,- Estimated reduction from dutiable list ................................................ 19, 489, 800

000,000 of the people's money have been allowed to accumulate in the Total ............................................................................................ 20,855,799 vaults of the national Treasury. -upon whom rests the responsibility The foregoing estimates were made when the several bills were passed. for this large and unwarranted accumulation? Of internal taxes the following have been the reduction made by the party

Let the Democratic party answer whether at any time during the now in the minority since the conclusion of the war: term of the present Executive there has been any attempt by a Demo- By the acts of July 13•1866• a.nd l\:larch 2•1867 .................................... $103, 38t: l99 By the acts of :March 31,1868, and February 3,1868........................... 54,802,57d cratic House to avert the financial disaster and ruin so freely proph- By the act of July 14,1870........................... .............. ......................... 55,315,321 esied by the President as likely to result from the surplus in the Treas- By the act of December 21,1871......................................................... 11,436,862

By the act of June6,1872 ................................................................... 15,807,618 ury. By the act of l\Iarch 3,1883................................................................. 40, 6i7, 682

Sixteen million dollars of the surplus should long since have been ----refunded to the loyal States in repayment of the direct taxes paid by Total.......................... .......................................................... 284, 4~1. 260

them during the war. The vetoes of the President have dcpri ved the old This we present as the result of Republican legislation from July 13, 1866, 1.1' f h · h' h th · t' t fii · · tl d down to and including March 3, 1883. so uiers 0 t e pens10ns W lC · eupa len sn ermgs so JUS Y earne · The Republican party was in control of the House of Representatives from the

Thousands of men and women with honest and legally adjudicated first-named date to March 4, 1875. During that period it will be observed that claims against the Government are awaiting with empty hands because taxation was reduced and revenue diminished in the aggregate sum of $284,421,~ h D ti H bl · t t' d' 260. Onthe4thofMarch,1875,fnecontroloftheHousepassedtotheDemocratic ~orsoot n. emocra C ouse, presuma Y anxiOUS O aver IIDpen mg party and remained with it until the 4th day of l\1arch,l88l, a period of six years. disaster of an overflowing treasury, has persistently neglected and refused Dw·ing these years the internal revenue was reduced $6,368,93.'>. On the 4th day to make the necessary and proper appropriations for the payment of ofl\Iarch, 1881., the Republican party was reinvested with control of the House the J·ust debts of the Government. The Blair educational bill passed of Representatives, holding it for two years, during which time it reduced tax-

ation and the revenues from custom sources in the estimated sum, $20,855,79":J, a Republican Senate, but has been strangled in the commiitee-room of and upon internal revenue, ~.677,682, a grand total oU61,432,48l. a Democratic House, that its death might aid to accumulate and con- It will be observed that from 1866 to 1888, a period of twenty-two years. the tinue the vast surplus in the Treasury. control of the House of Representatives hPt i been equally divided between the

two political parties, each having eleven years. 'Th.ese observations, .Mr. Chairman, apply only to the surplus that During the eleven years of Republican control the revenues were

has already accumulated, and are only importan~ as tending to show reduced (estimated) ....................................................................... $352,504,569 that the Democratic party has repeatedly and persistently neglected During the eleven years of Democratic control the revenues were and refused to follow any of the methods which would have prevented reduced ....................... .................................................................. 6, 368,935 the accumulation of the surplus, but, on the contrary, as willfully and These figures have never been challenged or denied, and they show unlawfully boarded the money in the Treasury for the purpose of what the Republican party has done in the past, and she stands now, frightening the people, and thus intending to break down a system of as ever, ready and willing to further reduce the revenues of the Govprotection. ernment, but she insists that the reductions shall be so made as to af-

An enterprising business man with $5,000 surplus in bank and ford the greatest relief to the American people, and on the lines of fa,ir $10,000 in outstanding notes would proceed to apply the surplus to the and honest protection to American industries and American labor. payment of the notes. If the Administration had been moved by an How, the;n, shall the revenues of the Government be reduced? honest desil'e to reduce the surplus it would have applied the surplus There are two methods of raising the revenues of the Government, revenues to the payment and the redemption of the bonds of the Gov- one by direct or internal taxation, the other by duties or customs ernment and thus reduced alike the surplus and the debt of the nation. upon imported goods. The system of direct or internal taxation has

Congress bas lately informed the President that in their unanimous always been regarded by our people as inquisitorial, and not to be enopinion the Administration has for years been invested with ample dured except in times of great national necessity; only three times in statutory ap.thority to purchase and redeem the bonds of the Govern- the history of our country ha>e internal taxes been imposed upon the ment, and it is fair to assume that in obedience to this information the people, and then only as necessary war measures. bonds of the Government will be purchased, the debt of the nation be The int~rnal taxes imposed after the Revolutionary war were re- , redeemed, and the dangers arising from the present surplus thus be pealed in nine years, and those imposed after the war of 1812 were re-averted. pealed in four years.

We are still, however, confronted with the graver and much more The present system of internal taxation was enacted in 1862, and important question how to so reduce taxation that hereafter the r·ev- grew out of the necessities of the late civil war; the taxes included in enues of the Go>ernmen t shall not materially exceed its n<f!essary and the system have all been repealed except those on whisky and tobacco. proper expenditures. A total repeal of the internal taxes, however, might leave us with a

The Government has the inherent r,onstitntional right to collect from deficit instead of a surplus, and, as bas been well said, ''a surplus is the people by taxation so much money as will surely pro \'ide for its easier to handle than a deficit." necessary and proper expenditures, pay its just debts, and make its Whenever it becomes nece8sary to repeal the whisky tax in order to finaucial condition secure, but beyond that it can not go. save and protect .American industries I shall willingly and unbesitat-

The Government has no rigbt to levy unnecessary taxes for the pur- mgly vote to repeal the tax upon whisky, but I do not think that pose of hoarding the money in the 1.'reasury: for the purpose of creating necessity now exists. To repeal or reduce the tax on whisky, unless trusts or fostering monopolies, nor for the purpose of making wasteful 1 the same be necessary to protect our industries, while continuing in and extravagant expenditures; and when it collects annun.lly seventy- force duties upon sugars would, I think, be unjust to the tax-payer and :five or eighty million dollars more money than is necessary to defray unsatisfactory to the people. . its expen~cs and pay its debts, the people have the right to demand The tax upon spirits or alcohol, to be used for medicinal, scientific, that there shall be some reduction of taxation; and upon this main or manufacturing purposes, is a direct tax upon our own people, from question of the importance and necessity of the reduction of taxes which they should be relieved, and the special tax imposed upon drugthere can be no contention or controversy. The Republican party is gists for the saie of alcohol is a relic of the war taxes which should now not opposed to a reduction of taxes; on the contrary, almost all the be repealed. The tax upon tobacco is a direct and obnoxious tax whic]l

•


falls upon the farmer who e fields are adapted to its cultivation, and upon the home cigar mann.fu.ctory that furnishes employment to thousands of skilled laborers, and its repeal would relieve the people of $30, -000,000 of taxes. These, .Mr. Chairman, are theinte:rnal taxes which, in my jud.:,rrment, should be repealed.

NOW, WIIAT OF TilE TAniFF?

The gentlemen upon th~ other side of the House seem to take particular pains in spe::U..-ing of the tariff to denounce it as a war tax. Why, Mr. Chairman, the presen~ tariff law was not passed as a war measure. It was signed by President Buchanan before the war. Its object was to restore the protective policy of the nation, and the duties were not laid in expectation of war, but were such as were then thought necessary to protect and maintain American industries and fairly reward American lal)or. It is true that duties were increased during the war by the acts of 18.G2 and 1864, but it is equally true that since the war corresponding fiductions have been made in both customs du· ties and internal taxes. ·

.Mr. Chain:nan. as I understand the spixit of the Republican party, we are rea.dy t.o join in any fair and honest revision of the tariff, but we insist that such revision shall be by the friends of protection and n<>t by the friends of free trade; a revision by such methods as will protect American industries and not destroy them; a revision that will relieve the tax-payer without reducing the wages of the laborer; a revision that will protect our home markets and not injure the interests of our own people.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to consume the ~ime of this House in discussing in detail questions of classification or rates of duty, but gladly leave that to gentlemen whose superior knowledge of the subject and long legislative experience has abundantly qualified them for that duty; but I beg to suggest certain principles upon which it seems to me the tariff may be revised and the people relieved of unnec sary taxes without disturbing the business of the country, crippling industries, or impoverishing labor.

If there are any articles now subject to duty that are not raised or produced in our own country, I would place them upon the free-list, and if there are any raw materials which enter into production or consumption in this country that can not be by reasonable outlay profitably produced here, they should be ~dmitted free, but due preference should always be given to our own raw materials, and due regard bad for the value of labor expended upon it. I would reduce, or abolish, the duties upon such articles as are -not generally produced here, or only in such limited quantities as to make the cost of production a grievous burden upon the tax-payer, and where the industry after fair and repeated trials gives no promise for its future growth.

Every man, woman, and child of our "Sixty millions of people is a .consumer of sugar, and yet not m-ore than one-twelfth .of the to"t.c'\1 consumption is produced here.

The following table shows the amount of sugar impm·tec1 in the last ten years and the duties paicl:

Year. I Consumed, I Value pounds. ·

1878 .. .........•... ... ~·· ········ -· ········ · ······ ···--···· 1,552,875,112 l.879 .... -····~··· ··-············ ............. -··· ...... ·•···· 1, 598, 4.61, 986 1880 ........................................................ _. 1,592,2.61,958 1881............ ........................... .............. ...... 1, 869,173,808 1882 ... ........ ........ ..................... _ ........... -... 1, 913,396,455 1883 ................. -. ......... ...... ......... ........ •••.•.. 1, 931, 610, 9ll 1884........ ..... ............ .......... .. .... .. ........... .... . 2, 437, 570, 913 1885.... ............. .... ..... .......... ... .. . . .. ........ ...... 2, 578, 993, 335 1886 ............................................................ 2,509,287,699 1887 ........................ - .. ..•..•.••. ....• ... ......... ....... 2, 781,159, 646

"S78, 986, ()70 65,918,931 67,015,831 82,721,087 84,355,545 84.,3'Z7,942 88,044,316 69,078,g)7 71,8U,090 68,882,884

I Duty paid.

~6,387,4.64 37,294,197 39, H17, 256 45,933,045 46 711 795 44:517:851 47,500,750 50,885,916 50,265.538 56,507,495

F.or the last ten years we have paid on an average $45,000,000 every year in dnties on sugars. We have fostered and encouraged the sugar industry by im_posing a higher rate of duty upon it than upon any other article of gene1-al consumption, and yet with all this encouragement and protection the amount of the production has not increased.

The State of Louisiana produces about 93 per cent. of all the canesugar in the United States. The following table shows the amount of sugar raised in Louisiana and the other Southern States in the years mentioned:

Louisian:~..

P01Lnds. 1860-'61 ............... ······ .. ....... 265, 063,000 1861-'62 .............................. 528,321,500 188!-'85 ............................. 21!,402, 963 1885-'86 ............ ........... ....... 286, 626, 486

... Other Southern St:ttcs.

1860-;61 ............................ . 1861-'62 ........................... .. 1884-'85 ............. ....... .. ~-·--· 1885-'86 ................. ... ........ .

Pounds. 9,661, 000

11,509,000 14,5GO, GOO 16,128,000

I have not the official figures for 1886-'87 at hand, but I believe tbe pToducti.on for that yea.r was less than for the year 1885.

Mr. Cha.irrn.a.n, the principle of protection is to foster and encourage every American indus try that after a fair trial gh-es such reas<mablc promise of success as would encourage competition, and thus bring about a reduction of prices. Sugar does not come within this rule. and

it seem.B to me that it is unfair to longer continue this heavy tax upon the people. It is probable, however, that there may be hopes for the sugar from the cane, the sorghum, and the beet, and upon the l1rinciple of encouraging American industries I " ·ould offer a bounty for all sugar raised on our soil. .

Mr. Chairman, a reduction of the internal taxes and the duties upon imports upon the lines I han~ indicated will reduce the revenues of' the Gove:rnment about 580,000,000, and these are the methods which seem to me to afford the greatest relief to the greatest number, and therefore likely to prove most satisfactory to the people. I realize, however, that other and different views are entertained by gentlemen upon both sides of the House, and I fully understand that to effect a revision of 'the tariffit is necessary to conceae something to the views and opinions of others; but there is a certain well-defined line beyond which the friends of protection can not go. Every effort to cripple American industries, break down the home market of the farmer, and reduce the wages of the la.bo:rer must b~ steadily resisted.

This is not a new onestion; the system of protection i as old as the Constitution of onr fathers. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no authority in the General Government to levy taxes, collect revenues, and regulate foreign or domestic commerce, and as was clearly shown by the gentleman from Tennessee [l\Ir. HouK], when upon the floor yesterday, during this period from 1783 to 1787, while the country was under the policy of free trade, the commerce of the United States went down, the Treasury was bankrupt, and the people were disheartened and discontented, and from this distreB:? and disaster came the convention to fro, me a constitution, and the debates of that convention show that those elA.l'ly patriots were fully persuaded that if the p1·osperity and welfare of the people were to be secured and the young Republic was to a sume her place among the nations of the earth it was necessary to thus early foster and protect the borne industries of the country. The Constitution gave the General Government the power to levy and collect taxes and to regulate the commerce of the States and of foreign states; and the First Congress of the United States under this Constituti<>n, recognizing the wisdom and necessity fo1· protection, enacted a law which provides:

It is necessary for the support of the Go>ernment, for the discbarg·e of tbe debt of the United Stl\te::;, Rnd for the encouragement and protection of manufactories, tbnt duties be laid on imoorted goods, ware , and merchandise.

This act was signed by George Washington nearly one hundred years ago, and from that day protection to American industries has been !he policy of every President of the United ·tates, Federalist and Whig, Democrat and Republican alike, down to the time of the present Executive. It was reserved for the present Executive to disregard the teachings <>f Jefferson, of Madison, of Monroe, of Jackson, of Polk, and of Buchanan, and declare that the principles advocated by them were "vicious, inequitable, and illogical."

We are told by the President that the tariff should be revised because thefarmersaresufferingfrom taxation, andyet, when thefarmersoftbe country, exercising the American's right of petition1 respectfully ask_:

That wool-growing be restored to the protection enjoyed under the tariff of 18&7, and that for the more effectual protection of agziculture the duties on farm products be increased-

they are t<>ld that wool-growing and vegetable raising arc American industries, and therefore, in the opinion of the Democratic party, not the subjects of protection, and the farmer is ~xpected to go on his way rejoicing that the hills upon which he fed his flocks shall know them no more forever.

:Mr. Chairman, the farmer has long since ceased to be imposed upon by sophistry upon political and economical questions; the average fru:mer is a man of common sense, who does his own thinking, makes his own investigations, and draws his own conclusions. He investigated the favorite and constantly repeated statementofthe free-trader that the cost of the article was increased by the exact amount of the duty and found it to be a. delusion and a snare; he soon disco>ered that prices were never lower than under the present tariff, and that if our markets were left to the control of foreign producers prices would soon be higher than now. The fact that the greater the home competition the cheaper the wares is clearly proven by the familiar illustration of steel rails.

In 1867 American steel rails were selling in this country for $166 per ton; in 1870 the price was $106.75 per ton. In 1871 Congress imposed a specific duty of $28 per ton. As a result of this protection the prod not of our steel-rail milia rose ·from 2,277 tons in 1867 to 2,101,904 tons in 1887, while the price went down from $166 a ton in 1867 to $31.50 in ?!:Iai·ch, 1888. ·

The history of the silk industry and of the soda-ash industry of America tell the same story. Prior to 1884 we imported all our sodaash at an average cost of $48 per ton. A duty of $5 was imposed and the manufacture of soda-ash became an American industry and the prices fell as low as $28 per ton, and I think recently it has been much lo\Yerthnn that. The fact that calicoes, blankets, and other goods can bo and have been bought in this country for less than the tariff duty pro>es that the protective tariff does not increase the price of the protected article. Goods were never chen .. per than now. The decline in the price of salt and other protected articles has long since exploded the false

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-=-HOUSE. 3963 theories of economic books that a protective duty increases the price of the article.

Mr. Chairman, in their burning anxiety to break down the system of protection, gentlemen upon the other side of the House denounce the manufacturers of the country as barons and robbers, and by belittling the greatness of agricultural districts seek to array the farmer against the manufacturer. I admit that at this time farming is probably not the most profitable business in the world, and I hope that in t}J.e near future some action upon the currency question and cheaper anit more equitable transportation rates may furnish the remedy; but no thinking farmer charges the unfavorable condition of agriculture to the operation of our tariff laws.

The Commissioner of Agriculture, in his last_annuul_reJ?ort, for 1886, pages 417, 418, thus states the situation:

DEBTS OF FARMERS.

There are now about fh·e million owners of farms. A million of new farms have been acquiJ:ed since 1880. Many of the fo ur mil1ion then in cultivation have since changed hands. Hundreds of thousands of these are owned by young men and others who never before tilled lands of their own, and who commenced husbandry with small means, little more than health. energy, and determination to su<:Cef"d, Necessarily indebt.edness has been incurred in many of these cases in purchasing old farms, in stocking farms already paid for, or in fencing and building upo-n lands obtained from the Government under the homestead act.

To such as commenced judiciously, with-a. full knowledge of the responsibilities involved, and with will and industry commensurate with the burden assumed, a. mortgage may prove a blessing. It represents capital, without which the business of farming can not be undertaken, or its products and profits be secured. It enables a poor but capable and industrious young nia.n to secure a. home and a profitable business, paying for it in easy installments; but it be-

- comes a withering curse when it makes production dear and difficult, consumes a crop before it is made, and renders indebtedness hopeless.

It is a matter of con~ratulation that the burden of debt is decreasing, and is in fact relatively less than it was ten years ago. An investigation made by State statistical agents, undertaken to show the actual and comparative condition of farm ers as to indebtedness, affords evidence of gradual amelioration, decrease in numbe1· and amount of farm mortgages, and in advances by merchants in those regions where such practice prevails. The inquiry was first made in the cotton States; afterwards in the Ohio Valley, and in New York and Pennsylvania. In the Eastern States, where no such inquiry has yet been instit uted, the farmers are not burdened very much with debt, while many of the more prosperous hold mortg-ages on farms of the distant 'Vest and other farms of Western property. In the newer States west of the Mississippi there is far more general indebtedness than in the central district east of that river. Further investi~ation in that region and on the Pacifi.c Coast is contemplated.

I have listened to the speeches of the gentleman from Uissoun [Mr. BLAND] and the gentleman from Iowa [1\Ir. WEAVER) s~1.ting the amount of mortgage indebterlness upon the farms of their States, and describing the distressed and impoverished condition of the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, without admittiDg the correctness of their statements of the condition of the farmers of the Southand the West, as one of the Representatives of the great State of Pennsylvania, t he keystone of the ar~ and the center of protection, where the forge, the fumace, the fac~ tory, and the toiling millions have added to her grandeur and greatn~, I take pleasure in quoting again from the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, l SBG, page 419, in which he thus speaks of the farmers of Pennsylvania: ·

PENNSYL V .Al."'IA.

The indebtedness of farmers of Pennsylvania., it is believed, has decreased as compared with ten years ago. It is estim.ated that not more than 15 percent. of the fa.rins are mortgaged. The average in teres~ rate is about 5 per cent. Many farmers have propet·ty in other branches of business, and farmers themselves hold in part the indebtedness of other farmers. With anaverngevalue of farms, according to the last census, of almost$)() p eT acre-nearly $1,000,000,000, or about one-tenth of the farm valuation of the United States-owned l:llainly by the farmers cultivating them., and yielding a. product w_orth $431 for each person. engaged either as farmer or laborer in agriculture, the agricultural interest in Pennsylvania may be said to be prosperous, even in the present era. of low prices. Of course there a.re some who occupy positions of hardship and difficulty. The source of this prosperity is found in "the local markets of the State. It is probable that no other State is mort> nearly Eelf-supporting, and perhaps none that dept>nds on other States or other countries so little either in buying or selling products of agriculture.

The sonrce of the.ir prosperity is in the local markets of the State.

Mr. ATKThTSON. And these mortgages to which reference is made there are held largely by Pennsylvania farmers themselves.

Mr. YARDLEY. Yes, sir. Let the farmers from those States where American industries are in

their infancy or yet unborn read and ponder upon this before they give their votes for free trade.

I come from one of the largest manufacturing districts in the Stateof Pennsylvania, and I am prou.d to say that among the .fu.rmers of the rich fields and teemingvalleys of the counties of Bucks and Montgomery progress, prosperity, and happiness finds an eternal and everlasting abiding place. Let farmers cross the water and behold the want, the woe, the misery, and the despair of the farmers of free-tra-de England, and then believe, if they can, that the happiness, prosperity, and wel~ fare of the farmer are found in the policy of free trade.

Mr. Chairman, I would revise the tariff by increasing the duties upon many of the products of the farm, in order that our farmers may be the better able to compete with importations from Canada and other foreign countries. The last quarterly report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics shows that for the three mo:pths ending December 31, 1887, we imported the following .articl-es:

Imports of merchandise during the tltree months ending DecemJJer 31, 1887.

MonthendingO ctober !MonthendingNovem Month ending Decem- Three months ending T hree months ending 31- ber3o- ber31- December 31- December 31-

Articles. 1887. 1887. 1887. 1887. 1886.

1Quantities. V alues. Quantities. Values. Quantities. Values. Quantities. Value3. Quantities. ! Values.

DUTIABLE. B readstuffs :

Barley .......... .... ..... , ... _., ..... . ...... bushels .. . Corn .... ........................ ---............ .do ..... -Oats ... . _, ..... ...... ... ........... ............... do . .... . Oatmeal ........ ..... ..... .. ............... pounds ... ·

2,188, 993 4.,243 3,934

S1,546, 935 1,996 1,341 2,139

3, 783,653 ~.005; 915 3,928 2,266 9,990 3,391

109,303 . 3,857

1,384,SG2 S1, 007,110 7,357,508 so, 579,960 6,521, 793 2,457 1,344 10, 628 5,606 15,096 9,934 3,3-50 23,858 8,082 20,095

89,393 3,296 260,402 9,292 364,347 Rye .... .. .............................. ...... bushels .. .

Wheat --.. ........ ... ......... .. .............. ........ do ..... . Wheat flour. .. ......... ... .. ...... ... ........... barrels._

61,706 10 60 11

5 41 50

··--·· ~--·· ·· · · ···· "'"'i'ii,'%4' H 250,807 215

6 24 ll 148 251,082 188,153

1,4.65 102,683

llO

~,081,094 7 6.30 7:516

14,626 1,458

78,620 429 199 ~dO 86

All other br-eadstuffs, and preparations of, . used as food, n.ot elsewhere stated. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ~ ... ... .. .... .. 14,795 ...................... 12, 33~ . ... .............. .... ..

Total .... ......... ~ .. ........ .. .... . ................ ............ .. 1,567,302 ... ............... 3,216,692 . .. .. .............

5,092 31,853 109,755 868,324 ~~:= ...... ~·.:-~. 10,092 ... ...... ~.·--········ ·

Drury products: Butter . ... .. - ........... . ....... ... _ ...... po.unds... 25,153 Cheese ...... ............... .................... do...... 780,74.5 lUilk, preserved or condensed ... .. _ ....... .... ..... ............ .

380 296 1,390

10,557 . ..... ,. ....... _. .. . 37,691

1,046,191 . .. ......... ... .. 5,830,185

2,437 13,46! 9-!,566 325,225 26,001 50,596

......... . -.......... ······ ······ ······

14.6,310 2,087,366

........... .. ..... ..

52,566

4, 246,959

23 788 283:;>76 175,359

s .... I 12.886

162,109 .......... ........ j 195,829 ..... .. .............. .. Total ............. .. ................ : ....... .... .. 1-.. -.. - .. -_,-... -.. -• • -••• -.

1 -----l-----!--

! .. ':.~:-~. 216,423 I 574,361 . .. ..... ............ ~-- ···----

666,300

222,786 186,'.r77 93,214 773, 151 47, 112 ·················· 53,117 ....... ._ ....... _. .. 34,820 ..................

451,049 ..................

This table .shows $574,361 of dairy products, $696,923 of potatoes, and $930,014 of other vegetables brought into this country in three mouths, and yet gentlemen upon theother side who profess to be interested in the welfare of the farmers come in here with a bill which !ays that milk and poultry and vegetables and seeds shall be imported 1ree of duty.

Mr. Chairman, farmers not only need protection for the products of the farm, but they are interested in protecting and diversifying the industries of the conn try. Free trade would disturb t he business interests

201,534 152,868 166,751 231,730 987,723 371,979 44,773 ............. ........ 33,224

j3,350 ············· ····· 27,656 . ...... .......... . 549,043 . .................

587,029 2,015,033

.. . . .......... y· ·

591,071 696,923 125,109

258,888 541.,064 ..................

254,952 115,956

96,2i57

131,630 .... ............ .. 99,856 82,204 ...... ........... . 79,000

1,626,937 .................. ~46,051

()fthe country, paralyze industries, reduce wages, and drive thousands of laborers to seek empl~ymeut in other vocations. A protective tariff will enlarge the home market, build up and diversify industrie~, and increase the general wealth and prosperity of the country.

l\1r. Chairman, over and above all other people who need and are en~ titled to protection are the wage-earners of our country. We have a. country of >nst extent and boundless magnificence; but yet, with all our naturalresou.rcesandadvantages, weareunn.bletooompetewith the countries of Europe, because we are handicapped by th.eir cheap lo.bor.

3964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10.

The following table, taken from_the consuJar reports of 1885, show the difference in the prices per week paid for labor here and those paid in other countries:

on .both sides of this House, it occurred to me that, while the subject under disc~ion would be almost exhausted without my aid, so far as argument is concerned, it might be in my power to add to the tr1 • t ~1 of

Occupalions.

history by correcting some misstatements made in debate, and p <S3ibly Un1ted States. to add to the strength of the tariff-reform movement by stating, as the

d ai Representative from the district containing the C--'lipital of the great Em-3 -g -g ~ pire State, that the wish of the people of that State is that duties on

·~~-~ 8 ~ ·;::: ~ ~ o 0 imporJs be largely reduced. • - ~ g 8 ~d ~ "~ 1>1 b.O It is my opinion, Ur. Chairman, that in New York State it bas been

·~ s:: ..Q - a: g ~ ~ f ~ 8 --Q ·~ ~ :tl confidently expected by men of all parties that the time having arrived -< ~ f:t4 c c z w Z o when the necessities of the Government no longer call for continuance

--------:1:----1-------------· -- of war taxes, a reduction would be made. It bas therefore been a sur-

Bakers ..................... $4.63 t\-.i. 2S .................. $6.17 :t4. 80 ~3. 88 $7.00 $12. oo prise t.o me to hear on this floor gentlemen ad vocate not only a con-Blac~s~?iths ............... 3.18 5.~ S5.Rl ~.t.oo 7.37 4·80 15. 20 13· 00 15· r.o tinuance of these high taxes, but some even recommending an increase Bool .. -bmders .. .. ........ 4.10 5.<><> 5.17 4.20 6.77 4.00 4.68 14.00 16.50 fd . Bricklayers ............... 3.55 4:56 5. 74 4.21 7.5G 4.80 5.21 20.00 21.00 o uhes. Most surprising of all, however, bas it been when members Cabinet-makers ......... 4.40 5.66 6.14 4.25 7.68 4.80 5.59 12.00 15.0 1 have deliberately asserted that PresidentClevelandbasnotrepresented Ca~fs~~-t-~.~~.~~~.~-~~~-~. 5. 10 4. 07 6. 20 4 .. 11 7. 66 4. 80 4. 74 14. 00 16. 50 his party in calling attention in his message to the ad visa.bility of re-Coopers..................... 3. 64 5.17 5. 58 3. 97 7. 50 2. so 4. 78 12. oo 12. oo <1 ucing taxes and in urging that a greater reduction be made in import Drivers, draymen ...... 2. 20 3. 77 5. 57 2. 96 5. 37 4. 40 10.00 12. oo <l uties than in internal-revenue taxes. Farm laborers.......... 3. 50 2. 72 3. 10 3. 06 4. 02 3. 24 .......... . ,_......... One member of this side of the House, my esteemed friend from Ohio ~fa~~~~~~.~~~~.~~· .. ~~-~ ::~ ~:~ ::if ~:i; ~:~ ::~ ~:: 1~:~ ~¥:8& [Mr. FoRAN], bas, I regret to say, joined with gentlemen of the mi-PlumbNs ................ !:~ 5.46 6.10 4.26 7.90 4.80 5.18 16.00 22.50 norityinatta.ckingtbebill'nowbeforethecommittee. Allwhoh."llow ~~~;;;ft't·~·::::::·. ::::::::: 3. 70 ~: ~5 ~: ~ g: ~ ~: ~~ !: ~ ~: ~g ~i: ~ ~: ~ my friend must concede that his motives are honest; but, Mr. Chair~ Weavers.................. 3.15 3. 95 3. 23 2. 79 6. 31 3. 60 3. 05 10. oo .. ......... man, he is in error when be insinuates that the principles of the Dem

ocratic party lead it to favor extreme protection. The false theories of free-traders that there is not much difference in I My friend says-

the wa(Jes of Europe and America are refuted by livin(J' burnin(J' facts. That President .Jackson was a prot-ectionist, is clenrly revealed in his mes-o "'' 0 sages

Every man is supposed to know his own business, and the laborers of I · . . , . . . the world have long since settled that question in favor of AmeriC--'ln Mr. Chairman! I .tbmk that Jacksons opimon of pr.ot~cbon w~ labor. How many American laborers are going across the water to work about the Sa?J-e. as IS held by most m~mber~ of the maJonty of this for the wages of Europe because food and c1othing are c.heaper? But I House •. that m ~Ime of ~ar mo.ney mu.st be ra1sed, a.nd that r~sonable thou-.ands of laborers from England, from Scotland, from Ireland, and ~rotectlOn be glv~n «: mfant mdustnes. Mr. Cbarrman, I w1ll read from Germany are annu:lllycoming to our shores to work for American from~n.drew Jacksons farewell address to the country, March 3, 1837. wages, and once learning the true value and dignity of American labor HT\sa1d: b f th return ere 1s per aps no one o the powers conferred on the Federal Govern-

ey never. · . . . . . . ment so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most productive and con-:Mr. Cbauman, the reviSIOn of the tariff lS a busmess questiOn of the veuient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it. that it might be able to

greatest and gra>est importance, a question that affects the manufact- perform the impo~tant duties imposed upon it; an<;J the ta~es which it ~ays urer and the farmer the capitalist and the wa<Je-earner The bill upon comme.rce bel_ng concealed from tl~e real payer m the prtce of the article,

. . • , . • o · . they do not so read1ly attract the attentwn of the people as smaller sums de-under consuleratlon represents the poncy of a great party, and If passed ma.uded from them direclly by the tax-gatherer. But the tax imposed on goods for weal or for woe will shape the future destiny of the l<epn blic. And euhances b~ so mu_ch the price of _the commodity to th~ consumt;r, and as many

yet whow bavde 1\tbley apcproac~ted t~is gredat qfuestik'.on ?fi Tl~ehmt ajorityh~f ~~!~:~)~~~~~h~epl~Efe~et~~~~~~~~.~~~d~~e~~~:e i~~~t~r~ ~~~~::~~~~~!i~ the ays an 1 eans omm1 tee, mstea o see -mg or 1g upon t IE pockets. important question, have closed the doors upon the manufacturer, qong:ess ba-s ~o right under the Constitution to ~ke moneyf~om the people t d a deaf ear to the wage-earner and denied the petitions of the un.ess It be reqmre~ to exec?te some oneof.tbespeetfic powers mtrusted to. t~e nrne c • . • Government; and 1f they ra1se more than Is necessary for such purpose It 1s farmer; and after months of secret consultation come forth from their an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed biding-place with a bill that was conceived in darkness born of a de ire happen that the revenues will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when 1. - d d · t d d t · J tb · d t · ft'h N th Th' the taxes were laid. When , however, this is ascertained it is easy to reduce ~r ·t:ee tra .e •. an lD en e O c~pp e e ill US nes .o . e !- or · . JS them; and in such a cn.sc it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to

bill IS a politiCal and not a bus mess measure. It d1scnmmates agamst red uce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given the interests of oue section and in fa\'Of of the interests of another. to it by the Constituti~n .. nor in taking away the money of the people when it is

I . 'll d t th 1 · ~ t. f t' d . 'll not needed for the leglllluate wants of tbe Government. ts passage WI es roy e woo IUuUS 1Y? our na IOn an Wt c~m- Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find that there is a con-pel tbe farmers of onr country to compete w1th the great wo.ol-growmg !>lal}t effort to indue~ the General Government to go beyond the limits of its conn try of Australia, where l abor is paid but 8 cents n. day. tn.x:m&' power, and to 1m pose unneces~ary burdens upon the people. l\Iany pow-

Tl · b'll · th t · _ lr:r t f t d d f t l crful mterests are contmually at work to p1·ocu_r~ heavy duties.on comm~rce, liS ! lS e en en~1g We( ,.,e o ree ra e, an re~ rae e means and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the pub he service; and

pon.'rty, Ignorance, and n ee. Reduce the wages of American workmen the country bas already felt the injurious etl'ects of their combined influence. and you der:rrade American labor and crush the spirit and harden the They.succeeded in obtai~iug a tariff of d~ties bearing- mo;St oppressively on

. l 0 l b the agricultural n.nd labonng classes of soCJety, and producmg n. revenue that hear~ ot ~ 1e a orer. . . . • could not be u efully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon

It IS said that the safety of an e~pue centers 1n her standlJ]g ar my, Congress; and in order to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal ysbu t the safety antl the welfare of a republi~ depends upon the pro perity teiD: of taxation extravag:1nt chemes of internal improvement were got up, in and tlle happi_ness of her yeor_nanry. . ~~~~:~~~if~~~~t;;~~·~:i~~~n,<;;~ it~1~~d~defo ab~~~~~':f~~a::C:th~~o!~d ib~u:b~~:

The protective system has given to the Amencan laborer better wages of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the po'wer of expendfor hi mself and better schools for his children· more books to r ead ing the money in intemal improvements.

1 · . t' to . 1 th d tb It'· tl · t b ' But, rely upon it, t.he design to collect an extravaganti·evenue, and to burden more _msute Ime Ieal em, an as ere u In llS COlltl ry, W ere you with taxes beyond !he economical wants of the Government, is not yet there JS no royal road to success, thousands of men from 1 he humbler ab11ncioned. The various interests which have combined together to impose walks of life have caned their way to fort une and to faine. ' R heavy tmiff,and to produce an overflowing Treasury, are too strong and have

'Th · · 1 f t t' ·, to · _ , f t A · . d too much nt stake to surrender the contest. The corporations and wealthy in-~ pn~c1p eo. pro .ec IOn I:s _g1~e p .e erence o mencan goo s, divi •l uals, ho are engaged in Jargemanufacturingestablishmentsdesire a high

Amencan mdn tr1es, and to Amenean labor. nder that system onr tariff to increase their gains. n ation bas (Jrown and stren(Jthened until our fla17 floats on enry sea De;ngning politician will support it to conciliate their favor and to obtn.in

d. 0

• t d · 0 l d 0 ' the means of profn e expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in

an our na_me lS respec ~ lD eyery an · other qnn.rlers; and since the people have decided that the Federal Govern-Jr. Charrman, there lS no h1gber law than the law of se]f-preserYa- ment cn.n not be permitted to employ it.~ income in internal improvements, ef

tion I tis as much the law of nations as it is of individuals. The Con- fo •·1s will be made to seduce and mislead the ciLizens of the several States by · f h o U 'ted St t · - t d t 1 rr 1 .. ~ .r tb . 't holding ou,t to them the deceitful prospect of benefits to be derived from a sur-

grf'ss. 0 t v ll1 a es IS expec e 0 e<"?,IS alA:' .10f e PIOSper~ y, pin revenuecollectedbytbeGeneralGovernmentandannuallydividedamong happmess, and welfare of the people-not of England, but of Amenca. the States. And if, encom·aged by these fallacious hopes, the States should dis-

\Ve are a nation of sixty millions people who are bet.ter housed regard the principles of economy which ought to charact-erize every republican b tte . 1 th d d b tte. f' d th th '1 f t' "" tb' government, and should indulge in lavish expendit-ures, exceeding their re-

e r c O e • au e I e an e peop e O any na lOll upou e sources, they will before long find themseh-es oppres ed with debts which they face of the earth. are unable to pay,and the temptation will become irresistible to support n. high

Our \alleys and our monntain slopes are dotted with the homes of tnrilfin order to obtain a surplus distribut.ion. • f h 1 b · d t 1 ·d d d 1 t d d I Donotallowyour-elves,myfellow-citizens,tobemisledontbissubject. The r.ee~an, W ose a or JS so a equa e J: rewai e an so e eva ~ an Federal Government can not collect a surplus for such purposes withont violat-

digmfied that every .man who earns hiS bread by the swe.:'lt of h1s brow ing the principles of the Constitution Rnd Rssuming powers which have not been contributes to the honor and the glory of the nation, and early in No- granted. It is, more?ver, a system of in)usti<;e, and if persisted in will i~evit-

b t b 1 f h t . h 1 'll d 1 ably lead to corruptiOn, and must end m rum. The surplus revenue w111 be yem er nex ~ e supreme ru ers 0 t e na IOn, t e pe~p. e, Wl. ec are drawn from the pockets of the people-from the farmer, the mechanic, and the 1n no uucertam tones that they ba>e .no use for an admunstrat10n whose laboring classes of society; but who will receive it when distributed among the free trade policy destroys American industries, an~ de~rad<:s Ameri- ~~:~~~~:dh~oii1~~1t;:r~i~~o~~d;;a~l/~4~n!J.\o~!~~~~~ywnh~ ~:v:e{~~:e~s ~~ ~ labo.r, so th~t the laborer stands alone and una1ded m h1s compe- those who paid it and who have most need of it and are honestly entitled to it. tittOn With lore1gn pauper labor. [Applause. 1 There is but one safe rule, a.nd that is to confine the General Government rigidly

Mr. TRACEY. Mr. Chairman, until within the past iew days i ~ \YUS l wi~-bin the sphere of its appropriate duties. It has n? power to r~is~ a revenu.e my intention not to make any remarks during the discussion o r the ?r I_mpose ~xes except for the purposes en?merated m tp.e Co~stttut10n; and it

· . . . . 1ts mcome 1s found to exceed these wants 1t should be torthw1th reduced, ani! tariff bill. but listenmg to the very able speeches made by gentlemen the burdens of the people so far lightenerl

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE. 3965 So much, 1\fr. Chairman, for Andrew Jackson's views on the tariff,

as expressed at the close of his political career, fifty-one years ago. In another portion of his speech my friend from Ohio states that

Samuel J. Tilden, more than twenty years ago, denounced in unmistakable terms the system of internal-revenue taxation. :Mr. Tilden may have done this, although I do not know upon what occasion, but I do not think the gentleman will find that Mr. Tilden ever expressed a preference for high protection; it is probable he denounced the methods by which officials collected these internal-revenue taxes. And let me say here, ·Mr. Chairman, that this bill seeks in several ways to give relief in this respect.

As I quoted from the venerated Jackson to make clear his views on taxation, I will now read the words of Samuel J. Tilden, spoken twenty years ago. On Uarch 11, 18GB, he said to his friends in his native county in the State of New York:

These taxes carry with them other incidents, which grea tly increase their burden. They fa ll most heavily upon m en o f small incomes, the proceeds of whose labor and industry are consu med to support themse lves and their families. Every m e.n who h as a tta ined a situation of comfort and pros#~rity can in some w a y sta nd them. But take the poor man-take the m a n not poor, who:>e annual income is con sumed in his annual support- :1nd be p ays a most disproportionate amount from his earnings or income. for the taxes levied upon the country.

It is not for myself that I speak to-day to you, yeomanry and citizens of Columbia; it is for you, and because I have cherished from my childhood and still cherish the thought that America is to be the home of its people and not a state in which the wealthy are prosperOLlS at the expense of toiling millions. It is because I still cherish the bel ief that America is to be what in my youth I fondly believed it-the home and refuge of the man who spends the toil of his year for the maintenance of his fami.ly and himself, and is able to reserve but little at the end of the year. * * *

'l'hese taxes, when laid on imports in the manner in which they were laid in the Congressional carnival of manufacturers which framed our present tariff, cause a misapplication of industry tha t charges on the consumer what neither the Government is able to collect as taxes nor the ma!lufacturer to appropriate as profits. 'l' hey lessen the productive power of human labor as if God had cursed it with ungenial climate or sterile soil.

And four years later, September 17, 1874, at Syracuse, he said: Retrenchment in public expenditure ; reform in public administL·ation; sim

plification and reduction of tariffs and taxes; accountability of public officers, enforced· by better civil and criminal remedies-the people must have these meRsures of present relief, measures of security for the future. .

The Federal Gove"rnme nt is drifting into greater dangers and greater evils. '-' * * It undertakes to direct the business of individuals by tariffs not intended for legitimate taxation, by granting special privileges and by fostering monopolies at the expense of the people.

Ur. Chairman, the Democracy were not frightened by these expressions; quite the contrary; they must have indeed approved them, for they shortly after nominated him for governor, and the people ratified the choice. He was elected by 50,000 majority.

Perhaps it may be thought that the people had not generally heard of the Syracuse speech and that the discrete governor kept very quiet about tariff matters after that. Did he? . Let me read from his message in 1876-January, 1876, bear it in mind.

He said: The consequence i<; that the pecuniary sacrifices of the people are not to be

measured by the receipts into the Treasury. They are vastly greater. A tax that start.s in its career by disturbing the uatural courses of privat.e industry and impairing the productive power of labor, and then comes to the consumer distended by profits of successive intermediaries and by insurance against the risks of a fickle or uncertain governmental policy and of a fluctuating governmental standard of value, blights human well-being ntevery step. When it reaches the hapless child of toil who buys his bread by the single loaf and his fuel by the basket, it devours his earnings and inflicts starvation.

Another evil of such a system of excessive taxation is that it creates and nourishes a governmental class with tendencies to lessen services and to enlarge compensation, to multiply retainers, to invent jobs and foster all forms of expenditure, tendencies unrestrained by the watchrul eye and firm hand of pe rsonal interest which alone enable vrivate business to be carried on successfully. ln other countries such a class has found itself able, sometimes by its own influence, and sometimes in alliance with the army, to rule the unorganized masses. In our country it has become a great power, acting on the elections by all the methods of organization, of propa~ating opinion, of influence, and or corrri ption. The system, I ike every living thing, struggles to perpetuate its own ex i.stence. ,

Rvery useful and necessary governmental service at a proper cost is productive labor. Every excess beyond that, so far as it is savetl by the official, merely transfers to him what belongs to the people. So far as such excess is consumed it is a waste of capital as absolute as if wheat of equal value were destroyed by fire, or gold were sunk in the ocean.

Well, .M:r. Chairman, having thus a.gaiu pronounced against excessive taxation, and having even been so daring as to say that it was an injury to labor, was Governor Tilden set aside for a more conservative man? No, Mr. Chairman, the State of New York presented him as its candidate for the Presidency at the national convention in 1876, and the Democratic party nominated him without. hesitation. We may assume that the platform was as cautious as was deemed prudent in its tariff expressions. I will read from it:

REFORM IN FEDERAL TAXATlON.

Reform is necessary in the sum and modes of Federal taxation to the end that capital may be set free from distrust. and labor lig htly burdened.

Vve denounce the present tariff, levied upon nearly 4,000 articles, as a master-pice~ of injustice, inequality, and fal se pretense.

It yields a dwindlin~ . not a yenrly rising, revenue. It has impoverished many industries to snl>sidi:~:e a few. It prohibits imports that might purchase lhe pwdncts of Amel"icau labor. It has degraded American commerce from tile fir:;t to !tn inferior rn.nk on the

high seas. It has cut down the sales of Ame1·ican manufactnres at home and abroad, and

depleted the returns of American agriculture, an industry followed hy half out· peop!e.

It cost.~ the people five times more than it produces to the Treasury, obstructs the processes of production, and wastes the fruits of labor.

It provokes fraud, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest officials, and bank-· rupts honest merchants.

\Ve d emand that all ctlStom-house taxation shall be only for revenue.

And with this we went before the country. My friend from Ohio must ha'\"e been somewhat concerned about that time, and indeed we did lose Ohio, but only by a little over 6,000, and we lost Pennsylvania. But we carried New York. New Jersey, and Connecticut, and Mr. Tilden seemed not to have suffered because of his low tariff views. There was trouble in some Southern States, but not due to the tariff. In 1880 the Democratic party did not do so well; it still wanted tariff re:orm, but was cautious,anrl.NewYork State initsconventiondiclnot allude to the tariff. We nominated an honorable gentleman, a soldier with a ~;plendid record, and hoping to carry Pennsylvania, and perhaps Ohio, we "\\ere not bold on the tarill. We gainedinPennsylvania, but Ohio went Republican by 3.),000, aud we lost Naw York and Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, in 1884 the Demo~ratic party in convention at Chicago nominated 1\fr. Cleveland. The platform declared- •

I">. That change is necessary is proved by an existing surplus of more than ·Ioo,-000,000, which has yearly been collected from a sufferiug people. Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation. 'Ve d enounce the Republican party for having f,ti led to relieve the people from crushing war taxes, which have paralyzed busine s, crippled industry, and deprived la bor of employment and of just reward.

'.rhe Democracy pledges itself to purify the administration from corruption, to restore economy, to revive respect for law, and to redllcfl taxation to the lowest limit consistent with due regard to the preservation of the faith of the nation to its creditors and pensioners.

To my mind this was not hesitating to state that the Democrats opposed an unnecessarily high tariff and called for reduction; still, the charge bas been made by a gentleman of the minority here that Mr. Cleveland posed as a protectionist during the campaign. It will heremembered, Mr. Chairman, that the present occupant of the White House did not go about the country making speeches during the campaign, bat remained in Albany attending to his duties as governor. On one occasion, howe\er, a short time before the election, he was persuaded to visit his native State, New Jersey, and a great celebration took place. In the even in~ he addressed a large a~emblage in the act: ive manufacturing city of Newark, and I will quote from his speech.

When we consider tlie cit.y of Newark we .find a municipality ranking as the fourteenth in the land. It leads every othe r city in three important industries. It is second only in another, and third in still anot.her. Of course all these industries necessitate the existence of a laJ"g e laboring population. Thi:> force, in my opinion, is a fw·ther element of strength a nd g-reatness in the State. No part of the community should be more interested in a wise nod just administration of their government, none should be be t ter informed as to their needs and rights, and none should guard more vigilantly against the Emootb pretense of false friends. In common with all other citizens they should desire an honest and economical administration of public afl"airs.

It is quite plain, too, that the people have a right to demand that no more money should be taken from them, directly or indirectly, for public us~ than is necessary for this pm·pose.

Indeed, the right of the Government to exact tribute from the citizen is limited to its actual necessities, and every cent taken from the people beyond that required for their protection by the Government is no better than robbery. ·

'Ve surely must condemn, then, a system which takes frcm the pockets of the people millions of dollars not needed for the support of Government, and which tends to the inauguration of corrupt schemes and extravagant expenditures.

The Democratic party has declared that all taxation should be limited by the requirements of an economical government.

This is plain and direct, and it distinctly recognizes the value of labor and its right to governmental care when it further declares that the ne<'essary reduction in taxation and the limitation of them to the country's needs should be effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor and without injuring the interests of our laboring population.

At !his time, when the suffrages of laboring men are so industriously sought, they should by careful inquiry discover the party pledg~d to protect their interests and which recognizes in their labor something most >alua.ble to the prosperity of the country and primarily entitled to its ca·re and protection.

I think, Mr. Chairman, a President who thus spoke before his election in 1884 may be permitted to send to this body such a moderate me!'Sage as was received by us without exciting to wrath our friends . off he minoritv.

Mr. Chairman, the Jate Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Daniel Manning, in his report of Decembe,r, 1886, calls attention to the pledge made by the Democratic party to lower taxation. He wrote as follows:

These pledges can never be fulfilled without a. reform in the sum and methods of Federal taxation, nor can our coun try ever profit fully by it.s incomparable adYantages among the nations of the earth in population, peace, land, and liberty so long as we go on pleading infancy and swaddle in mediaeval rag~ its >ictorious energies. It is these which need release and liberty. .All our requisite taxation may be made an easy garment.. 'Ve haYe made a prison of it, p laslered-stifl" with obsolete contention about protection and free trade.

AMERICAN LABOR GETS AND EARNS THE HIGHEST WAGES.

· ow, one proud fact attesl'l the substance of our prosperity, and is the guar-anty as well as proof of our power to hold against a.\1 competition the markets of the United States for eYerything we choose to dig or fabricate or grow, and to command and control for our surplus products, against all rivals, any foreig-n market.

We pay to labor the highe t wages in the world. Highly·paid labor signifies the most efficient labor; signifies tbathigh wages are the most profitable wages; !.ig-11ifies that the high rate is earned. The highest wages to the laborer thus inYo:ve and imply the lowest per<en tage of labor cost in the product. But, other th ings be:ng equal, the lowest percentage of labor cost in any product is the guaranty that competition is outstripped.

Protectionists h:we done sen-ice to humanity by insisting upon the f.: ct that we pay to labor the highest wages in the world. While debate has been ~· ,;.,;r

I


on whether our high wages were beca.use of taxation or despite taxation, economists have discovered and demonstrated the correlative fact that labor co tin our products is the least in the world.

HIGH WAGES INSURE LOW LABOR COST IN PRODUCT.

Were h·ade as free with and within all the ununited states of Europe as it is among the United States of Americn., the great surplus products of our industry, including the manufactured, would have the pick of foreign markets, for the reason that our labor, being the most highly paid and insuring most percentnge of iltbor cost, wouJd everywhere surpass rivalry. Great Britain would follow next, for next to our labor bers is the highest paid, therefore the most efficient, and therefore next in effecting a low pe1·centage of labor cost in herchiei products.

France and Germany would follow next, and command the next unsupplied markets, and last of all, at the foot of the list, quite unable to compete with a single rival in whatever that rival chose to produce, would come the "pauper labor" of Europe and Asia. The low wages of pauper labor signify least efficiency, which is but another name for highest percentage of labor cost in the product. Other things being equo.l, it is obvious that high wages can never be paid unless it is profitable to pay them, and it can only be a good business to pay the highest wages, because the efficiency of those who e~un them vindicates its superiority by the reduction of labor cost in the product.

High wages to labor and cheaper product are correlative terms. Low wages to Ul.bor and a costlier product are correlative terms. Theone implies the other wherever labor competes with labor upon otherwise equal ground. What pauper stands any chance competing with the intelligent at·t-is!ln? The ''pauperlabor-of-Europe" cry is a. bugaboo, except that, in truth, our war-taritl' taxes favor "pauper labor" at the expense of American labor. Its products are not fenced out by our tariff laws. They come in because we ourselves destroy our own easy power of succe sfuJ competition, even in our home market. By tariff taxes on raw materials we feT1ce in our own surplus product!:', rua.king thE'm cost too much to compete at home, and of course too much to compete abroad with manuf;;.ctures from untaxed raw materials.

In l'lfexico, Central and Sout,h America we can, of course, make no betler headway against European competition than at home. Diplomacy is not an acceptable sub titnte for trace and its laws. Our highly-paid labor insures the lowest percentage of labor cost in the product, but our tariff taxes upon raw materials handicap American manufacturers with the highest percentage of cost of material in the product. The result is that capital and labor united in our Ameri<'3.n indu trial products, despite our advantage in the most highlypaid and efficient labor, are put into a most hopelE'ss competition with the indu trial products of other nations, none of which tax r-a.w materials. The adn~ontage we possess in the most efficient and highl?-paid labor in the world is nullified by the self-imposed disadvantage of tariff-taxed raw material, with which our labor is in wrought.

OUR SUICIDAL TAXES ON RAW lllATEitiALS.

The total >nlue of our domestic exports for the last fiscal year was almost exactly $066,VOO.OOO, of which 86 per cent. were the products of our fields , for . t , fisheries, and mines, and 16 per cent. only were the sum total of manufactured products in which American labor was in wrought.

In the 'last quarter of a century progres3 in telegraphs, transportation, laborsaving inventions, and the mechanic arts has reduced the profits of capital aud the rate of interest by more than one-half: has increased tbe wages of labor throughout the world; has augmented by at least a third the surplus which our manufacturers can produce beyond domestic needs for sale abroad.

Prolonging without necessity our war-tariff taxes on raw materials, we lun·e been undersold and excluded from foreign markets by nation!t not ta::ring raw materials. Despite their low-priced.iuferior labor. and the high percentage of labor cost therefore included in their product, our taxed raw materials and their free raw materials have prot~cted the so-called "pauper labor" of Europe agait'l.st American competition.

These prolonged war-tariff taxes, incompet~nt.and brutal as a scheme of re-ve-nue, fatal to the extension of our foreign m arket.s, and disorderly to our domestic trade, ha'\'e in the last resort acted and reacted with mos!r ruinous injury upon oRr wage-earners. As the more numerous part of our population our wage-earners nre of course the first, the last, and the most to be affected by injurious laws. Every government by true statesmen will watchfully 1·egardtbeir condition and intere ts. If these are satisfactory nothing else can be of any momentous importance. But our so-called protective state manship has disfavored them altogether. Encumbering with clumsy help a. few thous nd employers, it has trodden down the millions of wage-earne1'3. It has for t;ventyon~ years denied them even the peaceable fruits of liberty.

MORE INCOliE FOR WAGE-EARNERS BY D&OPPOG WOP-ST TAXES.

The taxes to 1-)e first remitted are those which prevent or hinder the sale of our surplus products in foreign markets. Their removal will set capital in motion by the promise of better returns, enlarge the steady emplo:rment, and increase the anuual income of many thousand wage-earne1-s, who:;;e prosperity will diffuse pro perity. These taxes are the duties on raw materio.ls, and the most widely injuriou!l of them is the tax upon raw wool. But the income of aU the wage-earners of the United States can be at once enlarged effectively. certainly, permanently, by reducing the cost to them of the great necessities of life.

UNTAX THE CLOTHING OF' 60,000,000 PJ:OPLE.

I respeetCully recommend to Congress that they confer upon the wage-e..'lrners of the United Slates the boon of untaxed cloLhing, and in order thereto the immediate pas&..ge of al} act simply and solely placing raw wool upon the free-li5t. -

Of con1·se a. repeal of the duty on raw wool should be followed by, but need not wait for, a. compensating adjustment of the duties on manufactured woolens, whilst our m::~.nufacturers are learning the lesson that with the highest paid 1\Ud most efficient labor in the world, with the most skilled managemen~. n.nd the best inventive appliances they need fear no competition from any rivals in the world in home or foreign markets so long as they can buy their wools free, of every kind.

But the common daily clothing of the American people need not be blXed; therefore, it ought not to be ta.xed; to free their clothing of taxes will finally reduce, by half, their expense fo1· one of the Unee great necessities of life, nnd thus enlarge honestly and justly the income of every wage-earner in the United Slates. ·

Now, ~fr. Chairman, Secretary J'tfn.nning was well known to the people of New York, and iu 1887 when the State con>ention met it adopted, in accordance with his views, a platform a portion of which refers ro Federal taxation. I read an extract:

DEMOCRATIC PLATFOP.M, STATE OF NE'q YORR, 1837. The unnece35ary Federal taxation of tbe last fiscal year exceeded $100,000,000,

and unnecessary tax:J.tion is unjust taxation. Therefore the Democt·acy of New York dc::nand that Federal taxation be

straightway reduced by a sum not les ; than $ 100,000,000 a year, and also respectfully urge UJ:On Congress that a measure shall be adopted which will, in the language of tlle President's inaugural address," relieve the people from un-

nece.o;sary taxation, having a due regard to the interests cf capital invest~d and workingmen employed in American industries."

ThE' taxes to be fir t reduced or altogether removed are those on imported raw materials, which now assist and promote foreign competition with ourselves in onr own markets, and prevent or hinder the sale of our su.-rplns products in foreign markets.

Along with those taxes should forthwith be remitted or reduced the taxation which increases the cost to our wage-earners of the common necessaries of life and the price of the common daily clothing of all our people.

Besides these there are several hundred articles among the 4.,182 articles now taxed which should be swept otfthe tax-list into the free-list, thereby diminishing the cost of collecting aU our seaport taxes and casting away those which are petty, needless, and vexatious.

We also urge an immediate enactment of the mes..qnres prepared by 1\Ir.l'llunning and Mr. Hewitt and reported to the last House by the Committee on \Vays and Means to systematize, simplify,andeconomizethe machinery forthecollcction of the customs revenue, and especially for making correct appraisement of foreign values wherever ad valorem rates of duty shall be retainea..

With this platform in 1887, not yet one year ago, the Democratic party carried the State ot New York by 17,000 plurality. It will next week adopt a platform equally as pronounced, and ask that 't be ratified by the national Democratic convention.

Mr. Chairman, has not a con 'ist.ent effort on the part of the Democrats of the State of New York in favor of tariff reform been proven?

Mr. Chairman, among those who have, on thefioorofthis House, advocated extreme protectio-n, gentlemen from Massachusetts have been the mo t earnest. B_y one of them we have been shown, in language beautiful and plansihle, how two m.mnfacturers, A and B, continued competin2; in efforts to improve machinery and quality of goods, until ultimately the consumer purchased at figures so low as to prove that high tariff lowers prices.

We must admit, !\lr. Chairman that if A and B continue to produce and if no outlet can be found for their goods, the purchaser will get them at low figures, so low in fact that A and B become apprehensive :md talk over their affairs together and call in other manufacturers to consult with them. They get together, Mr. Chairman, at the city of Boston, or some other central point, and find that they represent, say, one hundred and thirty-eight factories. Mr. C, who is the head of a very large establishment, rises in the meetin~ and states that it i evident too many goods in their line are being produced, and that unless the tariff on rnw materials is taken off, and on some other articles duties lessened, so as to enable this industry to ship goods to South American :mel other ports, in. competition with English houses, the trade will be ruined. "I have favored protection," says Ur. C, "but I now realize we must get an outlet for our goods or overproduce, and I am disposed to be a low-tariff man hereafter. To be sure, there is a way to lteep up prices by closing many of our factories, discharging our clerks and workmen, and forcing figures so high tllat money enough will be made to pay :ill the stockholders fair dividends. I do not like it, as it seems cruel to the workingmen and their families. But we must do something. " However," says Mr. C, "I will give you the argument in fav-or of it as gi>en me by a gentleman who is a leading man in one of the trusts, and he is -impartial, as his business is not affected by custom or internal-revenue taxes. He said to me Just week: 'My dear C, do not allow your people to ma,ke any mistn.ke; form your trust at once-shut down one hundred of your mills and keep thirty-eight large ones running. Your road is clen.r. We know how Mr. Blaine stands on the question of protection. He wants dnties rai:-ed, n.ud say_ our peopleshoulri. look fo our own country for prosperity. Have you not heard how the prominent Republicans are talking in Congr~ ? They call for higher duties, and even people who are oppo eel to n. surplus- in the Treasury, fearing corruption will spring from it, n.re to be s1tisfied by this argument. The members from Massachusetts will help you, and the talk of competition with pauper labor of EnrGpe and flaunting the Cobden Club banner in the £'1.Ce of the Irish will give the control of the Government to the Hepnblic:..n party again. Then, with Mr. Blaine as President, and a policy of hlgh duties proclaimed, sul~h measures as the :Mills bill will pass, if ever, only after your day and mine. It is a great opportunity for your business interest to enrich itself, my friend C.' Well now, gentlemen," says Mr. C to bis associates, "you have the matter before you. I still prefer the broader policy of enlarging our works and looking for an export m-arket under lower tariff; but if you decide to form the trust, I must give up my idea of voting for Cleveland and tariff reform; but I do it with regret, us I am sure suffering to our employes will follow our organizing a a trust."

Mr. Chairmm, we must h11ve reduction in the tariff or ruination in this country. M:y friend from Ohio bas said, in reply to a gentleman from Tcnne see:

Tr11sts are the results of social forces now operating in all industrial countries, wiwthe1· under the protective or free-trade policy. 'l'hey are simply one of the many ph:u<cs which the e,·olntionsofmankind present. Should theyabusetbe paticmce oi the people to the extent my friend fears, i& will cerlainly be bad for the trnsls. There is n higher 1.'\w than a. wribten con titution.

Now, I accept my friend's statement, but at the same time insist that this \ery phase of the evolution leaves us no other course than fo reduce the tariff and thns correct a bad sy;;tcm which excludes importations. __ s to tllc hi~ her law than the written Constitution, we do not want to look for that. Thegentlem:m also Eaid, "The Knights ofLabor organization is a vast labor trust."

Mr. Chairman, we can break up neither trusts nor labor organiza-

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3967 tions in any other than constitutional ways. Surely the two gentlemen, one on each side of this Honse, who represent labor organizations are more nearly correct when they take the view that the President does regarding the situa.tion.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of quoting from the remarks made by the gentleman from Georgia, Judge STEWART. He Eaid:

I insist that the farmers of this country, although in numbers the la.rgest, are not benefiteu by a high tariff, but on the contrary are shamefully discriminated against, und it is not so strange that thei.J: farms are heavily mortgaged when we come to understand bow the tariff affects them.

Under the present law let us see what an ordinary family on a farm has to contribute to the Government. I submit a schedule of articles mostly used by a family as an illustration, and the duty on them, and also showing the reduction proposed under the 1\Iills bill.

Value. Duty.

Per cent. One cook-sto.-e........... ....... .......... . ........... ..... .... S35.00 47= $16.45

By 1\Iills bill........ ............... ........... ...... ........ .. . ...... ...... 31= 10. 85

One set crockery............. ............ ........ .............. 12.00 By :M1lls bill. ............................................................. .

One set cheap glass-ware ................................. 4. 00 By 1\Iills bill .. ....................... .... ......... .. ..... .... ............ . .

One set cheap cutlery........ .......... .. .... ...... ... ..... . 2.00 By M.ills bilL ................................................... .. ....... _

Two carpets, $12 and $15... ... ...... ...... .. ............... 27.00 By 1\Iills biU .. ........ .................. ...................... .......... ..

Sugar..... . ... ... ................................................... 20. 00 By Mills bill ............................................... .............. .

Molasses........ . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .. . .. . . .. . . . ....................... 10. 00 lly Mills bill .. . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .... . .. .. . ...... ........ . ............. .

55= 6.60 35= 4.20

56= 2.24 41= L64

50= 1.00 35= .70

47= 12.00 30= 8.00

60= 12.00 50= 10.00

47:>::: 4. 70 35= 3.50

Salt............................ ....... .......... .... .... ................ 3.00 40= 1.20 By Mills bill. .. ..... .. . .. . .. . .. ......... ...... ..... ........ . . . . . . ... . ... .. Free-list.

Two suits t-ach for father and two sons, six suits, $14.......................................... ......... 84.00

By 1\Iills bill. ............................................................. .

Two suits each for mother and two daughters, sixsuits,$14............... ............................. 84.00

By Mills bill ............................................................. ..

Twelve pairs shoes, $2.50 each ......................... 30.00 By Jllills bill ............................................................. .

Six "'ool hats, $1 each...................................... 6.00 By JI.Iills bill ........................... ...... ............................ .

Six~~~~ tf~.~~~ . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':.'.'.'.'.'.'.'::::::::.~·.::·.::::: ...... ~.~:.~.~ Six ladies' hats, $3 each .. ................ ................. 18.00

By l\1ills bill ...................................... ....................... .

Six bonnets for ladies, $3 each.......................... 18. 00 By Mills bill ..................... ......................................... .

Farming tools, including plows, g·ear, hand-saw, ax, draw-knife, chains, etc.............. 60.00

By 1\Iills bill........................ ........................ . .... ......... .

Medicines ..... .. ... . ,............................................. 20.00 By 1\Iills bilL ............................................................. .

Thread, needles, thimbles, scissors, etc........... 12.00 By Mills bill .............. ................................................ .

Four pairs blankets, S3 e:wh............................. 12.00 By Mills bill ............................................................ ..

Two umbrellas, $2.50 each................................ 5. 00 By Mills bill ...... ... .................................. .................. .

Cotton hosiery, undershirts, etc....................... · 8.00 By 1\fills bill ....................................... n••••• .............. .

Window·glass ····- 4......................................... . 2. 00 By 1\Iills l>i11 .......................................... _ •.. ~ ........... .

Starch ...... _ ............................................. ~....... 4.00 By Mills bill ............................................................ .

Rice ...... ............................................. " """"' " "'.... 10. 00 By Mills bill .................................................. .......... ..

54= 45.36 45= 37.80

82= 68.88 40= 38.60

30= 9.00 15= 4.50

73= 4.38, 40= 2.40

52= 7.80 40= 6.20

70= 12.60 40= 7.20

70= 12.60 40= 7.20

47= 28.20 31= 13.60 -

*48= 9.80 30= 6.00

35= 4.20 20= 2.40

70= 8.40 40= 4 .• 80

40= 2.00 30= L50

4:5= 3.60 30= 2.40

60= L20 43= .86

94= 3.70 47= 1.88

113= 11.30 100= 10.00

Total val ae and present tariff................. 501.00 .-......... 189. 'Zl Total gain under :M1lls bill ............................... .. · .................... .,

*Averag-e.

Gain.

~-60

2.40

.60

• 30

4.00

2.00

1.20

1.20

7.56

35.28

4.50

1.98

$1.60

5.40

5.40

14.60

3.80

1.80

3.60

.50

1.20

.34

1.82

1.30

8!.29

From the foregoing calculation it will be seen thn.t the entire amount of goods pm:chased at the prices na~ed amounts to $501, that the present duty on these artwles amouuts to $189.27, and the dut;y as proposed by the Mills bill would amount to :1104.98, which deducted from the rate of duty under the present law would be a net gain of iM-29.

Mr. Chairman, if under the present tariff laws duties are collected amounting to $189.27 for what one farmer or mechanic requires during the year, where are the people of this country to get means to supply

themselves with the necessaries of life when all industries are running as trusts and we live altogether by ourselves, with more than half the factories closed, people out of~ployment, and higher prices than we e>er had before? To be sure the duty paid will not go to the Government, but to the trust to pay dividends to closed factories all over the land. Such must surely be the outcome of an attempt to reduce the surplus in the woy our friends of the ma.jority want it done.

But, Mr. Chairman, let us hope that common sense and re3Son will prevail. The talk of the Cobden Club controlling parties here is silly. Our Irish fellow-citizens are not to be deceived by such small demagogery. Indeed, oue finds them as ready to unite with Gladstone and other Englishmen in efforts for proper government as they are to work with each other for the same object. I have no doubt some of these same English Liberals belong to the Cobden Club. That England is to gain by our reducing duties I believe to be untrue.

I recently heard a prominent English-gentleman, who has made a study of the subject, sbte that our reducing duties would so increase our export trade and lessen that of Gre~t Britain as to cause a great l~s to his conn~. The subjoined table indiCates what an opening there is for our industries in this direction. Total values of the exports of domestic manufact·ut·es of cotton from tlte

United Kingdom and the United Strrtes to Mexico, Cent1·al and South America, and to the West Indies in 1886.

Exported Exported Countries to which exported . from United from United

Kingdom. States.'-'

1\Iexico ................ ........... ......... .. ..... ............. ..... ......... . Central Amerucan States ........... .............................. .. . British Honduras ....................... " ................................ . British West Indies ................................................... . Other West Indies .................................................... : United States of Colombia ...................................... .. Venezuela .. ... ................ ~ .......................................... . Britil:h Guiana ......................................................... .. Brazil ......................................................... _ ............. . Uruguay ................................................................... . Argentine Republic .................................................. . Chili. ......................................................................... . Ecuador .................................................................... . Peru ................................ ........................................ .. .

S2, 239,870 2,288, 632

69.513 i-2,7!?9,00 5, 202, 4$1.3 2,350,607 1,297.356

(t) H,915, 978 2,401, 798 7, 2'1:7, 779 3,152,567

665,630 1,845, 430

$829,596 377,612 T/,883

152,672 1,436,148

443 ll2 602:131 21,408

705 638 188:358 797,246 408,434 255,401 90,062

Total ... ............................ .................... .. ............ ~ 456. 7T/ --6,335, 7!ll

* Year ending June 30, 1887.

! Includes British Guiana. Included in British West Iudies.

TREAS17RY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF STATlSTICB, .Aprill1, 1888.

We sell themalittleover$6,000,000; Great Britain over $46,000,000. Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention

to the criticisms of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. GUENTHER] and the gentleman from Mary1and [Mr. McCoMAS] in relation to the retention of duty on alcohol used in the arts. As we are endeavoring to secure cheaper artic~es for uses in manufacturing it would seem but reasonable that this duty be removed. The difficulty, 1\fr. Chairman, is that there is no way to accomplish this at present without making an opening for revenue frauds, which once so disgraced our land.

It is possible that by methylation the danger of the alcohol being used for drinking purposes might be lessened. Experience in European countries, however, goes to pro-ve that methods are found to make use of the methylated product, and great injury to health results. It is to be regretted that the gentlemen who take such an interest in this particular tax have no remedy to suggest by which their claims can be safely carried out. A pity it is that the only relief the minority offers to the manufacturer is not practicable.

1\ir. Chairman, I claim that the bill under discussion is a wise measure. It may be that some amendments should be made. People in my" district I find generally satisfied with it as presented to the House. It is in no sense a free-trade bill, but on the "Ontrary gives at least as much protection as is wise.

I desire to read a letter written by a gentleman who has just retired from the office of mayor of Albany:

.ttLJlA .• U, N.Y., May 3, 1888. • DE~R Sm: In common with many other n:um!lfacturers in Albany we are wn<tchmp: With eagerness the progress of the Mills b1U.

After patientl.ywait·in~ twenty years for a reduction in the war t.arill', the people now demand relief. ~e b_elieve no industry iu this 'rlcinity will be disa.stroasly affected by the

Mills b1ll, but th!\t, on the contrary, onr trade and commorci.al interests will be benefited.

In our own particular branch of business we should look for a. great increass in the building of cars and in railroad traftic.

Yours, GEO. H. THATCHER & CO.

Hou. CHARLES TRACEY, House of Repre8entatives, Washington, D. 0.

I have also a private letter frum the manager of the largest cotton mills in my district, an establishment employing thousands of workmen. This gentleman writes: "From what I ha.ve seen of the .Mills bill, it is a good one; and if it could be passed without so much partisan politics discussion, would pro-ve a benefit to business interests ot the country." ~

•

•

3968 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE~ MAY 10,

The following, giving expressions fl'om ma.nufacturers and business men in Albany, I qnote from the Albany Argus:

It bas been persistently stated that change': in tbetn.riffwould involve business catastrophe, reduction of wages to labor, and general mischief to the count~y. All reports a~ree that the bill soon to be presented to Congress, in accord with the sug~estions of President Cleveland's message, wili contain a proviso repealing the tarifftas: of$2 per 1.000 feet on lumber. The lumber interest is one of the largest in Albany, the receipts here in 1870 amounting to 41:>,000.000 feet, and in 1887 to 435,000,000. In the last se•enteen years the largest receipts wero in J88t, amounting to 477,000,000, and the lowest in 1875, when they fell to 290,000.000 feet. In ortler to ascertain how Albany lumber dealera regard tho proposeJ. chan:re in the tariff in this respect, reporters of The Argus yesterday visited them in their several offices. In the winter time the lumbet· dealer has little apparently to do but keep the run of his books and correspondence and devote ample leisnro to meditation on tho affttirs of State. It is re.tsonable- then to assume that the Yiows ex· pressed be:low a1·e the results of deliberate judgment on the part of those fully qualifieu to spellk_ Of tile twent.y-sh: wholesale lumber dealers in tile city aU but six were ranched. Of these onl.v four are pronounced in opposition to tile repeal of the tariff on lumbar, ten are earnestl.v in favor of the repeal aud believe it woulcl bo greatly to the ado;antago of tile wholo country, and especially of this city, and six are indi:ffere.nt, exprt>ssing various opinions. 1.'hc r plies show that the question is boil1g co11siuer"d fairly by business men, withont regard to partisan atliliations. Following are the questions submitted in each ca.se:

1. Are you in t"a•or of or opposed to the repeal of the tariff on lnmter 7 2. How would the repeal of tho tariff on lumber a.tl"ect. tho business in Albany 9 3. \Vonld tho abolitwn of the tariff on lumber reduce t.he wages of men in your

emplo'· in this State1 4. Woulll it lead to cheaper lumber, ::md thus bo of advantage to cousnmers1

STU.OXGLY FAYORl:XG RRrKAL.

Mr. Charles G . Saxe, bead of the fi•·m of Sue ll rotilers, S::\id: ".Moi!t llecidedly I::a.m in fa•or of the repeal of the tariff of $:! per l,O:JO feet on lumber. It stands iu th'3 wn.v of the development of one of tho loading linos of busine s in Albany. If tho tariff t<~J~ on lum bet• -wero repealed the lum\.Jer trade of Alb::tnr, I belicYe, would materially increase. So far from roducin~ wag~s of men employeu in the business in tho State, aml e.:;pccially in 'tho district,' b.v increasing the busine!>s it would increaso their wages or· increase tho uumbor of men employed. \Vhile tbe .Arnel'ic:m consumer might not get tho full benefit of the removal of the $2 tax, ho wouhlnntloubtetpy get part of t.bo benefit. Tho repeal of the lumbnr tax, I belie•e, wonld be for tho ad•antage of the whole country, and AliJany's share of tho adrantage C:<liued would be Ycry gl"eat."

J. Denedict & Sons say: " \Vc are strongly in favor of tbe repeal of the tariff ta..~ on lumber, bclic'>ing the repeal to be for tile benefit of the people of the conuty, "ncl c:;pecilllly of AliJ:my. It would tn.ke more time t.hdu we can spate, and p1·ulmbly more spaco than The Argus could atfonl. to presont tho rc,ason-1 for out· statement and to reply fully to tile questions suggesteu. Count this firm in f:wor of tbe repeal of the tariff on lumber."

Hughson & Co. sny: "We favor the repeal of the tariff on lumber, and among lumber 1lealers we know of little oppusition to its repeal. lt woulL1undoubtedl.1' increase tho business of Albany materially. It would not reduce the wages of men employed in the busine3.'1. On the contrary, if the businE>ss here increased more · men woulll, of course, bo employed, and tile total of wa~es would be lar~or. It woul•l l.Jo for the benefit of men employed in the trade. As t:> it~ eff.~ct on the pt·ice of ltunber to tho consumer, t.bat is an open question. The price of lnmb~r i .~ so br:.rely controUetl by other matters that it woulfl be ditlicult to trace \he bearings oi 1 ho· h\X on lumber to its price."

Messrs. Dou.c;las \Vhite & Co. say: "Wo fao;or tbo repeal of the tariff tax on lU!ubt•r. It would nndoubtcilly increase our bnsiness m Albany with Cnnatla, and thus, if anything, increase the aggregate business of 'the district • anti tho cit_v. It would not, of course, reduce the wages of men eruplo.rell in the business. If the:-e were more busine s, of courss W:lges would be higher or we should employ mnre men. The $2 s.c·wed by the repeal of the tax on each l.GOO feet would prob· ably be divided between the producer and tho consnmer, contlitions of the market f10m 1 imo to time fixing the amount of benefit which eacil would recein)."

Mr. S. B. Towner, successor to J. G. Towner & Co., sM·s: "I am most drcidecll.v in fa ' 'or of the abolition ofrbe tariff on lumber. Tho tariff tax bas interfered with :mJ. reduced the business of this city, and its repeal in my judgment would adu wonderf ully to tl..e ~olume of business done hero. It would not tent! to reduce the wa.c;os of men employed here in the busino!ls. On the contrary. if there was moro business, as any man can see for himself, more men woultl bo employed and wages -would boas good and probably better. The repeal of tile tax of $3 would unquestionabh· make lumber cheaper to the consumer, but not probably to the full ext f-nt o(tho tax. The gteafest goocl of the greatest number in this country clearly uemands the abolition of the tax on lumber."

1\Iessrs. Arnold & Co. say: "We are in favor of the repeal of the tariff on lumber. '£he repeal wonl•l be no uetriment to any men dealing in lumber in the Unitctl States, and of decided advantage to all men in this country who deal in Canada lumber. Thg trade should be reciprocal, Canada requiring some grade-1 of Micuigan lumber and the United St.ates r e<1niring Canada lumber. It woul<l undou b tedl .v increase the lumber bnstness of Albany, and if it increased the busi· n ess it wouJu givo more men steadter work ::\t better pa.r, probably. Americans already haYo put in nearly one-third of the capital in•ested in Canada. in the lam· ber bu!'liness.".

Mr. Jolln UcDonalu, of Boyd & Co., say>: "I am in favor of the repeal of the tariff on lumber. Nearly all lumber dealers favor the repeal. It would vastly increase tho business of Albany. Albany is tho natural outlet for Canada. T he Canada :mel .Atlantic Railway, built by a syndicate of Ottawa lumber dealers, I am in a position to say, is read.v to contract for five years to deliver lumber in Albany for $25 a car, by its connections with the Delaware and Hndson at Rouse's Point. That tariff of$2 stands in the way of the growth of the lumber business in Aloany. If the business wt':ro increased , of course, there would be more work for the men and better pa)T· 'l'he whole $2 tax wonld not go to t.he consumer, if repealed, bnt -would be dio;ided between manufaotnrer an1l consnmer, according to the state of the market, governed l>y supply aml demand. I do not apprehend that the 'limits• in Canada will he raised if our tariff is reducell. as do some. Premier Mowatt, of the Ottawa. government, has assured me that the policy of the Canadian Government contemplates no such increase, whate•er the action of Congress may be. 'f::itumpa.11;e' has ah:eafly gone so high in tho West that American lumbermen are being driven il1to Canada ofnocessity, ancl the repeal of the tax will be a. benefit ~bared by Americans on eithP.r side of the St. LaWJ·ence."

Philips & Dunscomb say: '' \Vo are in faYor of the repeal of tarilf on lumber, It probably -would not grcntly affect the business of Albany one way or the other, thourril its tendency would be, perhaps, to increase it. Ther<~pealofthetarifftax on lu"mber -would not teu<i to r<'dnce the wages of men omplo.ved in the business in the State. Of the benefit of $2 per 1,000 to be obtained by repealing the tax, the consumer bere -would probably get about half and tbe Canadian manufacturer about half on the average. A large number of Ameticans from Michigan have already ~roue to Canada. to conduct the lousiness there, and there would be little opposition to the repeal of the tax fJ"Om Michigan, in our' opinion."

Mr. James Moir says: "I am in favor of the repeal of the tariff on luml1er. I ha.~e no doubt that it would increase the business of Albany and of the United States. When business increases of course more men are employed, so the repeaJ.

of the tax on lumber, in my opinion, wonld be for the direct benefit of laboring men employed in the business. '!'he repeal migh.,t not make a grt>at difference in the price of lumber to the oonsumer, although to express a positiYe opi11ion on the subject one must, of course, discuss all the factors in the market."

Mr. Lemon Thomson said: "I am in favor of tbe abolition of the tariff on lumber, although I have not 'large interests in Canada, • as I have seP.n stated. There is virtually no opposition, even in Michigan, now to the repeal of tbb tariff on lumber. Under tho tariff our best timber-lands have been rapidly stripped. The repeal of the lumber tax would undoubtedly help incr•ase the busine. s of Albany, as there is much Norway or red pine, nsefnl for flooring, eto., which would come to Albany but for the duty of $2 per 1, 000 feet. Pree Jum ber would not rednco the wages of men in the business in this State. The price to the consumer is governed by supply and demand. If our supply became greater of course the price would be less."

OPl'OSED TO REPEAL. Mr. C. B. Nichols says: "I am opposed to the repeal of the tariff on lumber,

and I think it would be a detriment to the business of Alb:my, as it would shul; us out of the Michigan trade. The discrimination in freight against .Aluauy an ~ in favor of New York is much greater in the Canadian lu::uber trade than iu thu Michigan trade."

Messrs. Patton & Co. say : "\Ve aro opposed to the rep al of t.he tariff on lnmber. It would. not affect Albany's busine. s materially, a& the inr.rease, if any, would be sli;xht, Of coarse, it would not affect wages, which a.re determineu by oilier matters. It woultl not cheapen lumber to the consumer."

Mr. Ruuert James, of Smith, Craig & Co., says: "We belie•o the tariff on lu mber shonltl not be reduced, as it ser•es to offset the diff,.rence in frei_gh t between Canada and Albany and Michigan and Alb:my. It would not gn•atly affect the lumber husrness of Aloauy. Canada. trade -would increase a.ud Michigan trade fall off. It would have no effect whatever on wages. It wonlll not make lnmber cheaper, as l nmber could not be much cheaper than it is. 1.'here has been nothing in the trade for the last few years. 'rhe Canadians woulfl try to appropriate the benefit from the repeal of the tariff on lumber."

.M1·. ,V. H. 'VeaYer says : "In my view tho removal of the t.ariff on lnmber woulu hnrt the lumber trade in this country and also in this city. Tile present tariff of $~makes it possible for us to pay onr men their pr~sent high waged."

lXDIFFEl!EXT OX THE SUBJECT. Me~srd. Hubbell & Hill saY: "\Ve do net care whether the tariff ou lum bel"is re

pealed or not. Itwonld probably hao;o no effect on the volume of Albany's lumber business. nntl it certainl.r would not aft"ect wa~es. Of the $2 tax probabl.\' t h" Can· aclinu producer would get half aml the American cousu:ner 'rouJ.l ~et half."

Mr. H. S. Van Santforu says: '·I am llidifft!rent on the subject, but I seo n o ol•jeo· tion to the repeal of the (lnty on lumber. '£hcl"e used to beconsidera.blo oppo it ion to tho r epeal of the tariff from U ichigan, but that has ceast-d., a11d on the ,.,hole I .am inclined to fa.vor the re11eal of the tariff on lum\.Jer. O!le-h:1lf the capit.tl in ve,teJ. in Canada. on lumbet·, I presume, is A.merican monc.'>. The abolition of the lumber tax might possibly increase the Albany lumber trade, but not greatl.L It would ha•e no effect on wages. It would not make mnch change in the price of ltun ber to the consumer, especially if Canada shoulJ.lay an export tax.."

:Mr. William K\~ton says: '' I do not care whether the tariff on lam ber is repeal ell or not. Our business is chiefly with Michigan, and I doubt if the r epeal wonltl nffect it mnch. It would adjrt.st itself in one season. I don't think the busine s of Alb:m:v wonld be materially increased by the repeal. Albany is only a tlry-honso for New York, so f.1r as the lambPr bn iuess is concerned, nnrl tile railroads have moro to do with business than t.he tariff does. The repeal would not· nffect -wnf{es. \Vages a re governed by snpply and demand oflabor. If tho tariff wns repealed I shonld not look for material aud lon~-continued lower prices fo•·lumber . The Can:tuians are sharp and would try to ahso1·b the gain.'

~Ir. A. S. Kibbee says: " I do not care whether Congress takes the duty off of lnm ber or dc.es not. I used to be quite strongly opposed to the removal of the dnty; but I am indifferent now. I do not believe it woahl much inor·ea e the business in .Al\.Jany, and probably wouhl not much afft'ot prices, a~t the Canadians would try to sceurt1 the benefit of the $2 r ep aletl. Tile tariff on lumber is certainly wron"", in so far it h ha"l;Pningthe disappearance of our American fore ts."

Mr. Oscar""L. Rasey sa,·s: ' ·I d on't care whether the tariff on lumber is r epealed or not. It would n o"t makA much difft:rence with tho Albany business. It would not rednce wages. I am afraiJ. that ths Canadians wo11ld t1·y t~ get- tbe advant.age by raising the prices of Government' limits. • I am eutirely indifterent on the sn\.Jject·"

.Mr. Acors Ratilbun says: "I rlo not care whether tho tadft" is kept on lnmber or taken off. The removal mi,ght increase Albany's business somewhat. It certainly would not reduce wages. I do not believe th:J.t the business in Michigan would be injured by the remoYal of the duty. Our business with c~nada would be increased, and no home industry would bt:> harmed. However, I am inditl"ercnt on the subject."

ANILD.""E DYES. Francisl V. M. Hudson, superintendent of the Albany Aniline Works, said:

"The provisions of the bill, I'O far as they affect our bu~in ess, are most satisfactory and bl'nctioial. The tariff act of 18S3 did us much h:wm, but if this bill becomes a law, we look forward to increasing our business, making new colors, and probably incmasiug our fiJrco. The bill puts onr r:tw materials on t~e free lis~, and tbus enables na to compete wilh f .:Jreign manufacturers. M.v opimons on this subject, I can say with safety, are held by aU tllosc engaged in the" business. In brief, the bill is of the gt·eatest aid to our 'business, because it removes an oustaclo which legislation put in our way, and -we hope it will pass."

IRON FOt::NDRIES. Mr. Rufus K. Townsend, proprietor of tbe large Townsend furnace, one of the

oldest and most widely known manufactnrinrr firms in this city, said: "The changes in tariff bill in the iron and steel schedule do not harm our business at all. The reduction in fig-iron may be a alight 1tain. W e have all the work wo can do and are not afraic of competition. There 1s a great deal of nonsense about this tariff 'scare.' If the bill passes we shall .not bank our fires and discharge our men or cut down wages. I do not care much whether tht' bill passes or not, as we shall feel no injurious effects from it." ·

THE CAR·WHEKL BUSIXESS.

M:r. Georae H. Thacher, of the Thacher Car-Wheel Works, oue of the oldest and best k~own foundrif's in the city, said, concerning the changes in the ta.rltf rates on oar-wheels:· "We hope the bill will pass. '.rhe changes will not affect our businPss in the slightest degree. \Ve do not fear competition fi"Om abroad, as wo can make betler oar-wheels. Our business will not be 'paralyzed,' and our men will not be gi•en 'papuer wages.' On the contrary, we shall go right ahead with our business, pay our men their wn.g_es n.s ~sual, a.ncl !1?~ decrease our forc.e. Tho changes in the taxes on car-wheels will be for the poslltve benefit of some m the trade using special steel tires.''

THE STOYE FOUXDRIES. Mr. Grange Sard, of Rathbone, Sard & Co. , said: "I haYelooked over carefully

the iron and steel schedules in tho new tariff bill, :1nd so far a.R tbe stoYo manufacturing tirade is concerned the proYisions are Ullquestionaul:v for the acl"l""antage of those engaged in tho business as employers ot· us employ6s. From a l!eneral knowledp;e of the iron and steel bnsiness 1 think the reuuctions proposed are of ac.l•antage to the whole iron and steel indnstJ·~··"

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3969 :\tr. John T. PotTy. of Perry & Co., said: "The changes in the iron and steel

scb euulrs will not affect unfavorably our business a particle. Of course I hope ther e will be no general panic or prostration of business."

CARRIAGE FACTORIES.

llfr. James Kingsbury, jr., one of the largest mannfacturers of carriages and fllei~hs in the city, said concerning the proposed ~hanges in the tariff, so far as t lley related to the carriage business: "The reduction in the duty on carriages will not affect onr business at all. We shall go ahead manufacturing, pay tho u sual wages, and count on sellin~ our goods everywhere as usual. These 'scares' about business and wages remmd me of the' scare' every fall when we begin making sleighs that it is to l:Je an open winter, and there will be no snow and no sleighing. We go ahead just the same and make and sell our Kleighs and car· 1·iages. The removal of the taxes on lumber is a goocl thing for our business, anu tho reduction of duties on paints, cloths, and some pieces of iron and steel work is also beneficial to the carriage business, and if the bill had gone still further and reduced the duty on varnishes, it would have been a good thing. That duty · seems to 'protect' no one but a monopoly of two or three manufacturers."

Mr. James Goold, of the Goold Carriage Company, says: "The change in the duty on carriages will make no difference in the traue in this country. There is almost no· importation of carriages, because we can make better ones here than they can abroad."

THE LEATHER BUSL.'Ol.SS .

Mr. George Cook, of the firm of Adam Cook & Sons, leather dealers, said: "The addition of extract of hemlock and tanning bark to the free list is an excel· lent thing for the leather business. We have none too much of it in this country, and we must draw part of our extracts for tanning from abroad. We approve the bill so farM it affects our business, and hope it will pass. Free raw materials woul<l be a ~ood thing for this country. The bill makes no other changes in the leather busmess so far as I have seen. No, we don't expect to gi;e our employes ·pauper wages' if the bill passes."

There are thirteen leather establishments in this county, employing over 100 men, with $230,000 capital. Besides this there are eleven boot anu shoe factories employmg about 1, 700 which are affected by the bill directly only in the item above, and that, as shown, is to their advantage.

THE DRUG BUSTh"ESS.

Mr. Duow H. Fonda, one of the leading wholesale drn,!t dealers in the city, said: "I have read the provisions of the proposed tariff bill, in so far as they relate to tlru,gs and chetnicals, and if the bill becomes a law it will considerably benefit our bnsine;>s and not compel us, at least so far as the drug business is concerned, to go to the poor-house. The changes are beneficial. The reduction of the tax on borax will be a great gain for every one. At present it benefits only one borax mine in California, and a monopoly has been formed which is putting the price of that article way beyond reason. The cha.nges in the drug and chemical schedule are for the benefit of those engaged in the business, and still further for the benefit of the public which purchases drugs and chemicals."

CROCKERY .Al\'D GLASS.

Mr. Theodore V. Van Heusen, of the firm of Van Heusen & Charles, said on the subject of the crockery, china, and glass schedules: "The proposed changes are certainly for the benefit of the business, and e;on the potteries of Trenton, N. J., will have no right to complain. Money has been improperly used in the past to keep the taxes on some articles in this schedule higher than any necessity or good policy demands. In its entirety the bill seems to me a fair concession to the demand for a revision of the tariff and for a reduction of the surplus that comes from every fair-minded business man. From my knowledge of the business, I should say that manufacturers of crockery, china, and glass ware would be benefited by tho provisions of the bill on that subject, because it provides free raw materials, earths, etc., for them."

PRINTING .A...'W BOOK·BIXDING.

The new tariff bill makes no changes in the products of the printing and bookbinding business, except that Bibles and other books printed in foreign languages are admitted free of duty. As no Bibles or books in foreign languages are Jlrinted in Albany , the printing and book· binding trade will not be •• ruined" in this county. On the other band, the printing trade gets the advanta_ge of a. reuuction of the tax on the metal of which the type is made from 30 per ceut. , as at present, to 21) per cent.; on paper, sized or glued, from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent.; on unsized paper, from 15 per cent. to 12 per cent.; and on ink, from 30 per cent. to 20 :per cent.,besides reductions in ta.~es on thread, cloth, and other materials used m book-binding, which can not be here enumerated. •In Albany County, by the census of 1880, there were 23 printing and publishing establishments, employing 740 persons, with a total capital of $1,057,100, anu se•en book-binderies, employing H2 persons, with a capital of $47,100.

CARPETS AND OIL-CLOTHS.

Mr. Amos Van Gaasbeck, of Van Gaasbeck & Co., said concerning tha changes in taxes on carpets and oil-cloths: "The provisions of the bill would make carpets and oil-cloths considerably cheaper, and, of course, in that event the value of our stock on ha.ncl would be re<luced. Ultimately, however, it would not affect our business. Oil-cloth and carpet manufacturers are probably opposed to the changes whicll reduce the duties about to the rates at the beginning of the war. The advantage they get from free carpet wools, cheaper dye.'!, etc., under the bill will not compensate them, in my judgment, for the reductions in the carpet schedule. There are no carpet manufacturers in Albany. More carpets would ba imported.''.

BIU.SS, COPPER, AND LEAD WORK. •

Mr. Russ, of Ridgway & RtLss, dealers in plumbers' materials, snys: ''The only fault I can find with the bill is that on these metals (copper, lead, nickel, zinc, etc., the tariff is still left too high. The lower we can get the stuff the belt13r it will be for our customers and for ourselves and our employes. At present combinations and trusts are being formed for speculation in theso metals. Copper has gone way up, the price of solder in one week was advanced 10 cents, in some grades nearly doubling the price. If with our splendid copper and lead mines we can't; get these metals out at a reasonable cost, I think we'd better stop trying to mine them aud turn our attention to more profitable bu!liness. The b1ll in this way is a. step in tho right direction, but the duties are not lowered enough."

Mr. Peter Kinnear says: "I am a strong tariff but not a high tariff man. Bot so far as the duties on copper are concerned I can not see that the new bill will affect our business in the least. The reason is that we export rather than import copper, for Lake Superior copJ?er is better than the English article. There was a timo d.uring tho war when we Imported some, bnt we don't do it now, and taking off the tariff can not hurt our trade."

COLLARS, CUFFS, A~'D SHIRTS.

Mr. S. L. Munson, the large manufacturer of collars, cuffs and shirts, said: "The duty on our articles is unchanged, while there is some reduction in some of our raw materials. Directly our business is not disad'i"aittageously affected. A general prostratiQn of American industries would, of course, harm us, anJ that is what I fear." [In justice to Mr. Munson it should be said that four years ago he feared a "general prostration of business " if Clevelann was elected PreRideot. His large factory on Hudson avenuP., built under President Cle.,eland's ·adminis· tra.tiou, is thus a. monument to the fact that men are often more scared than hurt.]

XIX--249

FUR!\:ITURE MA.NUJ..'ACTURRUS.

Mr. Theodore Lyon, superintendent of Nelson Lyon's largo furniture cs taLlishment, &aid: "Every ono desires the prosperity of our manllfacturers n.ml work· ingmen, I assume. So far as our business is concerned, the changes propose:! by the bill seem to be for the advantage of furniture manu!acturers. Free lumber, of course, is a great gain, and the addition of burlaps and jut~ to the free list as well aa the reductions in duties on the glass used for looking-glasses and on Rome other articles seem of advantage to us. If the bill passes wo snall go right ahead manllfacturing and selling our goods."

FREE FOREIGN BOOKS.

Prof. 0. D. Robinson, principal of the hi~h school, said: ''I am glad that books in foreign languages are to be put on the free list. They are not printed to any e~tent in this country, and the duty 'protected' no one. It is, to a ;ery great extent, a tax on education, and wa.s also a tax on the chances to read of many of our adopt-ed citizens from tho continent of Europe. Every man who reads another language besides English oup;ht to be thankful for that provision. 'J'he re· duction of tho tax on philosophical app:~.ratus is an advantage to all schools aa w-ell as to science."

WOOL-GROWING.

Mr. Charles Newman, head of the oldest wool-buying house in Albany, said: "Of course wool dealers are not directly concerned in the tariff on wool. In my business t:xperience I havo seen Rheep slaughtered in larj!e numbers for mutton and tallow under the highest tariff, and I ha'i"e seen our wool-growers thri;e under a low tariff, and I have also seen these con<liti~tns reversed, so I am convinced that the tax on wool is merely an incident in the wool market. It is go•erned by the laws of supply and demand. For some time past the price of domestitJ wools has been low and the price of foreign wools -has somewllat increased. The expect.'ltion of increased demand from this country may ha•e enhanced the price of foreign wools. These commercial causes will soon establish equilibrium, and the laws of trade will dewrmine tho prices of wool apart from what CongrlisS may do or mav fail to do. I do not., therefore, see any cause for alarm among woolgrowers. ' '

'fiN IN ALL l>IA.~lJFACTURES.

Mr. George Cleveland, of Cleveland Brothers, bakin~r-powder manufacturers, said: "The most important and, indeed, the only change in the newtarilfbill affecting our business (except two or three reuuctions, possibly, in articles we use to a slight extent) is the abolition of the tax on tin, or tin-plate as it is commercially called. We use large amounts of tin in packing our ~ood~J, and I am heartily in favor of the repeal of that tax, which the bill provides. 'J'he tax of 1 cent a pound on tin is<\ tax on nearly t:'l"ery industry in the conn try , and is a tax on ahnost every citizen, for tinwam is often called ' the poor man's sHver.' That tax. adds to the cost of the necessities of life of almost eve7 one, as is evident from tho many uses to which tin is put. It does not 'protect any one, as none is mado in this country, and none can be made unless the tax is doubled or trebled, and if that is suggested it would be cheaper for the country to vote $l, OOO,OOO or $5,000,000 right out of the Treasury and board those who contemplate it at Delmonico's or the Fift.h A venue in idleness. So far as my own business is concerned, as I say, the repeal of that tax woul<l be of great a{} vantage. I am willing to speak further, as I h ave recently talked of the matter wiloh many Albany manufacturers, and we sent together a petition to Congress in February asking for the repeal of that t.'Lx."

Among those who ~igned it wero the Littlefielu Stove U~mpany, tho Ransom Stove Works, P. V. l!ort & Son, James Ackroyd, Bacon, Stickney·, & Co., M. E. VieJo, Delahanty & Co., S. and C. A.. Baker, Wasson & Co., S. H. Parsons, George ,V. Peck, Philip O'Brien, T.-acey & Wilson, Walter McEwan, Thomas Myers, and a large number of tiusmitlls aml other manufacturing firms whose names do not occur to me at the moment. [It was not deemed necessary to ask opinions from thoso signing tho petition.] I am a protectionist, but that feature of the bill to which I have given my undivided attention-the repeal of the tax on tin, or tin plato, exactly speaking-meets my waTID approval, and I hope it will pass. It will benefit half the industries of the countt·y, and will benefit everybody, and especially tho families of those who work for wages, as ovary one of those families uses probably as much or more tinware than the families of the rich.

SUGAR, MOLASSES, GROCERIES.

Col. Andrew E. Mather, of Mather Brothers, wholesale ~rocers, said concerning the chao go of rates on sugar and molasses: "I have been m favor of the reduction of the taxes on sngJ.r and molasses ever since the necessity for them to meet war expenses-passed away. So far as the tariff bill affects those articles in which we deal !!approve of it as ben~ficial to our business and much more beneficial to the people of the country. I apprehend only that the reduction has not been large enough in those matters. The tariff on sugar has been accompanied apparently by the establishment of a monopoly and the heavy duty on molasses leads to adulteration in this country, which can be prevented by lowering the duty and permitting the importation of foreign molasses instead. In a. hasty glance at changes in other articles in our line of business I see nothing to apprehend, but I uo not care to speak specifically of anything but sugar and molasses wit.hont fnrther examination. I am stron~ly in favor of the sugar and molasses reduc· tiona. The;v are articles of ~eneraL use and the heavy tax is unnecessary.

Mr. George Boardman, of Boardman Brothers, said: "I do not. think the pro· posed changes will affect the grocerv business. Prices ara regulatecl by competition, and while the cost of the articles eonmerated would be less, the profits to the dealers would remain the same. The benefit of the rednction would go to the consumer almost instantly. The only advantage which might occur to the dealers would be from an increase in consumption, if there should be any. The combined sn;ings to any family, under the proposed changes, would leave a consiclerably increased margin of their earnings."

THE HAT il'D CAP BUSTh"ESS. Mr. Edgar Cotrell, of Cotrell & Leonard, hat dealers, said of the cbanues affect

ing the hat manufacturing business: "The provisions of the new tariff bfii in so far ns they relate to the manufacture of hats are decidedly for the advant.'Lge of manufacturers and their employ~s. not to mention consumers, who, of course. are bene· fited. The bill does not materially alter the duty on bats, but it takes off the taxes on raw materials of which bats are made, and should increase the business of hatmaking in this country. Hatter's furs, braids, plaits, etc., are put on the free-list, and the tax on hatters' plush is cut down from 25 per cent. to 15 p er cent. These are chan_ges which Mr. Dunlap and others representing the hat manufacturers of the United States have tded to effect for several years.

"ln 1883 they went to ·washington for that purpose, but Congress actually did ju!lt the reverse of what the trade needed, and increased the taxes on some of our raw materials. I have examined the bill closely only so far as it relates to our own line of business, and I am sure it will meet the approval of every manllfactnrer nnd every dealer in the trade. American hats can, perhaps, be exported if the bill is passed, as the superiority of our styles would secure them a place in foreign markets, especially in Canada, where there is now a slight occasional demand fot them in preference to English hats. The duty on sliellac should also have been reduced."

Mr. Charles R~d, of StamP.er & Strait, co-operative hat store on State street, snid: "The changes the tanff bill proposes, as far as hat-making is concerned, are "considerably to the advantage of the trade. The bill reduces taxes on sev-

~~~ m~:-~a~rnu~:!i~a.~~:!:ex~h~tb:Sf:e~m~~~·-8~~dt~~:~ed ill thia

• I


S.A WS, STEEL, .A...'\D FILES.

Mr. Edward Y. Lansing and Ml· . .Tames Good~, of the .Albany Saw, Steel, anol File Works, snid: "\Ve are forremovaloftaxes on raw materials as the one policy needed to push American manufactures abea.d of tho so of every other country and increase busine~s. 01ll" firm was established ip 1855, and under the lower ta.riff we did as much or more business than we do under the present tariff. 'All tbe saw manufacturers in the country but two favor the reduction ofthetaxt~s on iron and steel, and iron and steel men not in combination are not opposed to it. Wo are not afraid of competition from abroad, and the moderate reunetion of the duty on saws won't lose us a single customer, and we do not intend to reduce wages, either, to compete. The reduction of taxes on raw materials we believe will increase our business, anJ. the more busintn!s we do the better our men will be satisfied. "

SADDLERY, BL~'KETS, ETC.

Mr. Walter W. Woodward and Mr. Erastus Hill, of Woodward & Hill, =nfacturers of and dealers in saddlery, harness, and carriage and horse furnitu re generally, said: ''Yon will find this firm, and we think all other dealers and manufacturers in this line of business, unanimously for the bill as far as it affects our business. All the woolen manufacturers with whom we deal and whom we meet favor free wool. The tax on wool is a considerable item in the cost of horse blankets and as almost every pound of it used is imported-practically none is raised in tlilil country-they feel the ta.x is checking their business, and a. man who buys a horse blanket feels it much more. The same is true of carriage cloth and furnishings. In leather the onl change seems to be free tan-bark, which every leather dealer, shoemaker, and saddler favors, of course, as do we, l'!lld the changes in the metal schedules are clearly desi~ed to aid American manufacturers. The bill is the first chance Congress has had to pass upon the question of free raw materials, which manufacturers in this country have favored more and more e>ery year and are now almost a. unit upon."

CORDAGE, ROPE, S.AILS, SID.P STORES.

Robert B. Win g. ship stores, cordage, rope, canvas, sails, etc.. said : "I ha>e read those parta of tbe tariff bill that relate to our business, and I am in favor of them. and so far as I know, manufacturers of the articles we deal in favor them. Manilla, sisal-grass, and other articles used in making rope ought to be admitted free of duty. They don't grow here, and the more and cheaper we get them the better it is for our rope manufacturers, and of course for • canalers ' and every one who uses rope. That gain much more than ofl'sets the change in the rope duty. The same plan seems to have been followed in arranging the taxes on materials for sails and sail cloths. , There are fifty or sixty articl.es in our business the manufacture of which is affected by the tariff, and, so far as I can see, the change in every case is for the better and ou{!_ht to inerease business. Free raw materials would be a. ~ood thing for American manufacturers and employe.s, and of course consumers will gain." .

IU.TTAN ~'1) WJCXER W.ABE.

Mr. Samuel •.rempleton, rattan, wicker, and willow ware and household goods, said: "The repeal of the tax on rattan seems to me a. good thing. None is raised in this country, and yet it is widely used in every household," pointin~ to a score or more articles from a cane-bottomed chair to a baby ca.rriage. " The tax on that raw material, I presume, adds to the cost of tne manufactured articles and 'protects' no one in this country, for I am a protectionist. It would be well to repeal the tax on rattan. I am not so sure about the tax on willows, used for large baskets, as much is grown in swampy places, cut and sold for almost nothing at certain seasons by those who have other regular occupations. It might not be possible to compete with foreign willows." "'

UliDB.ELL.AB. Mr. McElwee, the umbrella. make"Nsaid: "I have not kept track of tb.e tariff in

umbrellas or umbrella materials. I don't believe in free-trade ideas, bnt I am not afraid of the tarift' bill, for if they don't put down the tariff in finished umbrellas too low we can compete and bold our own, if any one in this country can. The more the tariff on our materials is reduced the better, I suppose, for us."

SO!lffi BUILDING JII.ATEBI.ALB.

Mr. Franklin H. Janes, the architect, says: "Talk with the leading lumber dealers leads me to the belief that taking off the duty on lumber will not give the diflerence in the price wholly to the consumer. The gain will go in a large part

- to the dealer and manufacturer. There may, however, be a saving effected for our own forests. On the general principle that raw materials should be free, I am glad to see rough stone put on the free list. Our marble, for inst.a.nc.3, is tither not as hard, or where it is as hard it is not as fine, as the Italian; so to put the rough marule on the free-list will be to our direct and lasting advantage. So far as fancy tiles arc concerned, we hardly need a t.arift', for with the exception of the majolica we make the best in the world, and we have recei'\ed for them first premiams in international exhibitiollil."

H.Affi GOODS.

Mr . .r ulins L. Theisen, manufacturer of hair goods, said: "Of course our industry is not a large one, but still many families are sustained by it, and it is entitled to consideration. The new tariff uill puts human hair unmanufactured on the free-list. The tax never ' protected ' any one, as our people do not cut off and sell their hair as is done to a considerable extent in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and France, where hair is luxuriant and people are poor. Barbers, I suppose, would say that hair restorers are the only way to 'protect' American hair, but good soap, borax, and water do pretty well. The repeal of that tll.X. thus benefits us, small though we are in the great scheme of American industry, and it also bene· fits our customers. The reduction in the duty on the manufactured article from 40 to 25 per cent. will not harm us at all if the duty on unmanufactured hair is repealed, as foreign styles do not sell in our market. I presume onr customers wouhl favor the change, but you can see yourself why they might not care to be quoted in print. "

SA VIXG Vi MEDICINE.

Dr. S. H. Carroll said in reuard to the abolition of the duty of $1 per pound on opium for medicinal n.Ses : "Yt woultl be a blessing to poor people who are obliged to me the drug, which is quite largely prescribed by the olu school in one form or another. The profits on the sale of tho drug would remain the same, while the consumer woultl get the benefit of the reduction of $1 a pound."

SCIIOOL .AND FOREIGN DOO.KS.

"' Professor Warren, principal of the Boys' Academy, said, on tbe matter of abolishin~ the 25 per cent. ad valorem duty on fore:ign Bibles and books in foreign languages: "It is a step in the ri~bt direction, and I am heartily in favor of it. It was outrageous, in the first place, to place an import tax on literature and art, along with sngnr and salt. The change proposed is-better than notlling. It will be of great adn~tage to our foreign-born population."

ST.ATU.ABY .A.XD P.ATh"TJ.SG.

Mr. E. D. Pnlmer, the sculptor, said in regard to the abolition of the duty on forcie:n statuary and painting: "We should have no tax on art; ·it should be as free as air. If the duty is removed it _will be of immense advanta~e to A.mericau art, and, so fur as I know, all artists favor it. A.m.erica.ns str!dying abroad are treated with great courtesy, and recei'l'e every encouragement, but when a foreign artist thinks of obtaining reco.,.nition here, he finds that his pictures are practicall:v excluded from American homes on account of the almost prohibitory duty which he mnst pay before ho can brin~ them here."

Artist C. M . Lang said: "The removal of the duty on works of art would be an

etlucational advantage to the country. It would enable people more generally to :rratify a. lo-ve for art, and nearlyevel-yhome would stand some chanco of pos3essing fairly good pictmes without doing injury to home talent; for tho n::ore pictureS' and statuary people huy," he said, "the more they want, and, as they can afford it, the better they will have. I believe :J.rtists, almost without-exception, favor the removal of the duty."

In conclusion, Mr. Chah·man, I will quote from a letter written by :Ur. Tilden to the Iroquois Club in 1832:

The G<>vernment can ne-ver be restored. and reformed except from inside, and by the aetive, intelligent agency of the Executive. We must hope that Providence will, in its own good time, raise up a man adapted and qualified for the wise execut-ion of this great work, and that the people will put him in possession of the executive administration, through which alone that noble m ission ron be accomplished, and the health and life of our political system be preserved and invigorated.

These words were surely prophetic. In President Cleveland a, man adapted and qualified has been fouud, and the message he so boldly addressed to Congress has given an impetus to this most important work of tariff reform that will cause it to be aceomplished. [Applause.]

Mr. DARGAN. lli. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvani.-l. [Ur. KELLEY] in the opening argument against this bill says, among other things, that--

The gentlemen who framed thls bill, and who would brook neither modification or discussion of i ts provisions by their associates on the committee to which the preparation of revenue bills are confided by law, are, with two exceptions, repre entativesofwhat was slave territory.

A little further on the gentleman quotes the French maxim: The Bourbons neither learn nor forget. He afterwards goes on to say:

Yes, 1\Ir. Chairman, the bill is an anachronism. It bas no r elation to this era; it belongs to the saddest epoch in our history, the period between 1824 and 1861.

The-gentleman then proceeds to talk about slavery, nullification, and the war, quoting from the pro-slavery writings of Dr. A. T . Bledsoe, Senator Hammond, of South Carolina, and others. It is very apparent, Mr. Chairman, that a considerable number of the gentleman's party associates in this House and in the country are in hearty sympathy with the spirit and purpose of the gentleman, as indicawd by theremarks which I have quoted.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVE~OR], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. McCoMAS], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. J OSEPII D. TAYLOR] have closely imitated the course of argument pursued by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

.AB a Southern 111an, and one whose uncesto:rs were guilty of the great political sins of slave-holding7 nullification; and secession, I desire in a spirit of kindness and courtesy to the gentlemen who have indulged in this line of remarks to submit a few observations in reply. And if it should be thought that these remarks have no direct bearing on the question under consideration it will scarc~ly be denied that they are at least in the nature of a reply to the arguments, or rather to the suggestions of the gentlemen to whom I have referred.

Now, sir, I have no apologies or explanations to make for these alleged sins of my people; nor do .! deprecate the wrath of those who so constantly denounce those sins and who so diligently "nurse their wrath to keep it warm." I desire to address those who wish to look at this question in a broad, rational, practical spirit.. And what I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: The war closed almost a quarter of a century ago. It lias always been supposed, in the South at least, that with the close of the war the questions of slavery, nullification, and secession had been forever and conclusively disposed of. 'rhe great controversies over these questions, which had agitated the country for more than thirty years, wexe finally submitted to the arbitrament of the sword.

From the decision then rendered no appeal could be t.iken. The Constitution of the United .Sta.tes was so amended as to prevent the possibility of future differences in regard to any of these questions, and they all at onee passed from the domain of practical politics into the domain of history. To the historian these are indeed questions of great and even of tragic interest. To the practical statesman, seeking the good of his country, they are simply dead issues. No one now con-

•tends that a State has the right to nullify any Federal law whatever. No one contends that sla>ery should be "re-established. No one contends that a, State C..'tn, on any pretext whatever, secede from the Union. All of these questions are forever closed by the express provisions of the Constitution, ratified and sustained by the unanimous sentiment of the entire country. But a quarter of a, century after all these issues have been thus settled they are made to do service in a debate on the reduction of the truiif.

The idea of those who dig up these dead issues from their bloodstained graves seems, when stripped of all courteous disguise and ruplomatic indirection, to be this: Here are a number of people who desire a reform of the tariff. A large proportion of these tariff reformers are from the South. These Southern people, or at any rate their ancestors and predecessors, both immediate and remote, were neither wise nor :patriotic, for they believed in and practiced slave-holding, nullification, and secession. How, then, can you, the :people of the United States, respect the opinions or the arguments of such a people? They are by nature, inheritance, and education wrong-headed and ill-equipped for the proper consideration of any important political question, and the v_ery fact that they fa-vor any given policy is sufficient of iteelf to

•

'

1888. OON-GRESSIONAL RECORD~HODSE. 3911 condemn thht policy. Thus at the >ery opePing of a debate which ing proportions in kew England long before it was even dreamedofin should be characterized by moderation and a spirit of conciliation an South Carolina. As early as 1804 New England statesmen conceived attempt is made~ enlist under the banners of a hi~h protective tariff that the interest of that part of the country could be better taken care the prejudices of mankind. '~These prejudices," it has been well said, of out of the Union than in it, and they began to plan schemes of seces" like Swiss troops, may be engaged in any cause and are prepared to sion and to dream and tospeeulateabouttheadvantagesofan "Eastern sen-e undet any leader." Confederacy," including Canada on the one side and the States of New

In this contest they have not only been enlisted under the banners of York and New Jersey on the other. a high protective tariff, but they are put in the very forefront of the bat- In 1811 Josiah Quincy, one of the most gifted men of his day, and a tle. The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania at the very open- Representative from the State of ~fassachusetts, boldly proclaimed the ing of the debate attempts to "fire the Northern heart" by saying in doctrine of secession on the floor of this House. It is not necessary to substance: say anything in regard to the mysterious proceedings and purposes of

These ta.ritl'reformcrs are yQur old enemies. Here at·e the slave barons, the the celebrated Hartford Convention, but it will scarcely be denied by nullifiers, and the secessionists of the South again making war upon you and candid men that it was to all intents and purposes a secession conven-your prQperty. tion.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that all these questions, as far as The facts to which I have n;ferred are all familiar to the students of the South is concerned, are historical and not political questions. our history, and are aU described with more or less detail in the very

In regard to slavery, it is safe to say that the verdict of impartial able and impartial "History of the United States Under the Constituhistory will be that that institution as it existed in the United States tion," by James Shoul.er, himself an illustrious living example of New was a great evil, and that its destruction, even by the untold expendi- England ability, industry, and culture. true of blood and treasure resulting from the war, was a great gain to But, although the testimony of Mr. Shouler,-as a New Englander, every part of the country. But, sir, will history go further and say, as ought! it seems, to be conclusive, it may be said (I do not know his the gentleman from Pennsylvania would seem to have us infer, that politics) that he is a Democrat, or at any rate that he is a :Mugwump. slave-holding is so essentially and unavoidably pernicious in its effects In order, therefore, to satisfy the demands of the most ardent and upon human character that it prevents those who practice it from being ''truly loyal" Republican I beg to cite the testimony of another liveither wise or patriotic? Will it be forgotten, as the gentleman from ing and accomplished New Englander, JH:r. HENRY CABOT LODGE, Pennsylvania and many of his associates seem to have forgotten, that now a member of this House. According to the testimony of so unimWashington, and Jefferson, and 1\Iadison, and Pa.trick Henry, and John peachable an authority as Ur. LoDGE both Washington and Hamilton 1\!arshall were all slave-holders? I do not wish to underrate the many believed in the right of secession. Indeed, according to Ur. LODGE, other great men of this country, nor do I wish to imitate the somewhat there can be no doubt whatever that under the Constitution as ratiflorid rhetoric of some of the gentlemen who seem so much concerned fied in 1789 any State had the right peaceably to withdraw ~om the about slave-holding. Union. '

But, sir, I should like to ask what would this country have been According to the same high_ authority, this constitutional right was without the slave-holders (or "slave-drivers," if gentlemen prefer), lost in avery peculiar and extraordinary way, namely, because the whom I have named? Whose eloquence would have aroused in a whole majority of the people got under the erroneous impressio:p. that such a continent the spirit of resistance to British tyranny? Who would have right did not exist. I shall not pause to discuss this somewhat novel written the Declaration of Independence? \Vho would have been the ar.d dangerous doctrine of the manner in which a constitutional right Commander-in-Chief of the American Army? Who would have been can be lost, but Jet 1\lr. ·LoDGE speak for himself in regard to the whole the leader and guide of the convention that framed the Constitution? matter. In the ~'Life of Daniel Webster," ''American Statesmen Who, as Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, would have delivered that Series,'' by HE~'"RY CABOT LoDGE, page 176, Mr. LoDGE, speaking long line of immortal decisions which have converted that Constitution of the great debate between Hayne and Webster, says: from a dead letter into a living spirit? These are questions for thoae The weak places in his armor (Webster's) were h.istorical in their nature. IIi who are always declaiming about ''the barbarism of slave-holding'' to was probably necessary, at all events J\Ir. Webster felt it to be so, to argue that answer at their leisure. the Constitution at the Qutset was not a. compact between the States, but a. na-

,.~ow, sir, I repeat I am not defending slavery. I am not lamenting tional instrument, and to distinguish the cases of Virginia and Kentucky in 1799, .1' and of New England in 1814 from that of South Carolina. in 1830. The former

its downfall. I rejoice that it has been forever abolished. But when point he touched upon lightly; the latter he discussed ably, eloquently, ingenigentlemen, for the purpose of influencing the judgment of the country ously, and at length. Unfortunately the facts were against him in both instances.

· b · li ti When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and in regard tt> the merits of the tariff question, assert Y unp ca on or accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it was safe to Ea.y there otherwise that slave-holding is incompatible with wisdom and patriot- was not a man in the oountry, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side ism, I say that the charge is shown to be absurdly untrue not only by tQ George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded tlie new sys-the history of this country, but by all history, both ancient and mod_ tern as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was ern. So mucb, sir, for s1avery. And now, how does the case stand very likely to be exercised. When the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions apin regard to secession and nullification? These aJso

1 as I have already peared they were not opposed on constitutional grounds, but upon those of

said, are historical and not political questions. :!i~dJ~~cy and of hostility to the Revolution, which they were oonsidered to

It is to their history that I propo~e to call attention >ery briefly. J\Ir. LoDGE further says, page 177: Now, although many educated people in this country, particularly in What is trne of 1799 is true Qf the New England leaders at Washington when the Republican party, seem not to be aware of the fact, it is neverthe- they discussed the feasibility of secession in 180-i; of the declaration of secession less true that no sketch, however ·slight, can be given of the secession made by Josiah Quincy in Congress a few years later; of the resistance of New question without having much to say of New England. It is very far ~~g::r~~~i~~~:n';"i~~~fi!~1f~ge~\~~~~~!so~~·:n~e[f~~~~~~~~{[~\~o~ from my purpose to say one unkind word in regard to New England. the constitntional asp-ect. It was a question of expediency, of moral and politiI have not one unkind feeling toward her or her people. Whatever cal rightor wrong. In every case the rig-ht was simply stated, and the.uniform her faults and errors have been, New England has a great history, and answer was, such n. step mE!Ilns the overthrow of the present system. I, as an American, feel proud of her magnificent contributions to the On page 216l'tfr. LODGE, speaking of the debate between Calboun and-cause of civilization and human progress. Much has been said in this Webster, says: · debate of her great material wealth and prosperity, and of how much In a general way the same criticism is applicable to this debate as to that with her money has contributed to the progress and development of theW est. Hayne, bnt there were some important differences. 1\Ir. CalhQun's argument

Her material wealth is no doubt great, and much of it is doubtless was superior to that of his follower. It was dry and hard, but it was a splendid specimen of close and ingenious reasoning, and, as was to be expected, the orig-now usefully employed in the development of less fortunate sections :nator and master surpassed the imitator and pupil. Mr. Webster's E>peech, c.-n of the country. But of this wealth it may be said, and indeed it has the other hand, in respect to eloquence, was decidedly inferior to the master-

h · di piece ofl830. :r.Ir. Curtis says: "Perhaps there is no speech ever made by 1\Ir. been said, that it has resulted, in part, at least, from t e unJUSt s- 'Vebster that is so close in its reasoning, so compact, and so powerful." To the criminations of our tariff laws. But New England is rich in wealth first two qualities we can readily assent, but that it was equally powerful may which is peculiarly her own, which is the product of her own soil and be doubted. So long as Mr. Webo;:ter confined himself to defending the Consti-

ll d h · · · d ld tution as it actually was and what U had come to mean in point of fact, he was which at the same time belongs to ns a an to t e Civilize wor · invincible. Just in proportion as he left this gronnd and attempted to argue on She is rich in the heritage of great names; she is rich in the examples historical premises that it was a. fundamental law he weakened his position, for and the inspiration and works of her great statesmen and orators and the historical facts were against him.

d hink . In the reply to Hayne he touched but slightly on the historical, !ega 1, and theo-philosophers and historians and poets an t ers m almost every retical aspects of the case, and he was overwhelming. In the reply tQ Calhoun department of intellectual activity. To these immortal New Eng- he devoted his strength chiefly to Utese topics, and, meeting his.k.een antagonist laude~ all America~s, N ort~, .'Y est, and South, high_ and low, rich and ~~t:!r ~;t~!~: a~dn~~~~e~te~~;~~~~~ ~f~~~~e~~~t ~:1:::t!~~~ ~o!ft; poor, lll common with the civilized world,. owe a mighty debt- with 1\Ir. Webster. Whatever the people of the United States underst.od the

. For noble lessons nobly taught., Constituti.on to mean in 1789, there can be no question that a 1?-~jority !-n 1833 For tears for laughter and for thought. regarded It as f~ndamental l~w, and ~ot as a comp~ct-un opm10n which has . ' ' . . . . I now become universal. But It was qmte another thing to argue that what the

As an Amencan I acknowledge the obligation w1th pn<l~ as well as Constitution had come to mean was what it meant when it was adopted. The gratitude, and trust and believe that the day is yet far distant when identity of mea~ng ~t these two peri <>ill! was the proposition w.hich l\lr. Webster there will be any decline in her material prosperity or her intellectual undertook to m~mtam, ~nd .he u~beld 1t as well and ~s plallinhly as the nature

. . . of the case admitted. His reasorung was close and VIgorous; but he could not and moral fertility and VIgor. destroy the theory of the Constitution as held by the leaders and people in 1789,

But, sir, Ne:v England, !oyal, Union-loving, cultivated, progressive ~fh~h~c~~~em':~~~:;nd~~~~~~ky resolutions of the Hartford Convention New:_ England, IS th~ very buth-.I!lace and nursery.of the much hated and Nevertheless it would be an error to suppose that because the facts of history mucn abused doctrme of secessiOn. That doctrme assumed threaten- were against Mr. ~ebster in these particulars this able and ingenious argu-

3!J72 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

ment was thrown away. It was a fitting supplement and complement to the reply to Hayne. It reiterated the nat ional principles and furnished those whom the statement and demonstrat:on of an existing could not satisfy with an immense magazine of lucid reasoning and plausible and efl'ective arguments. The reply to Hayne ga ve magnificent expression to the popular feeling, while that to Calhoun supplied the arguments which, after years of discussion, conve1·ted that feeUng into a fixed opinion and made it strong enough to carry the North through four years of civil w ar.

It thus appears that the result of Mr. LoDGE's careful examination of the celebrated controversy with Hayne and Calhoun; which won Webster the title of "The Great Expounder of the Constitution," briefly stated is, this: Webster utterly failed to establish the proposition for which he contended, namely, that the Constitution was intended by its framers to create, and as rat ified did in fact create, aNational Government and a Union of States from which no State bad the right to withdraw.

On this point (which was the pointofthecontroversy) the facts were all against Webster, and, able and eloquent as be was, be necessarily failed. The Con titution as framed a1;1d ratified was in fact a mere compact between sovereign States, from which nrry State had the right at any time peaceablyto withdraw. But by 1A33themajorityoftbepeople of the United States "bad come to think" differently about the Constitution from what the framers thought.

The majority "bad come to think" that the Constitution was "a flmdamental Jaw" and that it bad created an indissoluble Union. Mr. Webster feU into thiE popular error, or at any rate pretended to do so, aud defended and supported it with such marvelous ability and e1oquence as great1y strengthened the sentiment and the argument in favor of the error. The result was an irresistible growth of the national sentiment which when secession came saved the Union at the cost of a bloody cl vil war.

Now, sir, there can be no doubt that .Mr. LODGE is a truthful historian. His statement of facts in regard to the nullification and secession controversies are in entire accord with well-es~'l.blished history. The only difference between :Mr. LoDGE and the statesmen of the South who maintained the right of secession is on a point of constitutional ]aw. According to Mr. LODGE, when a majority of the people of the United Sta tes como to entertain au erroneous view about the Constitution of tll e United S tates that errone:> us view immediately gets to bethe correct view; and it is then both illegal and very wicked for the minority to insist on what was once the correct view, particularly if a great statesman has made a very able and very eloquent argument in favor of tlle erroneous view. -

Inasmuch as the "Great Expounder" himself does not even hint at the point wl1i ch his biographer makes, either in his speech agaiDEt H ayne or in that against Calhoun, it may well be douhted whether, if living, lle would accept this somewhat new and original view in regard to the manner of changing constitutions. Still there can be no doubt that Mr. LoDGE is entitled to .the gratitude of all the "truly loyal" for the exceedingly original.and ingenious argument by which he proves that New England bas been right all the time; right when she preached and threatened secession, and gloriously and everlastingly rigllt when she made war upon the Southern States for practicing her preceptN.

But, Mr. Chairman, I should not have made this excursion into the fiehl of '• ancient hi tory 77 had it not been for the example set by the gentlemen on the other side of the House. If these gentlemen will read the history of their country, perhaps hereafter, when they undertake to denount e seces ion, they may so enlarge the scope of their denunciations as to include originators of that heresy as well as those who have suffered its worst consequences.

Tile gentleman from Pennsylvania says ''this bill is an anachronism;'' that "it bas no relation to this era;" that "it belongs to the saddest epoch· in our national history, the period between 1824 and 1861."

How is it, Mr. Chairman, in regard to all this talk about slavery and "slave-drivers, 7 7 about nullification and ''virus from the fangs of secession ?17 ·Has this a relation to the present era, or. does it belong to the "saddest epoch of our national history, the period between 1824 and 1861 ?" I shall let an intelligent people answer these questions for themselves. But, Mr. Chairman, not only are the feelings and the sentiments of many of the gentlemen who oppose this bill the feelings and sentiments appropriate to a time long since passed, but their methods of investigation and of reasoning are those of a remote antiquity. E'"en those who generously disdain to appeal to the prejudices and passions engendered by the war have a.dopted a very antique system of 1ogic.

Hear what tho very able and eloquent gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BURROWS] says in regard to the blessings of a pmtective tariff:

Henry Clny, speaking in the United States Senate of our industrial condition imme"aiately preceding the tariff of 1824, declared:

"If I were to select any term of seven years since the ndoption of the present Constitution which exhibited a scene of the most widespread dismay and desolation, it would be exactly that term of se>en yeara which immediately preceded the establi hment of the tariff of 18'24."

But this era. of protection was followed by the tariff of 1824and 1828 which enthused new life into our languishing industries and brought t-o the country a. period of mnrvelous prosperity. The leading metropolitan journal epitomizes the history of this period as follows:

"So soon ns the tariff of 1824 went into operati{)n the whole aspect and course of affairs were changed. Activity took the place of sluggish neal!. Capital was invested i labor came into demand; wages advanced; mines were opened; furnaces budt; mills started; shops multiplied; business revived in all its depart,-

I

ments. Revenue flowed copiously into the coffers of the Government. The debts created by two expensive w tus were entirely paid off'. Such a scene of general prosperity had never before been seen by our people."

President Jackson said in his annual messa.ge December 4, 1832: "Our country presents on every side marl;;:s of prosperity and happiness un

equaled in any other portion of the world." 1\Ir. Clay, in speaking of this era of protection, sa id: "If the term of seven yearR were to be selected of the greatest prosperity

which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present Constitution it would be exactly that period of ~:~even years which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 18~4."

But unfortunately this era of p10tection and prosperity was followed by the compromise tariff of 1833, which provided for a gradual r eduction of duties until they should reach an average of not to exceed 20 per cent. And what was the effect of this change of policy? Long before that limit had been r eached the evidences of its pernicious influence were everywhere visible. Capital invested in industrial enterprises, to save itself from absolute destruction, was withdrawn. Contemplated expansion of business was abandoned, our manufacturers one after anot.her went dov;rn under a torrent of foreign importations, while American labor stood idle and empty-handed in presence of the appalling and widespread desolation which culminated in the frightful panic of 1837. And not only the people buj; the Government itself became so impoverished that the President of the United States was forc2d into a. broker's shop to raise his overdue and unpaid salary. In 18!2 the protective system was agam invoked, and under its salutary influence our drooping industries revived and prosperity took the place of disaster. The general effect upon the country of the tariff oflst2 is be t described by President Polk in his annual message in 1846:

"Labor in all its branches is receiving an ample reward, while education, science, and the arts are rapidly enlarging the means of social happiness. The progress of our country in her career of greatness, not only in the vast extension of our teiTitorial limits or in the rapid incren.se of our population, but in resources and wealth and in the happy condition of our people, is without an example in the history of nations."

But this brief period of prosperity was quickly followed by flbe revenue tariff of 1846 and 1857, which brought to the country another era of industrial depression, culminating in the panic of 1857, the disastrous consequences of which are still within the memory of living men. Universal ba nkruptcy overtook the p eople, and the Government with an empty Treasury was forced in times of peace to borrow money at a discount of from 12 to 30 per cent. Then came the era of protection in 1861, which has now been extended over a period of more than a quarter of a century, and who does not know that during these eventful years our industrial advancement has been steady and without a parallel in the history of tlleRepublic?

The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], on the 29th of February last, in discussing the bill to provide for the purcllase of United States bonds by the Secretary of the Treasury, used the following language:

The "iniqnity" of protection I A system which lifted us out of bankruptcy at the close of the last Democratic Administration, when, for tho sake of paying the salaries of the President and his Cabinet and other officers, a loan of :)5 ,000,-00U was authorized and was advertised for and was offered at rates ranging from 8 per cent. to 36 per cent. per annum; ranging up 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 28, 36 per cent. per annum. The call was for $5,000,000. No foreign house offered to lend the United States a dollar, and the Administration could, in view of the excessive rates demanded, accept offers for but two out of the five millions. There is where free trade had landed the credit and the honor of the American people and nation.

In the next year came the beginning of the protective "iniquity," nnd now 3 per cent. is too high a ra te of interest for us to pay, and a thousand million dollars is not too much for us to ask on n single loan. And what h as wrought this wondrous change? The" iniquitous system of protection." [Applau eon the R epublican side.} The "iniquity" of protection I Itemancipated fow·millions o f slaves and has set hundreds of thousands of them at work, on or near the cotton-fields they cultivated as slaves, at a dollar or more a day in mechanical, mining, and manufacturing industries which that same "iniquity" is developing in all parts of the old slave States. [A.pplanse on the Republican side. ]

··The iniquity" of protection! Under your old free-trade, pro-slavery government we could not make a pound of crucible steel; we could not make a B e semer rail; we could make but nn avera~e of but 800,000 tons of pig-iron a. yea r. 'Vhy [addressing 1\lr. BRECKINRIDGEJ, God bless you, under the sy stem of "iniquitous protection" the South in 1887 produced 80,000 tons of pig-iron more than the whole Union had produced in the average of the decade from 1854 to 1863 under free trade and the domination of slavery in the Halls of Congress. We are no lon~er dependent on foreign countries. 'Ve made in 1 7 more than half the steel that was made on the face of God's foot-stool. 1\lore than llalf! [Applause on the Republican side.]

Ev(>n the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. DINGLEY], ''who is nothing if not logical," and who in the opening of his remarks tells us that ''the President himself in his tariff message, and every gentleman who bas spoken thus far in opposition to protection has cool1y begged the vital point in issue between the friends and opponents of protection, 77 uses the following langnage:

1\Ir. Chairman, look in whatever direction we may to the practical results of the protective policy in the United States in the last quarter of a century, and we find abundant evidence that it has promoted in the highest degree the pro -perity of our people. By common cons~1t the United States is pointed to everywhereas the most marvelous national growth recorded in history. [Applause.]

THE LESSON TO BE HEEDED. Let this illustration of the disastrous effects of free trade in our foreign car

rying trade warn us in time a1:ainst trying the same experiment with other industries in this country.

It ought to be sufficient to deter us from hazardous experiments which look attractive in the figures of rhetoric, that under the protective policy which has prevailed for more than a quarter of a century the United States has grown so wonderfully in population, o.griculture, manufactures, and all the elements which have to do with material prosperity, that even the most distinguished and most highly honored statesman of Great Britain-the peerless Glad tonehas spoken of her in debate ih Parliament as the most marvelous and prosperous nation in Christendom. LProlonged applause.l

Tllese arc indeed extraordinary statements and assumptions. But these gentlemen, in their serene complacency, do not dream that they ''coolly beg the point in issue. 7 7 With ''a smile half pitying, half contemptuous," they tell us in effect that the marvelous pro.~ress of this country in wealth and population bas not been due in any degree 1o the boundless extent and fertility of our soil, to the beneficence of our ea.sons, to the unparalleled richness and variety of our mineral resources, to the wonderful development of mechanical invention and labor-sav-

I •

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3973 ing machinery, to the intelligence, industry, and thrift of our people, to the equality and justice of our laws. All these things count for nothing. ...\..high protecti>e tariff is the cause of all our progre~S. Bad seasons, unwise and excessh·e speculations, extravagant livill.g, failme of markets, unwise monetary legislation, none of t hese bring adversity or misfortune.

A low tariff has been the cause of all the financial trouble we have ever had. These gentlemen mi(!;hl think it not altogether fair to ask them (though I can not very well see why) how it was that the Chicago fire and the Charleston earthquake both occurred during the existence of a high protective tariff, but surely some of them will not fail to explain the panicofl873 and the great and growing discontent which has ~xisted for so many years among our laboring classes. .

It is a well-known fact, A-Ir. Ohairman, that the fertili ty of ancient Egypt, with its consequent wealth and civilization, was due to the annual inundation of the river Nile. According to the authority of a distinguished historian the Egyptians attributed these inundations to the benign influence of the Dogstar, Sirius. Observing that just at that time of the year when that brilliat1t star showed itself above the horizon immediately in advance of the rising sun the Nile invariably began to swell, the Egyptians, mistaking the coincidence for a cause, attributed the rising of the ri"\"er to tbe influence of the star.

As the inundations were due to the influence of the st.ar and their material wealth and well-being were due to the inundations, of course the conclusion were that their prosperity and happiness was controlled and regulat£ by the star.

But-

Continues the historian-a false inference ·like this soon dilated into a general doctrine, for as one sta r could in this way m a nifest control over the course of terrestrial affairs, why should not another-indeed, why shoul d not all ?

He further states that from this simple prima.ry fact. namely, the coincidence of the rising of the star and the rising of the Nile, starworship arose. An elaborate system of worship, with its creeds and priests and ceremonies, was evolved out of the assumption that the appearance of a star in a certain parl of the heavens was the signal for the rising of a river.

::M:r. Chairman, the appearance of the Dogstar above the Egyptian horizon and the annual inundations of the Nile are still coincident in point of time; Egypt is still made fertile by these inundations, but star-worship no longer ~xists. Itt the light of modern civilization and with the aid of mo<!ern methods of investigation, it has been demon-

' strated in innumerable instances that the most striking, constantly re· curring, and invariable coincidence of e\ents is not of itself sufficient to prove that these events stand related as cause and effect.

Egypt, therefore, having found that even the remarkable coincidence of the rising star and the swelling river were not related as cause and effect, has abandoned her ancient and very simple logic. But what the Egyptian has cast off the American protectionist has t.aken up. If the logic of this modern American is in any respect different from that of the ancient Egypt.ian, it is only in this: The Egyptian, as far as we know, only connected phenomena together as cause and effect when they were invariably coincident. The Nile invariably rose upon the appearance of the star, and had done so through all the ages of the past. No such uniform coincidence of protection and prosperity can be found in the history of this or any other country.

But what the American lacks in facts and logic he makes up in faith and rhetoric. No a.ncient Egyptian ever ascribed his good or evil fortunes to the ascendancy or obscuration of his star with a more simple t<mching, and childlike fhith than does the American protectionist th~ prosperity or adversity of his country to a simple increase or decrease in the rate of the tariff. But , sir, the logic which leads him to this conclusion is "an anachronism; it has no relation to this era."

If the gentleman from Pennsylvania is correct when he says that "this bill is an anachronism;" that "it bas no relation to this era·" that it belongs to a past time: then, indeed, there is not the slightest p~ssibility of enacting it into law; and if by any chance it should become a law, it will soon be -;y_iped forever from the &tatute-book. Nothing is more certain than that under free government no law or institution which is "an anachronism," which "has no relation to this era," which is not in harm~ny with the spirit and tendencies of the age, can long survive. Notliing better illustrates the truth of this proposition than the history of slavery in the United States.

Slavery was intrenched behind the strong defenses of the Constitution. It was hedged around by the decisions of the Supreme Court of tlie United States. It was explained and justified by the tongues and p ens of statesmen as able and eloquent as ever pleaded for any cause. It was defended on the field of battle by the stout hearts and strong arms of soldiers of unsurpassed courage and constancy. But, sir, it perished. ·

It was' ' a,n nna~hronism." It bad no relation to the era in which it cristed. It belonged to the past , and could .not stand agafust the irresistible forces of an utterly hostile civilization. As it was with slavery, so it was with secession. Secession was a political act which was contmry to the whole spirit and tendency of the age. It was an attempt to inaugurate a policy which ran exactly counter to the cm·rent of events and to the best interests .and strongest aspirations not

only of a grea.t majority of the American people but of the whole civilized world. It was an attempt to separate, to divide, to disintegrate, in the midst of a civilization of which every interest, tendency, and aspiration was toward integration, union, and growth. Secession, when attempted by the South, was not, as Mr. LODGE endeavors to show, unconstitutional.

There was no law on the statut~-book, either express or constructive, against secession. Secession was lawful. The Constitution of the United States was a mere compact between Eovereign States. Bnt as a distinguished historian has said:

There is a pol itical force in ideas which sile ntly r enders 11rotesta.tions, promises , and guaranti es, no matter in what good faith they may have been given, of no avail, and wh ich makes constitutions obsolete.

Secession was ''an anachronism;'' it had no relation to this era, and it has forever perished.

Mr. Chairman, is not what the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania &'tJS of this bill true or a high protective tariff in the present age? Is it not "an anachronism?" The gentleman from West Virginia, in his very able and eloquent argument in favor of the passage of this bilJ, has shown how, with the progress and development of the wonderfnl mechanical developments of the present day for overcoming space, the so-called home market of 1\fr. Clay has disappeared; bow the markets near by and the markets at a distance ha.ve gradually merged into one another and become one 2.nd the same market; how the whole world is in one sense one community and one market.

This is, indeed, the age in which all the physical barriers which nature interposes between men who occupy different parts of the earth's surface l1ave been surmounted or bro~en down.

High mountains or deep and dangerous water-courses do not now, as in the past, divide men into distinct and sharply-defined commercial communities. Broad and stormy se..<tS can not so separate them as to prevent the almost instant intercommunication of thought, and the safe and rapid interchange of commodities. The greatest distances may intervene between them without making them aliens and strangers. It may be said with almost literal accuracy that the railroad, the steamship, the telegraph, a!ld the telephone have· so united their wonaerworking powers as to make every man a citizen of the world and a neighbor to all the inhabitants of the earth. They have placed within his reach the advantages of every climate, the fruits of every soil and the products of e-.ery industry.

In this age of steam and electricity, of "liberty, equality, and fraternity," a high protective tariff is "a,n anachronism;" it has no relation to the era; it belongs to the dull and lifeless epoch of separation and prejudice, of bounties and privileges for the favored few, and burdens for the toiling many. It is an attempt to antagonize and obstruct the march of progress. It is a device for building artificial barriers across the paths of commerce, which have been made smooth and easy by science and mechanical invention. Itisalawto keepmen iu their primitive condition of isolation, prejudice, and weakness. It is so utterly at war with the best interests of the masses of the people, with all the tendencies of the times, all the aims, aspirations, and achievements of modern civilization that, however strong and skillful its friends may be, howe-.er they may for a while deceive the people by transparent sophistries and appeals t~prejudice, they can not, I say, defend such ''an anachronism" against the inevitable destruction and death which await it.

Mr. NEWTON. :Mr. Chairman, the power and extent and the pm-poses for which taxation may be imposed have at all times met with jealous scrutiny. No power is so liable to abuse. Next to that of personal liberty the imposition of t.axation more directly affects the interest of the citizen.

Well and faithfully has President Jackson declared in his farewell message:

There is perhaps no one of the powers conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the ta.xing power. '.rhe most productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to peTform the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the tax-gatherer. But the taxes imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer, and as many of these duties are imposed on articles of necessity, which are da.ily-nsed by the great body of the people, the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets.

Congress has no right, nnder the Constitution, to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes it is an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. It may, indeed, hap• pen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes w ere laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them; a nd in suc:h n. case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce t he m , for 11 0 circumstances can justify it in assnmingapower not given to it by the Const ;tu t io n , nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for I be legitimate wants of the Government.

What a st riking evidence of that abuse is now presented to the Amer· · ican pc,1p~ e :md to the world. What a prominent example of the excesEcs to which the Congress of the United States has gone in the exer· cise of ihe pcwer of taxation. In the grand contest now waging be· , tween the taxing power and the people upon whom its burdens fall history but repeats itself. This contest has its birth in the inauguration of civil government; it has advanced with the steps and kept pace with the progress of civilized and enlightened institutions.

3974 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD=HOUSE. MAY 10,

Our fathers rebelled n.t the unjust and oppressive bmdens imposed · by taxation from the (then) paternal Government of Great Britain, and the Revolution, which happily resulted in the maintenance, support, and growth of our democratic institutions, was but the necessary sequel of an oppressive system of taxation.

In the organization of this Federal Government, when it became necessary for the States to surrender certain of their powers for the formation of a more perfect Union, for the better protection and promotion of the whole, the question of levying and collecting imposts by the National Government was regarded by the able sta tesmen of this country of that period as the one of chief consideration and importance.

The high importance which they attached to this question is fully attested by the extended and able debates that it provoked at this early period of our country's history.

This power was conferred on the General Govemment with certain restrictions. ·

The language of the Constitution is: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, dnties imposts and

excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, in the consideration of this measure which affects the interests of all classes of the people, this measure that reaches further and wider thnn any with which we have to deaJ, this measure thataffects the capitalist, the manufacturer, the farmer, the laborer, it is well that we should measure with cautious step, with cool, impassionate deliberation, the import, the meaning, and the extent ofthe power of the American Congress to levy and collect the revenues of the Government.

This power when exercised within the just limits of the Constitution, responding to the legitimate demands of the Government, will but infuse health and vigor in our system of government and carry content and satisfaction to its people. Transcend it, by the imposition of heavier burdens than are demanded; by discrimination in favor of certain classes to the detriment of others; by building up great industrial combinations and monopolies; by levying tribute on the hard-earned w~es of the laboring poor and drawing on the meager profits of the farm, and it not only becomes obnoxious in the extreme, but threatens peril to the institutions it is exercised as a pretense to maintain.

How truly does the message of President Cleveland to the present Congress sound the spirit of the Constitution, and the inequalities and iniquities of our tariff. system. This is the language of his message: Wh~.n we consider that the theory of our institutions guaranties to every citi

zen the full enjoyment of all the frnits of his industry and enterprise with only such d~ducti-ons as may be his share towards the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and iustice.

This wrong infticted upon those who bear the burden of nati<>nal taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public Treasury, which should only exis~ as a condnit conveying the people's tribute to its legitimate objects or expenditnre, .becomes a hoarding-pl&ce for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country's development., preventing in,·estment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbanee, and inviting schemes of public pinnder.

Mr. Chairman, we are confronted, we are menaced already with those evils to which the message refers. Under the present system of taxation it is estimated that we will have on the 30th day of June next $140;000,000 in excess of the legitimate and ordinary expenses of the Government. The Treasury has already accumulated an immens.e surplus, drawn from the necessities of the people; drawn from the channels of trade and commerce. The exercise of the power of taxation by the representatives of the people, through which this vast amount of money has been needlessly locked up in the Treasury, is indeed enough to awaken their apprehension and arouse them to a sense of present duty.

That this tribute on the country is excessive-that it is indefensible-can not be denied. The other side of ~his Chamber, which have in previous Congresses opposed obstruction to 't,;1.riff revision and reduction, will not have the effrontery to question the urgent propriety

-<>f reducing the revenues of the Government. The concl~on of the minority report, submitted by the Republican

members of the Ways and Means Committee, is couched in this language:

The minority regard this bill not ns a. revenue·reduction mes.sure, but as a. direct attempt to fasten upon this conn try the British policy of free foreign trade. So viewing it, their sense of obligation to the people and especially the working people employed in mann!actnre and agriculture in all sedions of our common country, impel them to resist it with all their power. They will assist the majority in every e:ffort to reduce the redundant income of tlle Government; but every effort at fiscal legislation which will destroy or enfeeble our industries, retard material development, or tend to reduce our labor to the standard of other conntries will t;e met with the persistent and determined opposition of the minority represented in the House.

Now, lt1r. Cbairm..1.n, is the method by which they propose to reduce this redundant income, as they term it, consistent with the app3.rent motive and spirit of the report? Will our industrial enterprises be stimulated in a more restrictive interehan~e of commodities and higher priced materials? Will the condition of the laboring classes of this country be ameliorated by cheap tobacco and whisky with the necessaries of life coming to them with increased cost, resulting from the burdens of taxation? The s"t,;1.tement of the proposition, sir, is a sufficent refutation of the fallacy of the position assumed by the other side on this question.

This appeal for cheap whisky, with the necessaries of life burdened ~th ta;txatio?-, .comes not from the laboring ?las~es of this country. It Is not ill therr illterest. They would repudiate It. They do repudiate it. They win repudiate it in future. It is made in the interest of the monopolist, in the interest of combinn.tion, in the interest of the capitalist.

Instead of bringing relief to the laborer, it is only calculated to rivet still more those fetters with which the high protective policy has already bound him.

To remo-ve the lliternal-Tevenue tax on whis1..ry will give to the peopl~ in reduc~d price that which is unnecessary, hurtful, and demoral· ~· It will at the same time compel the consumer to pay increased pnces !or the necessaries of life. Is this the policy of the party of protect10n? That party has so declared it. Yet it claims to be the friend and the advocate oflabor. Can such policy advance either socially or financially the laboring classes of this country?

What assumption, what delusion, what mockery does such a policy proclaim in the name of labor !

The just indignation of this great class of our people (who e interest should ever be protected and guarded) should be aroused at this proposition made in the guise of their interest.

INCREASED WAG.ES NOT THE RESULT OF A HIGH TARIFF.

Mr. Chairman, the history of the protective system refutes the claim that protection has the effeet of increasing wages. France and Germany have the protective system, and wages are lower there than in England, where free trade obtains.

Russia, with tho highest protective system, amounting almost to prohibition, pays lower wages than either France, Germany, or England. Wages are higher in the United States in similar in•diistries than in England, but, sir, is this due to protection?

Lab?r, like the commodities of the world, has its m.a:rk;et value. This value_ IS regulated by the supply and demand and by the productive capac1ty of the labor. The dense and overcrowded population of England, Gennany, and France afford an 9versupply of labor.

The supply is greater than the demand, and consequently labor is not paid so well as in the United States, where the reverse of this proposition is true.

.Another important factor is to be considered, Mr. Chairmn.n, relative to the question of wages.

This country has made a · marvelous advance in mechanical appliances. It has outstripped the most ~d vanced nations in Europe in mechanical appliances and labor-saving machinery, by which tl:.e productive capacity of our factories have been increased and manufactures have been cheapened.

In thi~ country and in Eugland the concentration of capital is the greatest ill the world, and the productive capacity oflabor is greatest.

It is estimated by an author of ability on this subject that the pro· ductive capacity per capita in England and in the United States is five times that of Italy, Spa. in, and Portugal, twelve times that of China and India, and that the income per capita is about thirteen times that of India and China, six times that of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, and more than twice that of the average on the European continent. The productive capacity of labor in our factories is estimated to be from one and a half to twice that of Emopean labor. .

.As a striking illustration of the fact that high wages are due not to a protective tariff, but to the concentration of capital and the increased productive capacity resulting from improved machinery, look at the position which England occupies with reference to other Emopeau powers.

England stands pre-eminent over the other European powers in the c<H'C"u tration of wealth and capital, and in her improved machinery and chanical appliances, giving her an increased productive c.t pacity superior to any of them. England procures her- raw material from every quarter of the globe, obtains supplies for her operatives in foreign countries, pays her bbor better, undersells other countries in their own market, and this she does without any protection from a tariff.

If wages were regulated by the tariff duties, Mr. Chairman, then there should be some uniformity in the rates of wages paid in the different States of this Union in like industries.

I append herewith a table of annual wages, compiled by Mr. Nord. hoff from the census reports of wages paid in the woolen and cotton industries of the different States:

The difference in wages in the sanie indnstries in different sections of the United States is well illustrated in the followinz returns of wages in the iron industries of different States.· made ,under the census of 1880: Unskilled labor in blast-furnaces in Virginia , 82 cents per day; iu Alabama, 98 cents; in Pennsylvania., SL09, and in 1\Ii.ss{)uri, $1.2'9. Sk.illeu JaboT in iron rolling·mills in Alabama, ~2.~ a. day; in .rassa.chusetts. $2.i0; in Pennsyl'\"a.nia.. $3.03; in Ohio, $3.87, and in Ke11tucky, $l62. The yearly avemge wages in the aggregate il·on indnstries of the different section of the United States is reported as follows: Eastel"n Sbtes, $U7; Westem, $3:l6; Pacific,$354; Southem, $30!.

Mr. Nordhof compiled from the census reports the following tables of yearly earnings in the woolen and cotton industries in the States named:

[i!~~s.:.:EE.HEEY-2~ I I ~~f~f::::;~·::~ZS::~:~(::E:~ 1

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD=-- HOUSE. 3975 In cott.on industries they are as follows:

Kew H ampshire ........................... ~ South Carolina .....•...•.•.....• - ...••...... tl-90 1\fal'. nchu ett ..............................• 251 1\faryland .............................. ~ •..•.. . 188 Rhode I land ..... ............ .............. 250 Georgia ........................................ 180 Pen 11 sylvania. ............................... 250 Tennessee ...................................... 160 Ohio.. ... . .... . ................................... 2.50 Alabama........................................ 160 Connecticut_.... ............................. 242 Virginia.......................................... 150 New York .................................... 281 North Carolina. ............................... 135

From this table it will be seen tha.t in those States where the concen-

tration of ca.pital and improvements in mechanical appliances and machinery are gre..'ttest, that the highest rate of wages is paid, thus carrying out the idea that high wages are due not to a protective tariff, but to concentration of capital and the increased productive capacity of the labor.

Now, Jtlr. Chairman, let us compare the aggregate tariff rates of this and other countries. For this purpose I append the following table, compiled by Mr. Switzler, Chief of the Bureau of Statistiel?:

Total values of tlte net imports of merchandise and the amounts of ·revenue collectecl in the below-named countries. [From official publications.]

Years. Countries.

1887 .................................................... ............. United States .......................................... · ...... . 1886 .................................................................. UnitedKingdom ......................................... . 1886 .................... .................................. ............ German Empire .......................................... .. 1885 . . . .••...... ......... ......... ...... ..•.. .... ............ ....•• ... France ........................................................ .. 1885.. ...•...• ........... ........................... .................. Austria-Hungary ........................................... . 1886 ................................................................... Italy .............................................................. . 1885 . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .... .. . .. .... .. . .. ... . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . ....... ...... ... Russia ........................................................... .

*Including postal revenue, as included in all other countries. tl885.

Net imports of merchandise.

$679,159, 480 1, 423, 946, 546

716,445,130 795.847, 94.4 226, 272, 784

8306, 635, 634 185, 609, '170

$2U, 222, 310 t98, 497. 960 f56,281,073 71,751.675 16,171,380

t42, 703,538 28,668,552

f1883. e Austria proper.

Per cent. 31.54

6.89 9.02 7.86 7.15

13.93 15.45

$118, 823, "391 257,~7,170 33,50~,689

219, 468,054 ~'72, 564, 381 64,931,116

f165, 007, 447

*~420, 240, 886 4ti, 745, 627 169,694,855

l803, 51i5, 231 ezos. 945, 414 347, 238,985 383,217,409

; Includes bullion and specie. 1 Russia in Europe.

Tonnage of the me~·chant mal'ine of the Unilecl S!ates on- ~ Tons .

.Junc30,1850 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,535,4-54

.June 30,1860 ....................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................... 5,353,858

.June 30, 1870 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4, 246,507

.June 30, 1880 .......................................... ......................................................... . ............. ................... ""' ............................................................................. - ...... 4, 068,034

.June 30,1887 ........................... _ ............................................................................................................ ..................................................................................... 4,105,845

Tll.E.4.SURY DEPARTMENT, BUR.EAU OF STATISTICS, ]larch 7,1888. 'W 1. F. SWITZLER, Chief of Bureau.

From this table it will be seen that the total tariff rate of this reason of protection is enabled to pay higher wage3 to labor. But are country is wondrously high whP.n compared with that of other conn- increased wages the result of protection? tries. In 1850 the average yearly wage per hand of employ<!s in manufaet-

According to this table the total tariff rate of the United States is uring establishments was $247. In 1860 this aYerage had increased more than don ble that of Russia. It is equal to that of Great Britain, to $288, an increase of 16.6 per cent. in ten years. France, the German Empire, and Austria-Hungary combined. When In 18 0 the average w-age was $346, an increase of 20 per cent. in we shall have revised and reduced our tariff rates as proposed by the twenty yen.rs. The increase of wages therefore in the twenty years of pending bill we will then have a tariff in excess of the countries which high tariff llas been less proportionately than the increase during the I have named-in excess of :France, Italy, or Germany. ten years when we had a. low tariff. Does this consist with the as-

Whilst these countries are protective, their tariffs have been formu- sumption that a lligh tariff increases wages; that a low tariff has the lated more on the need;; and requirements of the government. effect of diminishing wages?

It has remained for the United States to foster and maintain a sy tern The increase, Mr. Chairman, under the low and nigh tariff have of taxation, a tariff exceeding in its percentage of duty on free and dn- been due to one and the same cause-to the increased capacity of protiable merchandise any other government, and amassing in its treasury dnction resulting from improved mechanical appliances. for a favored class a surplus unexampled in the financial history of the Is labor the beneficiary of protection or does its benefits inure to the world. manufuc:turer? Does the manufucturer who is posing as the ad\ocate . •

But let us recur to the question of wages. Is the theory of the proof the laborer and who seems to be advocating the protective system tectionist (for it is a mere theory) correct that protection favors inin the interest of labor give him the benefit of that protection? creased wages? Is the laboring class the beneficiary of a high protect- I desire to refer to a tabulated statement furnished from the Bureau ive tariff? The assertion is undoubtedly true that the employer by of St..-ttisties, which will throw some light on this subject:

Table of spedfo:d manujadttres, showing amount of- capital, 'l:alue of materials, mnount of u:agcs, and 1:alue of product, with the pfr cent. of material and wages, also tJte average ad valorem rate ()f duty on similar importations for the fiscal year 1 87.

[Oompiled from the United States census of 1880.)

*Cotton cloths. t Woolen hosiery.

TREASURY DEPAR'l'ME:!\"T, BUREAU OF STATISTICS, January 25-, 1888.

$45, 614,419 42,040, 510 9, 144,100

55, 416, '185

6,701,4i5 9,146, '103

25,836,393

1~:m:~~ 1 31,519,419 1 39,153, 145 . «, 936,112 1

!

t Cotton hosiery.

Value of products.

Per cent. of- Ad va.loJ----......,..---Irem. rate of

duty oli

$210 950 383 193: 090: 110 21, 154,571

296, 557,!>85 29,167,'12:1

40,033,045 160,600,721 33,549,943 66,221,703

k~:~:~ ' 265, 3;8, 366 I

i

1\Ialerials. Wages. imports, 1887.

53.93 53.21 37.95 64.50

52.15

56.12 62.79 68.59 56.22 63.79 00.87 60.47

21.62 21.88 47.95 18.77 22.97 { 22.84 1?.08 } 16.94 20.11 I 16.23 17.27 16.87 1

Per cent. 40.17

*4.5.4.9 59.14 40.92·

t62.80 t39.37 50.00

67.21

e54.2o 67.21 eoo. 10 ~L31

~Estimated.

WM. F. SWITZLER, Chief of Bureau.

•

----3976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ . MAY 10,

This table contains the leading articles in the principal manufacturing schedules, and exemplifies some of the operations of the tariff. Comparing the wa~e per cent. with the ad valorem rate of duty ou similar articles of foreign manufacture and we see that the per cent. of t..'l.riff duty is from one and a half to four times as great as the per cent. of wages expended in the manufacture of the home product.

Now, as the duty •on the foreign a.rticle is added to the price of the coiTespon~ng domestic product when sold to our people, the manufacturer receives from one and a half to four times as much as the laborer from these tariff duties.

Take the item of woolen and worsted goods-wages, 1G. 23 per cent.; tariff duty, 67.21 per cent.

A lot of woolen and worsted cloth of the first cost of $100 would represent for the wages paid out in its manufacture $16.23, while the tariff duties on the foreign ru·ticle would enable the owner to sell the domestic product at $167.23, and so on through the list.

The laborer, who receives but a small proportion of the tariff rates, is compelled to'Ieturn it to the manufacturer in the increased cost of the necessaries of life.

This illustrates for whose benefit the protective system operates. Not for the laborer, but for the manufacturer.

MANUFACTURES.

· Mr. Chairman, let us now briefly review the history of our manufactures during the low and high tariffperiodofthis country. Let that l1i. tory respond to the charge that an abatement of our present high duties is at war with our manufacturing interest. In 1860 the capital employed in our mauufi:LCtnring industries amounted to $533,245,351. In 1 GO this capital bad increased to 1,009,855,715, an increase in the ten years of low tariff of 89.37 per cent. From 1860 to 1880, a pe1·iod of twenty years of high tariff, this capital bad increased to $2,790,272, -60G, au increase of 176.34 per cent., something less proportionately than the increase during the ten years of low tariff.

In 18.10 and 1860, during the low-tariff period, 54.5 per cent. and 54.8 per cent., respectively, of the value of manufactured products were de,oted to the payment for raw material. In 1870 and 1880, the hightariff years, 58.8 per cent. and 63.2 per cent., respectively, of manufactured products were expended for raw materials, taking away from the wages of labor on one hand and the profits of the manufacturer on the other.

Thus we see that tLe increase of our manufacturing interest on the one band during the low-tariff period has been proportionately less than during the high-tariff period. On the other hand, that during the high-tariff period the manufa-cturer has been compelled to expend a larger proportion of his manufactured product for the payment of his raw material.

1\Ir. Chairman, it is not the policy of the Democratic party to impair or to overthrow the manufa'cturing interest of this country, but to maintain in healthful vigor, to build up and expand this great interest.

What is desired is a reduction in the prices of the necessary articles by removing the pre.sent obnoxious duties, thereby giving to the poor man and to the consumer that which is necessary to their wants and comfort by giving to labor more employment, and by putting into active, increased, and profitable operation the manufacturing industries of the country, and by giving to our merchant marine a tonnage that will rival the merchant marine of the world.

In 1884 the total tonnage of American vessels was 264,722,452, whilst that of foreign vessels amounted to 1,194,118,585, the percentage carried in American vessels being 16.4 per cent. In 1885 and 1886 this percentage was 16 per cent. against an average of over 70 per cent. fi·om 1850 to 1860, the low-tariff period. If the high-tariff party of this country are endeavoring in good faith to provide for the laboring classes, that party can take no better or more successful step than to build up our marine carrying trade, which has wofully declined under the system of high protection.

DUTY TO THE FARMER.

Mr. Chairman, the interest of the industrial classes and of industrial labor is not alone to be considered in the discussion of this question. There is in this country, not confined to any particular· section of the Union, but distributed through the St:1tes North, South, East, and ·west, a large, intelligent, and honorable class of citizens whose interest we can not ignore. r.rhe very sinew and hope of the Republic! Toilers in the~ field, and on the farm; industrious, honorable, and loyal~ the products of whose l:l.bor constitute the basis of the support and prosperity of our common country. May we not close our eyes to the interest of this class; may we not be unmindful of this great imlost.ry of our country; may we consider well and wisely the interest of the farmer!

In the President's message, submitted to this Congress last December, we have the following declaration, based upon the census of 18~0:

By the last census it is made to appear that ofthe 17,392,099 of our population engaged in all kinds of industries, 7,670.493 are employed in agriculture, 4,074,-23l:! in profes ion at and personal service (2,93!,870 of whom are domestic servants and laborers) , while 1,810,256 are employed in trade and transportation, and 3,837,112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining.

For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all, it will be conceded that there should be deducted fi·om those which it includes 375.143 carnenters and joiners,

285,401 milliners, dressmakers, and seamtresses,l72,726 blacksmiths, 133,756ta.il~ ors and tailoresses, 102,473 masons, 76,24.1 butchers, 41,309 bakers, 22,083 plasterers, and 4,891 engaged in manufacturing agricultural implemer.ts, amounting in the aggregate to 1,214,023~ leaving 2.623.089 persons employed in such manufacturing industries as are c.taimed to be benefited by a hlgh tariff.

Now, there are less than 3, 000,000 of persons engaged in manufacturing industries, when there are over 14,000,000 engaged in other industrjes. Over 7,000,000 are engaged in agriculture. Ifit be true that a high tariff benefits the laborers and the manufacturing interest, is it right, is it j nst that the 60,000,000 of people not engaged in this industry should be taxed beyond the needs and requirements of the Government that the laborers (less than 3, 000,000) engaged in manufacturing interest should be paid higher wages? ·

Should the 7,000,000 of farmers be compelled to devote the fruits of their labor in paying increased prices for the neces8::tries of life, that the laborer may be paid high wages? Such a proposition is revolting to the spirit of our institutions. Such a proposition is direct·ly opposed to American. fairness and justice. Such a proposition is at war with the highest interest and duty of this Government.

It is a fact well known, drawn from the statistics of the fo.rm, that the values of farm property have increased less proportionately during the high-tariff than during the low-briff period. It is eqn:tlJy truo that the incumbrances on farm propert.y from 1860 to 18~0 (the high- . tariff period) has almost equaled the increased val no of this properby during that period.

What, then, has become ofthe profits of this great industry of the country? They have been absorbed in high prices resulting from high duties. They haYe gone to the protected industries.

The protectionists claim that the country has advanced and prospered under the high tariff. So the country pros.pered under a low tariff. This prosperity, however, has not been the result of the tariff. We were prosperous under the low tariff of 184~. Other causes base contributed to ad>ance us. What country on the face of the globe enjoys greater natural advantages? How inexhaustible its natural resources of wealth! \Vhat country yields more abundance to ordinary toil? What country presents a greater variety of soil, climate, vegetable and mineral wealth?

Onr ~erritory, extending f1·om ocean to ocean and from the great lakes to the sea, offers a promising field for labor, for capital, and all industrial pursuits. It offers abundant returns to toil and wealth, to thrift and industry. The earth beneath us heaves with •rich mineral ores. The heaven.-; above us smile on the vegetable products of every clime and country. Such a country would advance and prosper, and bas ad-vanced despite the burdens imposed by a high tariff. ·

But, sir, let us pass this measure of tariff reform, this measure to which the Democratic party stands pledged, we remove from the conntry the unjust and unnecessary burdens with which it is now ta.ucl and we vindicate the integrity of our institutions. We give to the world an example of th~ fairness and justice of our laws, we command confidence at home and abroad, and we move another step towards that grand and glorious destiny in store for the "Great Republic." [Ap-platlSe.] .

M:r. LANE. Mr. Chairman, more than sixty millions of people are watching with intense anxiety the proceedings of this House on the measure now under consideration. The mechanic, the laborer, the bl::tcksmith, the farmer, and the others engaged in useful occupation have paused in their labor to see if the promises made to them at the polls are to be again broken. The rich and the opulent, the owner of bonds and stock, the railroad magnate, the coal lords of Pe:msy 1 mnia, and the ruerch:mtprinces of Massachusetts have also haltea, and are watching anxiously these proceedings to see if they will still be permitted by tbc.ac lion of the House to rob labor of its just reward and to oppress their fellows in order to enrich themselves. I love my country, the whole country, North, South, East., and West, with a fervent, impassionate ]o,e, but to-day I wish to speak as a Western man, and for the great North,vest. For a quarter of a century the West bas been the hewer of wood and the drawer of water of this nation. We have paid more than our full share of the national burden and have received little or nothing in return.

In the nation's sorest hour of need tho sons of the great prairie State of Illinois rushed to the rescue, and more than 250,000 of them im periled their lives in its defense. Nor have we been wanting in the p:tyment of our justproportiou·of the national debt; but as a matter of tact, u!lder the unjust laws made by the party in power in this Government, we have paid more than double our portion of the national debt . and nearly one-half the debt yet r emains to be paid. Under the pretense of making laws for the payment of the national debt and to pa.v tho current expenses of the Government one section of the country bas been robbed to enrich the other section. We have no ill.,.will to !lfassachusdt.s or Penusyl vania or any other St:lte in the sisterhood of States, but we think tbatthc time has arriYed when tbeunjustlegislationin favor of certain sections should be stopped. The great agricultural and labor interests of the country demand a readjustment of the laws of tho country, so that the burdens of the Government will fall more justly on all the people.

The country is under an excessive tax system, devised by the Republican party twenty-five years ago, and the supreme question of the hour

I

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ 3971 is whether this system which extorts from the people nearly $100,000,000 a year more than the Government has any use for shall be changed or still maintained. The manufacturers, mortgage holders, and money lenders of the wealthy industrial States insist in maintaining it, for they are further enriched by it; but the bard-pressed farmer of the Wed dema.nds that the taxes be reduced. Whose will will be obeyed? Nor is it, as President Cleveland has well said, a question of protection and free trade. The Government should and must have money enough to pay ,its necessary expenses. All beyond this is robbery of the people.

Wlien the Government by excessive exactions takes from the people $50,000,000 per annum which it has no use for and keeps up this robbery from year to year, it becomes insupportable. A hundred million of idle money in the Treasury means that much money taken from the channels of business; it means contraction of circulation; it

. means SS taken from every head of a family in the land. · 13ut, Mr. Chairman, grant for the sake of the argument that the supreme question is one of protection and free trade. Can there be a doubt which is in aecord with the laws of nature and good conscience? Pwtection .is forever a delusion and a snare. It denies ,the brotherhood of man and the ·fatherhood of God. It lays an embargo on sunlight, water, and air. It is a perversion of the laws of nature. God certainly intended that the products of the fertile Northern soil should be giren in exchange for the fruits of the tropical Southern clime without re-

, straint of law. So thoroughly did our forefathers believe in this doctrine that by solemn constitutional enactment they provided that no import duty should be allowed between the States. As between the States there is absolute free trade, but beyond that it is said we can not go.

Our physical wants a-re endless and full of variety; but the differences of soil, climate, and the- productions of the earth are also endless and to a great extent meet our varied wants. 13y the assistance of railroads the inhabitants of the Middle States eat for their breakfast the fresh

-fruits from the orange orchards of Florida and the luscious grapes from California, and in exchange for these he gives the product of his fhrm, and this without tax or tariff to the Government. 13ut if, perchance, the farmer should wish to exchange the products of his farm for the blankets manufactured in England, this he is forbidden to do under the penalty of from 75 to 104 per cent. The Jewish law was that a Jew could not exact usury or interest from a Jew, but he could from a stranger; but the Blessed Master repealed this law by ded aring that "You should do unto others as you would have others do unto you;" and who could be bigoted enough to believe that America is the whole world and that the entire race of mankind has not the right to subsist?

Protection has its origin in the selfishness of our natures and not in the general good. Civilization diversifies wants, and each man in a civilized country pursues his own bent and makes what he can make best, and then exchanges the fruits of his labor with others. And as men become more skilled exchange still increases. The Indian was content to eat the meat of the buffaloes be bad killed and to use their skin as his only house and clothing. 13ut with civilization coiiimerce springs up, and the field of supply and demand becomes as broad as the world. Under its natural laws all things work best and yield the greatest good to the human family. With a reverend regard for the rights of all mankind we must study the tariff question. It will be admitted on every side that we are a great and prosperous people, the like of which never before inhabited this earth; and it is mete and proper that the £conomic policy of this Government should keep pace with its intel-

-Jectual and moral advancement. What was right a quarter or a half century ago may or may not be right now. That will depend altogether on the environments by which it is surrounded.

What we want now is a fair and candid consideration of the question at issue with all the light that we can have before us, and to arrive a t the best possible conclusion, and then, having the courage of our convictions, to act upon it. It is, to a great extent, an economic question, and to that extent affects every man, woman, and child in the land. Our farmers and laboringpeople work early and late, from early morn to dewy eve, and for what? There can be but one answer-money. Money is the reward of labor, and it sweetens toil. It is absolutely true, as President Cleveland stated in his m~sage, that-

Our institutions guaranty to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise with only such deductions as may be his shar~ toward the careful and economical mainten ance of th e Government which protects him.

One of the grievances mentioned in t he Declaration of Independence by the fathers was "for imposing taxes on us without our consent." More than a hundred years ago this was regarded as a grievous burden, but in the enlightened nineteenth century the people are not only t.axed without their consent , butq,re actually taxedmore than is necessary to meet the expenses of the Government. Another grievance mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was that the British Government "had cut off our trade with all other parts of the world." T~is we are doing now ourselves by our infamous tariff-taxing system, and we a.re still asked to keep it in force. It was declared in the Democratic platform at Chicago in 1884 that" unnecessary taxation is unjust tax-ation ," and it further declares- -

That Federnl tnxation should be exclusively for publ ic purposes, and should r.ot exceed the needs of the Government economicall1 admit1istered.

The Republican party, in the same year and place, in its platform pledged itself" to correct the inequality of the tariff," but it failed to go into details on this important question. It is admitted, then, by both the great parties of the country that there is an inequality of the tariff. How is this, and who is responsible for it? Which party enacted this tariff of" inequality," and which party ie now most ready to correct this inequality? It was certainly the Republican party which enacted this inequitable tariff, and as yet it has taken no decided steps to correct its errors. The President properly ignored all other 1 questions in his annual message to Congress and alone presented the question of the reduction of the public revenue, for which he is entitled to the thanks of the American people. It is the momentous question of the hour and to it Congress should at once address itself. As he well says in substance, this is not a question of free tmde or protection, but one of common honesty. 'Vhy should the people be taxed more than is necessary to defray the expenses of the Government? This has been called by us public robbery under the form oflaw. We are authorized to so eall it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a "Republican court." In the case of The Loan Association vs. Topeka, 20 Wallace, the court says:

To lay with one hand the power of the Government ~n the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individua.ls to aid private enterprise and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. _ .

It will be an admitted fact that as long as the Government exists there will be taxes. There is no escaping them. But no good citizen will complain of this, for the Government that protects him must be supported. Then the sole and only question that is left is, where shall this tax or re"enue be placed? How shall the expenses of the Govern· ment be raised? The late Democratic platform clearly defines this: "Taxes should be heaviest on articles of luxury and bear lightest on articles of necessity."

This is the solution of the whole matter. But I admit that in the adjustment of t)?is tariff there is great latitude for argument, for it is a subject on which able aud learned men have written volumes without at all exhaustin~ it. It is the momentous question of political economy. It is the duty of every citizen, then, to fairly and candidly consider the question in the best light in which it can be reviewed, and if the proper system is to levy a tax for protection only, then he should have the courage of his convictions and act and vote with the Republican party. 13ut if on the other hand he should think that the proper system is to levy a tax for the purposes of defraying the expenses of the Government, e ::onomically administered, with such incidental protection as that system may afford, then he should vote and act with the Democratic party. The lines are well drawn, and the diff~ence between the two parties is thoroughly defined on this question. The President's message is the bugle-note, and millions of free-born American citizens are rallying to its support.

The false god of protection bas sufficiently deceived the people already, and in one mighty effort they will arise in their strength and cast her off once and forever. The bugle note bas sounded; the President has come to the rescue, with a courage unprecedented, with an intellect unclouded, and with a single stroke of his pen bas cleared the way to reform and advanced the thought of the age at least a half century. The nation is still reading the message, and not only this nation, but the nations of tke world. Its words foreshowed victory to his piuty and the country. The period of agitation, to some extent, has passed, and we are in the living presence of true progress andreform. The friend.:> of reform have for some years sought by agitation , to direct the interest of thinking men to the evils of protection and its ta.xing system, full of inequalit.y and false pretensions. They have succeeded at last in reaching the ear of the nation, and now they are prepared to apply definite measures of reform to the iniquitous system which has for so long a time robbed some of our people of the just reward of their labor. No revolution is contemplated, but they propose at one and the same time to reduce taxation and revenue without ma-terially disturbing the industries of the country.

The great question of the day is one of tariff and reform. A large surplus accumulated by unjust and uuneces~ary taxation has alarmed all honest classes of the community, and the warning in the message will be heard and obeyed by a grateful public. The people have been asking in piteous tones in the last decade, Why this unnecessary taxa· tion, bnrdening the people beyond the wants of the Government; and the reason is to be found in the message, That the few might prosper while masses softer. The note is sounded by the P resident, and a brave and generous people will give hee<l to the clarion c..<tll; and when _w,e hear from the ides of November he will be indorsed as no other President was ever indorsed in this free laud of ours. The greatest boast of our country is her freedom. We have free speech, free press, free _soil, free thought, free religion , and our trade should be as free as posstble. Freedom is a natural right. Free trade is the natural right of commerce. It makes the total amount of human labor much more productive, and thereby shortens the hours of labor, blesses the earth with plenty, peace, and good-will. Protection is forever a cheat and delusion. Its oriO'in in this country was in the wants of the revenue of the Government~ times of war, and the selfishness of a favored class desire to fasten it on the toi.ling masses forever.

3978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. M.A_y 10,

Protection for protection Eake is a violation of our Constitution; it is a violation of the spirit of our Government, and is not American. No authority can be found in the Constitution to lay a tax for protection only. The Constitution authorizes the laying of taxes to defray the expenses of the Government, but beyond that it does not go, and every person who insists on o. tariff for protection only violates the Constitution of his country.

The fundamental principle of American institutions is "the greatest good to the greatest number.'' Under our system of government protection of one interest is a war on all other interests. · It must be so in the very order of things. The imposition of a heavy tariff upon a particular article of manufacture is not protection to the people. It must be a protection to that particular article, but at the cost of all other articles. The President is absolutely correct when be says that all the expense of the tariff is payed by the consumer, the criticisms of politicians and certain newspapers to the contrary notwithstanding. Protection is a bounty to persons who manufacture goods, to be paid by the consumer, and if the consumers are more numerous than the manufacturers, which is alwa.ys the case, then the fundamental principles of our Government are violated.

The Government. is not administered for the greatest good to the gre..1.test number, but for the gre.1.test good to the least number and the least good to the greatest number. .Again, it is not the policy of our Government to confer special privileges upon any class of men, and this protection always does, in the very nature of things. The theory of the Government is that of individual development and manhood, leaving each man to work out his destiny . . .All that the Government should do is to leave each man equal before the law and protect him in his person a.nd the fruit of his labor. The Government should not protect the interest of one man at the cost of an.otber man's interest, but should afford them both police protection, and thus accomplish the true end of its creation. Protection is not right; for if you protect one interest, that simply means war on all other interests. The imposition of a heavy tariff upon particular articles of manufacture is not protection. No, it is uot. It is a burden rather than a protection. It is a burden upon all those who use or consume such articles. If you J>ay a bounty to the party who manufactures them, that bounty must be paid by the party who consumes the article, and the consumers being more numerous than the manufacturers, in the very nature of things it is a violation of our fundamental principles of government.

Onr Government should leave each man and each class of men to be the architects of their own fortunes. We ~y re..'l.Son about it as we ple:1se, protection to any manufacturing interest means simply such laws as enable the manufacturer to sell his manufactured articles for a higher p1·ice than he otherwise could obtain, and the necessa.ry result of that is that the con umer is compelled to pa.y more than be would if there was no such law. If this is not the result of protection then it has no meaning. If protection does not ena.ble the manufacturer to sell hi manufactured articles for more than be would otherwise get for such articles what is the necessity for protection? The only way the manufacturer can be benefited by protection is that it enables him to sell his manufactured article at a higher price, and, as I have stated before, this makes the consumer pay a higher price and therefore is an injury to him. One class is privileged and enriched at the expen e of other cla es. The American manufacturer is only completely protected when he succeeds in shutting out and excludingfromcompetition all forei~ manufacturers, and if that is done then there ic; no revenue to the Government, and the Government must resort to a direct tax to pay its expenses. Again, protection violates the fundamental principles of our Government by controlling the individual liberty of the citizen, and preventing him from selling where he pleases and from buying from where be can buy the cheapest.

It should be m inherent right in every Amencan citizen to sell his labor aml wares where he can get the best price and to buy where be can buy the cheapest. The g1·eat question with American labor is not how much be shall get per day for his labor, but how much shall he have left at the end of the year after he supports himself and his family. The laborer who gets S2 per day and can purchase enough for his f:unily to live on for $1 per day, at the end of the yea.r is better off than the man who gets $3 per day and, under protection laws, is compelled to pay $2.50 per day for the support of his family. The laborer should be permitted to get the highest possible price for his labor, and on the other hand to buy the necessaries ot life where he C!ln buy them the clieapest. Protection, instead of being protection, is simply a system of legalized pltmuer of the laborer, and does in no sense protect American labor. But it is &'tid that if our manufacturers are not protected they can not susfainthemselvesagainstthemanufacturersofEurope. Suppose, then, that as an aid to our manufacturers a direct tax upon all the property of the coon try was levied and paid over to the manufacturer of America, so that he could sustain himself against foreign manufacturers, but few persons could be found who would favor such a system. Yet the resnl t is just the same.

Protection as it now exists is simply taking by force from one man and giving it to another without any consideration, as stated by the Supreme Court. The law simply makes the consmner pay to the manufac1;nrer from 20 to 50 per cent. of what he consumes, under the false

assumption that it is for the protection of .American labor, and in some wa.y-theyfail toexplain itr-willreturn to the con umer. Away with such false doctrine. It is a relic of the past and unworthy of the en~ ligbtenment of the nineteenth century. The evil, then, of protection being so apparent, so direct and immediate, the question is a proper one, what benefits does it confer? Theprotectionistsays that it fosters and encourages American "industry." Is this true? The industries of .America are numerous and varied. If you levy a tax for protectionfor that is what it means, to protect manufacturers-who pays thatJtlx? Clearly, the person engaged in agriculture and other employ111ents. Then is the agriculturist protected? No, clearly not. The man who uses iron is not protected beec1.use oftbe tax in favor of the manufacturen; of iron. When the Government puts a tariff on an article imported to this country, say of 20 per cent., that simply means that if the tariff was not on that article the consumer could buy it 20 per cent. cheaper. It is true the Government gets the 20 per cent. in that case an<l the consumer pays it.

But when the same article is manufactured in this country it is not sold 20 per cent. cheaper than the import.ed article. The consumer pays the same price for both articles, and the only difference is that in the case of the domestic article the Government does not get the 20 per cent., but the manufacturer puts that in his pocket, and this is called protecting American industry.

W ~ are assured of this protection business, howe"er, in another way. It is said that protection creates home markets for our surplus products. It requires close attention to see the fallacy of this proposition. The farmer, because of protection, is compelled to pay for his plow, his spade, his wagon and harness, his clothing, and everything be uses from 15 to 35 per cent. more than he otherwise would be compelled to pay if there was no protective tariff; and what does he get in exchange for that? It is a fact that the nine manufacturing States produce more agricultural products than they consume. Where, then, will the farmers of the other States sell their surplus products? There can be but one answer to this question-in the foreign market. Then if he must sell in the foreign market where be can sell the highest, why not let him buy where be can buv the cheapest?

It is again insisted that the protection system keeps money at home; that inasmuch as it is not spent in foreign markets, then this money is retained at home. But how ca.n this benefit the laborer? He must spend some part of his money, and if he ca.n purchase for one-half of biq money in a foreign market as much as he ca.n for all his money in a home market, the country and himself will be better off. If the laborer is compelled to exchange a da.y's labor for a blanket

in the home market while he would get two blankets for it in a foreign market, it will be difficult to make him understand bow he will be benefited by protection. Nor does protection diversify labor or find employment for it; this is best done by naturallaws. It is in the very organizatiion of onr being; in diversity of climate and pursuits. The necessities and wants of men produce diversity of labor, and nothing else. We can uot all be engaged in the same employment; we do not all raise corn and wheat, although we all eat bread. The farmer needs more than bread; he must have clothing, and the manufacturer supplies them to him; his horses must be shod, and the blacksmith does it for him; he becomes sick, and the doctor treats him; the title of his land must be examined, and the lawyer does it for him; the farmer must market his grain, and the railroad carries it there; be must have a bouse to protect him from the wea.ther, a.nd the mechanic builds it for him; his children must be taught, and he therefore engages the school-teacher. These all in turn must have bread, and they get it from the farmer. This is in the natural order of things, and all parties are benefited by the exchange of labor. But the natural result of a protective policy is not to diversify labor, but to commit it to a particular channel. For if a protective policy fa¥ors one class-and it must be admitted that it does not favor all-then all will seek that class, and the result is overproduction, w bile if the law would leave them to themselves they would seek tho3e occupations in which they were best qualified, and would thus diversify labor. When the farmer, the laborer, the mechanic, and the school-teacher find that the Government is favoring a certain class they will desire to. abandon their several occupations and seek that occupation that is specially favored. This is the natural result of protection in every case. The law should not prescribe the form of garments we should wear nor the food we eat. These will regulate tbemselveso according to our wants, and so will labor become diversified to meet the wants of tra.de. But the grea.test a.rgument used by protectionists is that it is unjust to submit our industries to competition with what they are pleased to call "pauper labor of.EnTope."

This argun1ent, if it can be ca.lled an argument, is used to frighten the laboring classes into the support of the protection ticket, but there is no truth in it. The three industrial States that derive most profit from the protective tariff levied to keep up the wages of American labor are f>ennsy 1 vania, New York,· and Massachusetts, and these are the three States in which the greatest number oflo.bor strikes occur and in which they involve the largest number of persons and last the longest. These two facts have a strange appearance when placed side by side. By all the rules of protection logic a large share of the several millions of dollars a year paid by the people of the United States into these three States

I·

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3979 to bmld up home industries ought to go to the laboring classes, and those laboring classes ought to becontentand happy. Buttheygetno part of this money, and, as a result, there :is not a day in the year that some of them are not on a strike, and these facts must show that the protective logic must be at fault.

The use of the words "pauper labor of Europe" by the protectionists is for the purpose of drawipg a contrast between the laborer of Europeand America. In the first place, the words themselves are false; for, as used and understood in this country, paupers do not labor at all, but are supported at the public almshouse or by public charity. But the attempt by the protectionist is to keep the wretchedness prevailing among the poorer classes of the Old World constantly before the eyes of the American working classes, evidently to induce them to give their votes in favor of maintaining the protective system, and if they do not, then they will share the fate of the pauper labor of Europe.

The truth is, that the protective system as framed by the Republican party is the parent of the millionaire and the tramp, both equally a

- curse to American society. This iniquitous tariff system make palaces for some and hovels for others.

If we can at all believe the daily papers, and we must belie-ve some of them, for they give the sworn testimony taken on oath as to the condition of affairs in the protected State of Pennsylvania, the laboring classes there are under greater oppression than ever the slave at the South was. The coal and iron master of that State is using and has used more cruelty to the laboring classes than ever did the task-master of the South use to his slaves in the palmiest days of slavery. A correspondent of the Cleveland Herald visited a part of the Pennsylvania mines and interviewed some of the miners, and the facts that he elicited are that some of the men were working for 62 cents per day. A man with a wife an~ five children were supported on this, their chief diet being bread and molasses, with a few potatoes and some corn·meal thrown in, and in the month of February being without shoes and with only very indliferent clothing. He found, further, that this was the condition of many of the miners, and that even in cases where they made and received more wages the owners of the mines get it all from them by high rents and truck·store bills. Similar facts were given in the Chicago Herald, and others of a like character were shown by testimony ~'tken before the United States Senate Committee on Labor in New York in 1883.

It was developed before the committee on sworn testimony that in the manufacturing districts a m..w was only paid from 1. 25 to $1.70 per day for his labor, and on this he was expected to support himself and family, consisting of a wife and two or three children. This examination was most valuable in showing that protection does not protect "American labor," but does in fact protect American manufacturers; and they never or rarely ever divide the amount they realize by protection with the laborer. So far, then, as protection protecting American labor, it is a delpsion and a snare. A quarter of a century ago the slaveholders of the South claimed that it was to the interest of the negro that he should be held in slavery and robbed of his labor, and the iron lords of Pennsylvania and the merchant princes of Massachusetts are setting up a similar claim to-day and insisting that it is in the interest of their workingmen that they ask protection for their products, and the very men who are the victims of this system still vote with these lords and princes to sustain this nefarious protective policy. The negro of the South·never followed his master with more fidelity than the oppressed laborer of America follows that class of men who rob them of the j nst rewards of their labor and turn their families out of house and home.

It is time that the American laborer should awake to l1is true interest and free himself from the false impression, and equally false fact that protection protects American labor; for it does not. How ~ American labor be benefited by protection? Can it be done simply by taking from one class and giving to another? Certainly not; and yet this is what protection does. Let us take the larger half of our population, the American agriculturists, and see how their interests have been affected by protection. We will all agree that of all the important interests in this country this is the most important. It is the barometer of the prosperity of the country. If crops are plentiful and the prices of products are good, the condition of all interests in this country are favorably affected. Whenever the crops of any one year are good, tMn the prosperity of the whole country, for the time being, is assured. The last census shows us that 17,392,099 of our population are eng~ged in ~ainfu~ pursuits; tha_t of this number 7,670,493 are engaged directly m agnculture; 1,139,362 are professions and , 2,934,876 in personal service, while 1,810,256 are employed in kame and transportation, and the rest, 3,837,112, are engaged in manufacturing and mining. It will be noticed, now: that by odds the greatest. number of people are employed in agriculture; and if protection :lSSlsts the greater class, then it might fall within the principle of the Government-the greatest good to the greatest number. But no one will seriously insist that it will have that effect~

It is to protect our manufacturing interest that the great boast of the protectionist is put forth. We see, then, that there are 3 837 112 eu gaged in this business, and when protection favorB them it' m"Q~t of necessity do it at the cost of the balance of the entire community. l n the very nature of things it can not be otherwise. The farmer is not

and can not be protected, and why? Simply because there is more provision produced in this country than can be consumed. As long as there is a surplus in the country of the prod nets of the farm then the farmer must seek a. foreign market for them, and a protection duty on them would do him no good. The farmer has to give the same quantity of wheat or bacon for a h nndred yards of protected American goods that he would for a hundred y ards or English goods, mth this difference, that in the case of English purchase the t ax would go into the United States Treasury, while in the case of the American purchase the tax would go into the pocket of the American who manufactures the goods. In this way not only the farmer is cheated, but the Gevernment also. In other words, the Go\_ernment taxes foreign goods, which tax is paid to the Government, and then the home manufacturer charges the same for his goods that the foreigner gets and puts the tax in his pocket. Thus the Government and the farmer both are cheated by your protective policy. If the farmer could find a home market for all his surplus then there might be a difference, but this is impossible in the very nature of things.

A.s I have said before, the nine manufacturing States produce more agricultural products than is consumed in these States, and therefore the farmer of Illinois and Iowa can not sell their surplus grain in these States, but of necessity must sell in t-he open markets of the world, and then, if he must compete with the world in the sale of his surplus, it is but fair to permit him to buy where he can buy the cheapest. But the protectionist tells the farmer that "we can furnish you a home market for your products. Do you not see," he says, ''that the more men that are engaged in manufacturing the more mouths there will be to feed, and the more money t-hey earn the more money they will have to pay you for your products.'' This is the worst kind of sophistry. The terms ''home market" and "pauper labor of Europe" are synonymous terms ; that is, they mean about the same thing. The former is used to deceive the farmer and the latter the workingman. In fact -they mean nothing, but they have both rendered excellent service in terrifying the farmer of the West and the laborer of the E8-':t.

Let ns look at this absurdity for a single moment. If you would make one-third more manufacttuers I ask how this would make more mouths to feed. If the number of mechanics are to be increased then they must be taken from some other calling, the farm for example, unless you bring in the pauper labor of Europe. Then to change a farmertoamechanicitishard toconceivehow hewouldeatanyless. It is supposed that a furmer should consume as much as any other man, and the mere change could make no difference. The aggregate would still le.'t\e the same surplus of farm products to dispose of. The census of 1880 shows that the grand total farm products of that year W3.S val_ued at $2!500,0QO,OOO, ofwhich 586,000,000wasexported, and 1,914,000,000 was consumed at home. That :is, a little less than one-third of our entire farm products must from necessity be sold in a foreign market. But the absurdity of the whole system is made more apparent when the facts are remembered that from 1860 to 18R3 the American agriculturist sold in European markets products of the farmer amounting in the aggregate to the enormous sum of $8,000,000,000, being an average of over $300,000,000 per annum ior twenty-three years. Th~re is and can be no home market that will consume this surplus. The surplus of furm products has steadily increased, notwithstanding the high tariff during all the twenty-three years. It .is therefore evident that you can not consume your farm surplus in this country unless you built a factory in every township in the Northwest, which is impossible.

The question may be asked, what have our farmers done with this $8! 000,000,000 arising from the sale of their farm surplus? What have they to-day to show for this vast sum of money? Nothing; they live economicaJly; they are not spendthrifts; they work early and late; no eight-hour-law system for them, and yet they are comparatively pooL The farms in the West and Northwest are mortgaged heavily. The New York Times gives the following figures: Farms in-

Ohio .. - ........ ~- ................................ - ...... ~ .. -- .. ····-·.................. ~01, 000,000 Indiana-·····-·--·······-·······-··· .... ·······-· - ·-······ .... ~..................... 398,000,000

w:~!s~:::·.~:::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::: ~g:~:~ Michigan .. . ......... .................. ......... ......... .. ................. ..... ... ... ...... 350, 000, 000 1\finnesota ...... .............................................. - .......... _ ........... _..... 175, 000,000 Iowa ......................................................... .. ........ __ ,.................... 351,000,000

~~;r~~::.~:::~~.:.:_:.::.:.:.:.::.:.:_..::.::.:.:_: .. ~:~:.::~:.:.:.:.:.:~:.:.~ .... :.:.·.::::.:.:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:_:.:_:.~~.:.:.:.::_:.:.~:::.:: 2, Wo: ~: ~ Total. .... ._ ............................... _ .. , .......................... .................. 3,422,000,000

It might be interes~ to know where these mortgages are held. The bulk of them are held in the East. The Hartford Insurance Company has $70,000,000 of it. The Boston Loan Company holds $76,-000,000 more, and so on. The industrial and manufacturing States have mortgages on the agricultural States. They rob the Western uumer by an unjnst tariff and then loan back to rum the money that they have taken from him by these infamous laws, and take a mortgage on his farm at from 6 to 10 per cent. interest per annum; and after be has been enslaved for eight or ten years trying to pay his _taxes his farm is sold, an·d he is turned out of house and home. This is the end of it. The earnings of the furmer do not exceed 3l per cent. on the capital invested, while he is required to pay, as I have t-efore stated

3980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE. MAY 10,

f~om 6 to 10 per cent . on his mortgage; and certainly it is clear that it is only a question of time how soon he shall fail and his farm fall into the hands of his creditors, and the money-lending corporations of the rich manufacturing States will own full one-half of the farms in the Western States.

The Republican party can not longer deceive the Illinois farmer with figures. They can not show him simply by figures that he is rich ,for he knows by actual experience that he is not. He has no money to pay his taxes, no money to buy proper food and clothing for his family. He knows this as an actual fact. He knows that he was compelled to mortgage his farm to buy food for himself, his family, and stock to get through the winter. These facts he knows by actual experience, and he can not longer be decehed.

It is time for the farmer ofthe Westto call a halt in these matters, and look around him and see what is producing these results. How is it that the industrial States are more prosperous than the agricultural States? Why is it that the wealth of the nine industrial States is $24,630,000,000, while that of all the other States is only $19,012,000,-000? How is it that the average wealth in the industrial States is about $1,760 per capita, while in the other States it is only$528? · Why is it that nearly all the telegraph and railroad lines are owned

and controlled in the indus trial States? Theind usi. rhl States have large savings in banks, while twenty-three of the agricultural States report none at all. Rhode Island has $51,816,000, while Ohio, Indiana, and Minnesota ha>e only $17,733,000. Massachusetts has $275,000 000 on deposit in savings-banks, while twenty-three agricultural States have none, and while Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio are encumbered with real-estate mortgages to the amount of $4,421,000,000, three-fourths of which are held in the industrial States. The census of 1880 show $1,718,000,000 invested in manufacturing, and 1, 700,000 persons only employed in that vocation, and all the other States show $10,605,000,000 capital in>ested and 7,670,000 persons employed in farming; yet the manufacturing products of the industrial States (less cost of raw material) was $1,216,000,000, while the entire farms of the w bole country show no such gain. The average product of a farm laborer is $300 per annum, while the manufacturer makes $715 per annum. The farmer's net profit is 3~ per cent., while the manufaeturer's is 25 per cent.

By the force•of this protection policy the poorer or agricultural States are compelled to pay the enormous sum of $750,000,000 a year to the rich or industrial States. It is true that this is not its pretended object, but it is the natural result. We find the largest amount of wealth in the nine industrial States. They are the creditor States; they are the money-lending States. The twenty-eight agricultural States are the debtor or money-borrowing States. They have ninetenths of the area of the country and three-fourths of the population, and yet the nine industrial States own one-half the wealth of the country. An average citizen of the industrial States owns three times as much property as an average citizen of the agricultural States. The statistics compiled at Washin~ton show the wealth per capita in the nine industrial States as follows: Conr:ecticut •.•.....•....•.....................• .........•..•••.........................•........... ." ....... $1, 368 Maine................................................................................ ........................... 772 1\Iassachusetts .................................•••••.•. ; ...................•.................... ~ ...•..... 1,568 New Hampshire......................................................... ................................. 945 NewJersey .................................................................................................. 1,267 New York ................................................................................................... 1,499 Pennsylvania........... ............... .. ...................•.............•.............................. 1, 'li57 Rhode Island............................................................................................... 1, 519 Vermont....................................................................................... ............... 870

Wealth per capita in the nine agricultural States: .A.lnba.ma.. ................................................. ..................................... ..... .......... S299 Arli:a nsas ................................................................ .... .. ...... ...... .... ........ ...... 299 Georgia......... ...................... .... ..................................................................... 3fJ7 :Korth Carolina......................................................... ...................... ............. 319 Virg inia..... ..................... .......... ................... ........ ............................... .. ...... 453 l\Iichigan.. ..•.••..•.............................. .•.......... ..............................• .......... ...... 837 J1,1innesotn.... .•................. ..... ................................. .................•...... ............... 817 Nebraska....................................................... ......................... ..................... 641 Kansas.................................... .................................................................. 577

It will be noticed by this table that an average person in Massachusetts owns fixe times as much wealth as an average person in Alabama or Arkansas. This state of things can not be explained on the ground that the industrial States are the seats of great wealth because they are old communities and their people are industrious and thrifty. This will not ex plain the phenomenon, but the tariff law will explain it when it shows that the law compels the country to pay $750,000:000 a ye:u to these industr¥tl States to build up flourishing manufactories in them, and this money they invest in western railroads and real estate mortgages, which yield them $75,000,000 a year in interest and dividends. In fact, the hundreds of millions which the industrial States h ave invested in the West ba>e been extorted from the West by the protective tariff. The whole trouble is the protective system. It builds up mannfacturers'at the cost of all other vocations and enriches the nine industrial States at the cost of the other States. It is sectional , unjust, and inequitable. To show still further how the farmer is imposed upon you need only look at the further fact that for everything he sells there is no protection, but everything he buys is protected and taxed. His flannel shirt is taxed 95 per cent., his coat is taxed 57 per

cent., shoes taxed 35 per cent., ·his hat 92 per cent., his bucket ~5 per cent., his tin bowl 35 per cent., his cotton towel 45 per cent., his plate 60 per cent., his knife and fork35percent., his su~ar 68 per cent., salt 59 per cent., his window glass is taxed at 59 per cent., his bridle is taxed at 35 per cent., the nails in his horse's shoes are taxed at 39 per cent., his plow at 45 per cent., his chains at 58 per cent., his sheets at 45 per cent., and his blankets at 104 per cent., his broom 35 per cent., his thread at 74 per cent., calico 58 per cent., yarn 120 per cent.

The farmer is taxed on everything be can use between the cradle and the grave, from 15 per cent. on a 50-cent nursing-bottle to 65 cents a cubic foot on the marble for his tombstone. AJterhis d~y's work is done he kneels down to pray on a carpet taxed at 47 per cent. and holds in his hands a Bible taxed at 20 per cent., and is expected to thank God that he lives in a free country, while at the same time the rich manufacturer is playing a game of euchre with his friends with .a deck of cards placed on the free-list by our Republican friends. And yet many of the farmers are expected to vote the Republican ticket, which is a vote to keep up this iniquitous system. The articles above mentioned are some that the farmer mnst purchase, and these are the taxes he must pay; and who gets the major part of the money? Clearly the rich manufacturer of the East. It is true some of it goes to the Government, but for every dollar that the Government gets the protectionists of the Ea-st get from $5 to $G. This is not mere declama tion, but actual facts. .

The aggregate value of all the good.s manufactured in America last year, itis claimed, wa-s about $6,000,000,000. There is an average tariff of about 47 per cent., but we will calJ it 40 per cent. Now, while the Government collects on foreign manufactured goods at the ports of entry _last year $217,2 6,893.13, the~nufacturer received 40 per cent. on the goods manufactured in Americ..'l>, or the sum of $2,400,000,000, or inore than enough to pay the national debt. Thus, you see, while the Governmentgets $1, the manufacturer of the East gets about $7. What I mean to say is this, that because of the tariff of 47 per cent. on the imported goods they are sold for that much more than they would be without the tariff, and that fixes the price of domestic goods. The Go>ernment gets the tariff on the good.s manufactru·ed in foreign countries and shipped to this country, but the manufacturers in America get a sum equal to the tariff on goods manufactured in this country and put it in their pockets. No wonder they are millionaires. The Government has paid in all since the war, not including the current year, for pensions the sum of $883,400,000, with which no fault is found; but the people of America pay annnally nearly three times this amount to the manufacturer of the East, as I have shown; and can there be any wonder that the farmers, the laborers, and the tax-payers of the country are oppresseu? An Irishman coming to this country in winter was attacked by a dog, and when he stooped down to pick up a stone to defend himself he found it was frozen to the ground. He said to himself, "Thisisastrangecountry,where thedoga are let loose a.nd the stones are tied to the ground.'' So the farmer can say that this must be a strange country, when everything he buys is taxed and everything he has to sell must be sold free.

I compile the following table from facts given by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, taken by him from the report of the Commissioner of Labor, which will further show the iniquity of this taxing system:

.Articles.

One pair of five-pound blankets ............................ . One other pair of blankets .................................... . One pound of sewing silk .. .................................. ;. One gallon of linseed-oil. ...................................... . One ton of bar-iron ................ ............................... . One ton of pig-iron ............................................... . One ton of steel rails .... .......................................... . One wool suit ........................•................................ One cotton suit ... ........................................ ......... .. One dozen goblets ................................................. . One hundred pounds of mixed paints ............... .. .

Value.

$2.51 2.70 5.56 .46

31.10 11.00 31.00 12.00 10.50

.48 9.50

Cost of labor.

$0.35 .70 .85 .02

10.00 1.64 7.57 2.00 1.65

.15

.41

Total tari1l ..................................................... j" •••••••.•.. •• • 1 •••••••••••••••

Tariff.

$1.90 1. 8!> 1.69

.'li5 17. 92

6.72 17.00

6.48 3. 67

.19 2.00

59. il

Now, ifthesegoods are manufactured in a foreign country and shipped here the Government will get the tariff, but if they are manufacl nred in this country the Government will not get the tariff, but the money will go into the pockets of the manufacturel.1'1. Now, will the m n.nufacturel' divide the profits with the laborer? No.

The fact is that the manufacturer will employ la.bor as cheap as he can, and if he can not get it cheap enough in this country be will import the pauper laborers of Europe here under an equally in.thmous convict-labor law enacted by the Republican party.

What do the Jay Goulds and Vanderbilts pay for labor? An n.Yerage of $1.10 per day. Do they divide any of their large dividends realized from a protective system with their laborers? Who ever hen.rd of such a thing? Yet they and most of the other millionaires of the country are members of the Republican party. This is the reason the Republican party believes in favoring wealth. It repealed the tax on

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEo 3981 domestic manufacturing, which was $127,000,000 per annum. It repea.led the income tax, which was $72,000,000 per annum. It repealed the taxes on the receipts of railroads, insurance companies, and express companies. It repealed the tax on the capital of banks, on bank deposits, and on bank checks. It repealed the taxes on the wealth of the country, on banks and corporations, and permits them to escape paying their just part of the national debt; but it left the taxes on the poor man's blankets and the clothing that his children wear, and it is now putting forth every effort to keep up the taxes on the necessaries of life. 'l'be representatives of the Republican party now in this House, Mr. Chairman, are insisting daily that the taxes should be taken off of whisky and tobacco and lett on wool and provisions. They are urging the question of free whisky and tobacco while the Democratic party is urging free wool and free provisions, cheaper food and clothing for the people. Can there be a doubt which is right?

The Republican party is responsible for all this misrule, but a brighter day is about to dawn. A DemocraticPresidenthnssounded the slogan and pointed out the injustice and iniquity of our taxing system, and the people are coming to his support, and by the· passage of the Mills bill the tariff will be :reduced $78,176,000; that is, the amount received-by the Government will be reduced that sum, and more than $450,000,000 will be annually saved to the people which is now given as a bonus to the manufacturers.

The protective system is un-American, and is a perversion of the laws of nature, of God and man. We :find by the laws of nature that some countries pruduce one article and others give a different variety, and we find that the oceans ap.d rivers connect these countries, and, as it were, are highways of commerce created by nature from one country "to another, and the winds of heaven bring the products of one clime so that they may be exchanged for the products of another and thus bless all mankind; but the barbaric tariff law interferes and prevents the spirit of civilization and retards the tenden!!Y of the age in the drawing together of the nations of the earth through the agencies of commerce. To carry the protective policy to its legitimate result we ought to abolish ships, railroads, telegraph lines, and mails, and prohibit our citizens from going abroad and visiting foreign countries. The spirit of protection is hostile to tl;lese things.

It discourages commerce and intercommunication, and we should at once raise the Chinese wall around us. It is condemned by the whole cause and tendency of modern civilization. The enlightened and progressive nations of the earth are incessantly striving with wonderful success to draw near to each other in more frequent intercourse and more cordial relation, and they are multiplying the agencies and fa.. cilities of this intercourse every year. Steam and telegraphy have destroyed space, and made the inhabitants of the whole earth as it were brothers; but the barbaric policy of protection tries to prevent this. It is hostile to the best interests of the human family, and to the progressive tendencies of the age; hostile to commerce, steamships, railroads, telegraphs, and interocean canals. It is hostile to the cheapening of human comforts and necessaries, since its object and effect is to increase the cost of these comforts and necessaries to those who consume them. It increases the price of a blanket from $2 to $4, and thus denies the masses of our people of the cheapened comforts that other people enjoy. This barbaric policy shall and will have to go.

The fathers in erecting for us a political fabric based it entirely on self-government. The framers of our Government at least emphasize the greatest freedom to the citizen, not only as to his political right, but also to his private business.

They raise above his head the Stars and Stripes and assure him of the fullest protection and that no one shall molest or make him afraid. To this end we have free speech, a free press, free schools, free religion; in fact every~ing is free until we touch trade. The citizen is left free in everything. He may say and print what he pleases and can do anything be pleases until be bits trade, and then the tariff law interdicts him and he can not buy where he can buy to the best advantage nor sell where he can sell at the bestprofit. No onewilldenybuttbatthe Government was inaugurated to secure equal rights to all! yet we find that in this system of protection, with its immense powers, it robs the many and enriches the few.

Mr. Chairman, be assured that if the bill under consideration becomes a Jaw it may reduce the income of the monopolist and the rich manufacturer~ ~ut it will relieve the farmer and the laborer. It will bring health to the cheek of the farme1·'s wife and light to her eyes. It may reduce t.he profits on trusts and combines, but it will be the means of paying off the mortgage on the cottage and the farm. May God speed its passage. My greatest ambition is to see it enacted into a law so that the expenses of living may be lighter and the struggle for existence still made easier for those who can scarcely carry it on now. I am glad that I am not a member of a party whose victory is through the misfortune and sufferings of my fellow-men, and is not kept in power on the shoulders of taxation, monopoly, trusts, and combine's. But, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that I am a member of that grand old party that assures a better trade to our people, larger wages to labor, better times to the farmer, and greater glory to the American name at home and abroad. [Applause.]

Mr. CANDLER. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the present session of Congress the Preside_nt, in the opening sentences of his annual message, sounded the note of alarm and warned Congress of the dangers threatening the business interest of the country from overtaxation and a congested national Treasury. He says:

You are confronted at the threshold of your legislative duties with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immedate and careful consideration.

The amount of money annually exacted, through the operation of present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people, largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet t.be expenses of the Government.

When we consider that the theory of our institutions guaranties to every citizen the full enjoyment of ull the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share towards the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is.indefensible extortiOn, and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation,like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public '1'1·easury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people's tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding-place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country's development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.

In these sentences he recognizes and calls attention to the two evils growing out of the present taxing laws of the country-excessive taxation, which impoverishes all the people but a favored few, and a re· dundantTreasury, which depletes the currency in tbehand ofthe people and thereby lowers the prices of property and of labor and of the products of labor. In this way the rich, in whose hands the money of the country is, are made richer and the poor, whose· labor is their capital, are made poorer.

Both these evils, unnecessary and therefore unjust taxation and a surplus revenue, ought to be remedied. And in my judgment the :remedy ought to be applied' at once. ,

'.rhe close of the war found a taxing system in operation which levied contributions upon everything which could bear a tax, and these taxes were imposed and collected in every way authorized by the Constitution. There was a land tax, a stamp tax, an income tax, a tax on railroads, a tax on express companies, excise taxes on spirits and tobacco and patent medicines, and many other articles of dome..<~tic production, and most fruitful of revenue of all, the highest tari1f taxes in the world. All these were rendered necessary by the requirements of the Govern· ment for money to support a vast military and naval establishment for the prosecution of the war.

But when peace was restored and the Army and Navy were reduced to a peace footing, all this revenue was not :cecessary, and at once revisions of the taxing laws began to be made. First, the land tax was repealed, which was right, because the Federal Government should never, except in cases of extreme necessity, impose burdens upon the productive labor of the country, and a land tax is virtually a tax on agriculture, which bas to bear the chief burden of all local taxation. Then the income tax went, which was wrong, because, while it was a direct tax, it was a tax· levied upon those who, as a rule, paid but little to support the Government in any other way, and yet they were most benefited and most able to pay. Then the stamp tax, which was purely a revenue tax and fostered no monopoly, went. And in t~ way all taxes which bore most heavily on the wealth of the country went, and none were left except the two which always have been and are now most burdensome to the masses of the people-a high-tariff tax and the excise tax on distilled spirits and tobacco.

Thus, instead of 1·emoving first those taxes which are most obnox· ions and bear most heavily on the masses of the people, precisely the opposite course was pursued, and the burthens which bore upon those best abl~ to bear them were removed, and those which fostered monop· oly and bore most heavily on the toiling millions have been permitted to remain. Neither of these taxes has ever recei Yed the indorsement of a majority of the American people, except in ca-ses of extreme necessity. A high protective tariff, imposing onerous burthens upon the many to enrich the few, was never a Democratic doctrine, neither was an excise tax. The one bas always been championed bythe party opposed to Democracy, the other has been resorted to but three times in over a hundred years, and always by the opposition party.

The present odious system was inaugurated by the ReP.ublican party at a time when none but the bravest bad the courage to• avow his adhesion to the Democratic party in this Hall. Both these forms of taxation are oppressive, both are war taxes, both foster monopoly, and both are undemocratic. The chief purpose served by the perpetuation of both is to foster monopoly and make millionaires of a few thousand distillers and manufacturers, and paupers of all tl10se who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, and this includes farmers, mechanics, operatives iu factories, miners; day laborers, and all those who work with their hands.

I have no sympathy with the cry of protection to American labor. The cry is too often the cry of fanatics, or worse, of hypocrites, who presume on the ignorance of the laboring classes. Equa.Uy insincere, it seems to me, is the other and only remaining argument in famr of a. high protective tariff, that it creates a home market for the prod nets of the farm. If it were true, as claimed, cert:1inly the American farmer

3982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD==-HOUSE. MAY 10,

ought to be the most prosperous man in the world, for he certainly _pnys, for all he consumes, the highest a erage tariff tax in the world. But it is not true. As I have said on this floor on another occasion, the Ameriean farmer is the hardest-worked, the heaviest-taxed, and the ' poorest-paid man on the continent.

Gentlemen talk about_ prosperity. There is to-day no prosperity among the farmers and pl..w.ten;.of the country. The price of the producls of their labor is not increased by a protective tariff, but the price of all they buy is greatly increased thereby. -When a people produce a- part. of any given article of consumption in their own country and import a part, the price <Jf the home product fixes the price of the imported article; but when it produces any article in excess of the home demand and becomes an exporter, the price of that article abroad fixes its price at bome. Ali of the leading products of our !arms are produced largely in excess of the home demand, and to :find a market have to be sent abroad.

We are large exporters of cotton ami wheat and corn and pork, and indeed of almost all the products of the farm. Our cotton and wheat, the leading articles of exports b...we to come in com.petiti{m jn the markets of the world with the cotton of Egypt and India -and the cereals of the Russian and British-Indian empires. Thus the American farm laborer, instead of being protected by the tariff, is forced, under the operation of these laws, to compete with the "pauper labor" of these countries-countries where 25 cents is a fair average of the price of .a day's work-and at the same time pay an average tariff t:lx of 47 peT cent. on all he consumes, four-fifths of ' hich goes, not into the , Government Treasury, but into the coffers of the ''lords of the loom, the factory, and the furnace.'' Under this beneficent system twentynine States, which are enga,aed in agriculture, pay tribute to nine States engaged chiefly in m.annfaetn.ring. The nine have indeed prospered fQr the last twenty years under the highest protective . tariff in the world, but the twenty-nine have grown poorer and poorer all the time.

The following extract from the Missouri Republican, brought to the attention of the House some time a,ao by the distinguished gentleman from :Missouri [Mr. BLAh-n], shows the abject servitude in which the farmer~ of the West are held by the manufacturing barons of the nine industrial Stat-es:

WHO OWl."S THE WEST\'

All the advocates of high protecUye tariff have one refrn.i.n to their songs, speeches, magazine essays, and sermons- the vast wealth of the country. "\\'e .ace the richest country on theglobe," they assert," and the protective tariff has made us so;'' and then they present us with a bewildering array of figures towering up into the billions to show how prosperoUD the land has been under the pmtectire-policy of the last twenty-s.ix years. In 1 m we harl only 3-2,000 miles of railroad; now we have 150,000.. In 1800 we had only $.-'>()(),000,000 depos-

- its in savings-banks; nowwehave$1,100,000,000. In 1.8GOwe had 2,0!4.,000 farms; in 1880 the number had increased to 4.008,000, and at the present time it can not be less than 5,000.,000. All this they tell us has been brought o.bont by the proteeth-e policy-as if the industry, enterprise, and patient hard work of the people had nothingto do with the matter. It may be admitted that the country is rich, and growing more rapidly in

wealth than any other country on the globe. But the people have made H so, not the tariff. It has thrived in spite of proteclion. 'l'ha.t policy has drawn enormous wealth from the twenty· nine agricultural States and concentrated it in the nine favored industrial States; and it is in thelattertheaffluencetllatexcite- the admiration of the high-tariff arlvoeates is most conspicuously illustrated.

Bnt, they tell us, the agrieultum.l States have grown rich, too. They also have prospered under protection. See how farms have multiplied in the West and Northwest, and see how rai1Toad5 have been built in Illinois, 1\lichig:an, and W.iseonsin and the States and Teuitories we t of the Mississippi, even to the

P~fi~~~d ~0u': ~~ ~~~~ehf:r~a:d~;ds8i!tJ~~~~otern Stntes? In one word. who owns the West? The people oftbe West, itmightbeanswer d _ But the answer would not be true, as a few indisputable figures will snfficiently

prFJ;-~ as to farms. In 1880 there were 138,500 farms in Kansas, 2-56,000 in lllinois, '194,000 in Indiana., 217,000 in Obio,185,300 h1 Iowa, 154.,000 in Michigan, and 134.,300 in Wisconsin-ma1...-ing a total of L309,100 in the se\"en States named. Recent statistics collected by Granger associations and printed in farm jom:-nals make the following exhibit of farm mortg ges in these same States:

K.ansas ........ - •. · .. -··- -· ----·· -·-· --······ -···· ----·-· .... .......• ·--··· ···--······-··· $:235, 000,000 lllinois ... ~·····••n••·-···--·------- · ··---- ·------·· ····-- -· --··············---·------·----···· 1, 000, 000,000 Indiana.- . .-.--·-·· ···· ··· ---·······-··· ·· -···--· -·····- -·····-.. ----.. -----·..................... 635,000,000 Ohio"- ---········- · --······· .. -··--·------ -----··· ...•.. -----·· ···· ·--- ···------ -·-- · ·· ............ 1, 27,000,000 Iowa ... ... __ ................ .................. ·---- · ··-··~-----··---- .........• -------··--·--·- 567,000,000

w~~~in-_-_-.-_-.:·_~---_-.:-.::·:.-:.-.-.-. -.-::.-.-.::-.:::::-.-_::::-.-.:: -.:·.-.::-.:-.-~---.::::: : :::::::::::~~:~::::::: ~!XJ;~:~ Total .. ---~- ·······----··--··· ··-··-···-- .. ---·············--··--·--···-·········-· 4,5~1, 000,000

Thclle figm:-es are so startling in theix enormity as to seem incredible. We Clo not vouch for their accuracy_ They present the 1,309,100 farm:s in seven Western States a.s encumbered with an aggTegate of four and a lJalf bill ion mortgage indebted!les or an average of over $3.,400 for e.."\Ch_ The assessed n:tlu tion of property in these States in 1SS5 was as follows:

Kansas .•....... -·---·-----······--···--·-------·····---··-··--··· .. -----······----· .. ·-----· ·· ·---- $:!73,500, 000 illinois_ ........................ .. .......... ------·····--·· ···· -- · ·············-·····--··--·--- '797, {l()O, 000 Indiana ............. _. .•. ___________ ···-·---------- ---·············------····-----····- -·......... 7'93, 000.000 !own.--········-----···········-················---···················---·---··---·----·· ···-······· 625,000,000 ~Iichiga.n -------· ·-···-········ ····--·---·-·------·------· ·- ·---···················· -·············· 850,000,000 Wisconsin----··········-----··--······--··-----··---···· ·---··--·--··-··· ·········--·- ··-···· 496,000 000 Ohio _ ................................ ·--····-----·-·· -··-···-··r··----- ---·-·---··-··· -··-······ 1,671, 000,000

TotaL----·-···---·------- ·· --·-···------·---····-········-···-·---·-- -- --·-····-··········· 5,507,500,000 It will be seen that the ·reported mortgage debts cover about four-fifths the

nsoessed value of the farms; and the bulk: of these mortgages are held in the Eastern industrial States.

Next, as to railroads. In the seven Western States named there were, in 1885,

37,000 miles of railroad with a stock and bond account and net earnings as follows:

States_ I Stocks and

bonds. Net earn

ings.

Kan "'····---······· ... -·····---------····------···· ········-·· ··-···· ...•. . 195,700,000 $9,440,000 Illinois. ····· - ·······-········--··~····· .. ·······-· ·---- --··--·-·--·--- 740,000,000 16,000,000 Ind.i.ana. ·····-"··-··-······--····· -· ·········--···· ········ ···-· 320,000,000 5,700,000 Iowa .••.. - ... ~~······-······-·······--··--·····-------------·········-··-- J.05, 000,000 2,180, 000

~=':~:::::::::::-~:: :::-.:-~:::::::::::::·.::::~::::::·:.:::::~::::: :::: ~~: ~ ~: ~ ~ Ohio-·····-········-·············---·· ... -·-··~--··--·-··· ··· -·--· ·· 767,000,000 12,300,000

l----------------------1----------------TotaJ ........... ·················· ·-- --· ------ _____ _..... ..... ........ 2,537, 700,000 ffl, 5~0, 000

These 37,000 miles of railroad, having a nominal value of S2,537,000,000 (over · two and o. hulf billion dollars) and yielding annual net earnings of $;57,520,000, aTe put down in thest.atisticsot'theday as part of the property of the States in which they lie. 'But it is a notorious {net that only a very small fraction of theirTalues are owned in these States. The last report of the lowo. r ilroa.d commissioners tales that only one out of forty stockholders in Iowa roads lives iu the Stale,

and only oue-seTentieth of .the capital stoek: is held in th State. In Illinois o. similar condition of things prevails_ The official repor1of the railroad commi • sioners does not state whnt proportion of the aggregate capital stock of the Illinois roads is held in lllinois, but the location of the capital stock of the leading roads will assis us in forming an estimate. The Dlinoi Central has $29,000,000 capital tock:,only ~ -.ooo,or les than 3percent., of which is owned in Dlinois_ Of the Chicago, Hock Island and P acific, about 5 per cent. of the capital stock: is owned in ILlinois; oftheOhioand ML~issippi stock.onlyone-halfofl percent_; of the St_ Louis, Alton and Terre Haute, less than one-half of 1 per cent. Taking these figures a o. guide we m y safely estimate that of the 19,000 mile of r ailway in Illinois, valued in stock and bonds at $7{0,000,000, the people of Illinois own 5 pereenL; the other 95 percent. is owned in the rich industrial States ofttho East.

As Illinois ]s called the mo t prosperous and one of the richest agricultural States of the West, it may be infen-ed that the other States are in no !Jetter condition than it in the matter of railr-oad ownership, o.nd therefore it may be broadly asserted that practically all the railroads in the seven States named, Talued at ~.537,700,000 (two and o. half billion dollars and over), are owned in the indu trial States. The industrial States are therefore drawing a prettv round SU1Il of money for one thing and another from the seven Western States named every year. The items may be stated as follows:

In protective ,faxes_·······--· ···----········- -·····--·" ... ~-··-···-·····-···· •.••. $150,000,000 In interest on mortgages .... ·-·····--···--·--····--~··············· ...................... 270,000,000 In railroad netearnings ··-·· --·--·· ···· ····· ·· ··················· ········---···· ··· ········ 57,000,000

Total_ ................ - ........ _ .......................... ·~······-····--··········-- 417,000,000 The \\estern States are in fact being bled to death. Western farmers nrc

actually becoming poorer and poorer every year. As a body they do not make a. living, and the convincing proof of this fact isthattheirfarms are fa tpassing under mortgage to the money-lending manufacturing Slates of the En.st . Twenty-fi\"e years ago these mortgages were few in number and small in amount; now they number millioll.3 and cover an aggreg te value of thousands of millions, and all bear 6 to 8 per cent. interest.

The West does not. own itself. It is owned by the industrial States. Twenty-ix years of the mali~ eetional, and oppressive policy of high tariff has done

the work: and done it effectually. The industrial States of the East, enriched beyond estimate by the annual tribute of f,OOO,OOO,OOO exacted for a quarter of a century Irom the oilier States under the false preten e of building up home manufactures, own all Western railroads, telegraph lines, and bridges, and hold mortgages on nearly all farms, their cities, and towns.

This statement of the condition of the farmers of the West is, as suggested, perhaps exaggerated, but H goes to show that their condition i~ deplorable indeed; and all that is said here of the West applies with equnl, and, if possible, with increased force to the South. At the close ot the wnr, a war fought almost woolly on her soil, the most gigantic and desolating that has devastated this fair earth for two thoUB:tnd years, she found herself with her fields de>aStated, the flower of her youth and manhood slain in battle, and the accumulation of a century and a half annihilated as if by the magic toucll of the genius of destruction.

To add to the hopelessness of 'her condition hen she was prostrate and almost lifeless and bleeding at every pore, the carpet-baggers, the emissaries of the protective theory! pounced down harpy-like upon her, put themselves at the head of the recently emanciprl.red and enfranchised slaves, and while the representatives of the wealth and intelligence of that unhappy section were disfranchised took possession of her local governments and burdened the people with local taxes and debts unheard ofhitherto in the history of the country. Without horses, without mules, without oxen, without food, withont money, the old fuen, a.nd the boys, and women, and the disabled soldiers, and the few disbanded soldiers of the Confederacy who had survived the bloody conflict of that fratricidal war without bodily hurt, w~nt to work late in the spring of 1865 to repair their farms and make a crop.

Utterly destitute and without the means of suppor~ey were forced to resort to loans, to secure which they had to mortgage their farms and to pay ruinous rates of interest, often amounting to 50 and even to 100 per cent. per annum. Thus each crop was consumed before the next was planted, and ~o-a.in the farm was mortgaged for the means with which to make another. This process has gone on from year to year. Our furmers and their children, male and female, have toiled as t h eir sla\es ne\er did and yet they are loaded down with debt. True, tho avemge rate of interest now is not as great as it was twenty or even ten years ago, but it is still enormous, usually about 15 per cent. Aa~ in the agricultural West, so in the agricultural South, our farms ant practically owned by those who have grown rich in the nine manufacturing States under the ·rostering and · ~ protecting '' operations of the present tariff.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3983 These ''lords of the loom, the factory, and the furnace,'' not only hold

under mortgage a very large per cent. of our farms, but actually own and control and enjoy almost all of our railroads, our fa{!tories, and our mines. There are in Georgia railroads which ha-ve cost about $75,000, ODO. Of these the main thoroughfares, the Central, the Georgia., the Western and Atlantic, and the Atlantic and Gulf, were built and owned by the people of Georgia before the war, without the aid of foreign capital. To-day they have passed out of the hands of thm:e whose capital and enterprise built them and are owned by and operated in the interest of Eastern capitalists. Our mines of gold and iron and coal and copper have gone the same way-are owned by nine States whose people lmve grown rich on tribute levied by our present taxing laws upon the people of the other twenty-nine.

These are the results of a protective tariff at whose shrine we are called upon to fall down and worship. These are the 1·esults of a system falsely called the ''American system.'' The most ardent supporter of tbe protecti>e theory a hundred years ago would stand aghast at the demands of the protected.industries of to-day. The ghost of Clay would grow indignant at the enormities perpretrated by his pretended followers in the name of '' protection.''

But, 1\Ir. Chairm.an, onerous, unjust: and oppressive as is the present proh~ctive tariff, the other and only remaining form of taxation in this Republic is more onerous, unjust, and oppressive. I refer to the iniquitous and inquisitorial system of internal-revenue taxation. the excise tax on tobacco, a leading agricultural product, and on distilled spirits, which is practically another agricultural product, bec.."\use in many sections of our country the usual and only way in which the farmer can realize anything out of the products of ills furm is to convert his grain into spirits. .

In many sections., .and I have the honor to represent in th.is House one of them, where the face ofthe country is mountainous and the means of trausportation are few and bad, the cost of transporting to market a bushel of grtlin is almost as much as the grain will bring when sold. In these sections of country the free and untrammeled distillation of grain is as necessary to the prosperity of the people as the exportation of cott<>n and wheat without the imposition of an export tax is to the people of those sections which produce these articles.

The fathers of the Republic, in that far-seeing wisdom which characterized all their acts, prohibited in the Constitution the imposition of exp<'rt taxes. It is true that they at the same time authorized the imposition of excise taxes and direct taxes, but coupled with the latter the provision that ''no direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census of enumeration hereinbefore directed to be made." The present excise-tax law is violative of the spirit of that clause of the Constitution, because it does not bear equally upon all the people of all the States, and had the fathers foreseen the perversion of this power that has been made they would have provided limitations to its enforcement, as they dhl in the clause authorizing the imposition of other direct taxes.

Ind€ed, it was never intended that resort should be had to direct taxation at all except in cases of extreme necessity, and then only temporarily. This is shown conclusively by the unbroken custom of the Government under the administration of whatever political party for more than a hundred years. Only three times since the birth of the Constitution have they been authorized by Congress, and always to meet the extreme demands of war. On each former occasion their existence was ephemeral; they were repealed as soon as the emergency which called them into being was pa...~ed. But now, after the war which created the necessity for them has been over for more than twenty years, these laws are in full force, and are carrying into an already o;verfiowing Treasury a constantly increasing stream of the money of the people, for which the Government has no use, and which, in the language of the President, converts the 'Treasury into a-ho::nding-place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our 11ational energies, suspending our country's development, preventing i.l\vestment in productive enterprise, and inviting schemes of public plunder. , .

Mr. Chairman, it is unjustifiable robbery. This law ought to have been repealed next after the land tax, for, like the land tax, it i"l a burden upon the agriculture of the country, that industry which after all is the mud-sill of all American prosperity, and in which one-half our people are engaged.

But it has been said t.hat this is a war tax and ought not to be repealed while a vestige of the liabilities incurred on account of the war, mclnding pensions to soldiers and sailors of the Republic, is unpaid. Never was a. more unjust or inequitable proposition submitted to Congress. The war was a great national calamity. It is one of those things to provide for which every citizen of the Republic is equally bound; bound not only to :fight the battles, but to bea.r the burden of taxation. This burden can not in justice be shifted from the shoulders of all of the people of every Statfl to those of a few of the people in a few of the States. .

It appears from the annual reports of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, submitted from year to year, since the inauguration of the system, that the great bulk of these taxes, fully 90 per cent., are paid by a few persons in less than half of the States. Is it right to allow

I

the burdens ot a warm which were involved the life, the liberty, and the property of"all, to be imposed upon a few? Our common sense of justice revolts at the idea.

Again, it is urged that the system of internal-revenue taxation ought to be kept up because it ii a tax easily collected. So was the tribute levied by the freebooters, who infested the straits of Gibraltar on the commerce ofthe world which had to be carried through those straits, an easy tax to collect; but it was an unearned tax, an unjust tax, a dishonest tax, a robber bx. Let us not emulate the example of pirates in the collection of tribute from our people. Let us not place the burden of taxation where it will be "most easily collected;" this is · cowardice and oppression. But let us place it where it can be collected in justice and equality, without oppression, without cruelty, without subjecting our people to "undue search and seizure," and without fostering bloated and insolent monopoly. For after all that has been said about monopoly, the whisky trust is perhaps the most insatiate monopoly that ever cursed this monopoly-cursed people.

It is not only protected by our tariff laws from all foreign competition by prohibitory duties on all foreign liquors that could compete with it, but by these unjust excise-tax laws it is protected from home competition by armed marshals and paid spies and informers, and, if need be, by the Army of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, no tax is a proper tax in a free Republic which has to be collected at the point of a bayonet or at the muzzle of a shot-gun. That thls is such a tax let the people of the mountains of the two Virginias and North Carolina and Georgia and .Alabama and Tennessee and Kentucky, who have been manacled like felons and hurried from their homes and families and friends at the dark hour of midnight, scores and sometimes hundreds of miles away, to languish and perhaps to die in loathsome prison without conviction, or convicted on the suborned testimony of perjured villains, who, for a bribe or to gratify their own unholy hatred, swear away the liberties of uno:ffending citizens and wreck the peace of communities.

I know, Ur. Chairman, that this is strong language, but not too strong for those who have seen the cruelties and outrages which these excise-tax laws have made possible. More than half of the country, largely more than half, is but little affected by these laws, because they are practically inoperative in most of the c.ountry; but in those sections where they are operative, and where the people have seen and felt the injustice and cruelty and rigor of their enforcement, there is a well-nigh unanimous demand for their reveal at the earliest possible moment.

The following extract from the proceedings of a mass meeting of the Democratic party of Lumpkin County, Georgia, held a few days ago, voices the sentiment of every section in which these oppressive L1.ws are operative:

Resolvecl, first, That we, the Democratic party of Lumpkin County, in massmeeting assembled, indorse the administration of President Cleveland, and recommend his nomination for re-election upon a platform expressing the views hereinafter contained.

First and foremost, we demand that the internal-revenue laws, as t.hey now exist, be totally repealed. .

But it may be inquired, how will you raise revenue to support the Government if you oppose both these laws? I answer, easy enough.

Go back to the old Democratic land-marks, revise your tariff .laws, adjust them with a view to raising revenue, and if they can in doing this afford protection to American manufactures, let them protect. That is legitinlate protection, not robbery.

That is the Democratic idea of protection as taught by Jefferson and Madison and Jackson and the Chicago platform of1884. !would put no duty on articles of prime necessity which are not produced in this country. I would put a light duty, if any at all, on the raw materials used in our own manufactures, and on those articles of prime necessity which are partly produced at home and partly imported from abroad, and I would put the heaviest revenue duty possible upon the luxuries and superfluities of the rich, who are able to pay for them however heavily taxed. If after all this is done a sufficient revenue for the sup· port of the Go>ernment, efficiently, honestly, and economically administered, is not raised, I would, in the language of ]')1r. Jeffenson, "by the suppression of unnecessary officers, of useles establishments and expenses, reduce the necessary requirements of the Government." By the re'peal of these very laws a horde of '' unnecessary officers '' can be "suppressed," and the $4,000,000 paid annually to them for salaries would be saved.

I would repeal the sinking-fund act, a "useless establishment," no longer ~ecessary, which requireE~ the Secretary of the Treasury to go annually into Wall street and buy nearly$50,000,000worth of the bonds of the Government at whate>er premium the brokers ofthat malodorous mart may by private agreement demand. The purchase of its bonds by the Government for the sinking fund is no longer necessary; our bonds are already too hlgh; there would be no danger to the credit of the Government in repealing the law. No fair-minded creditor would ob-ject to it. ·

But if objection were made, and the repeal of the law were regarded as an act of bad faith, I would resort to direct taxation for the balance, not to an excise tax, which oppresses the poor and fosters monopoly, but to a graduated income tax; a tax which falls upon those who, hav-

:

3984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY -10,

ing most to protect, derive most protection from the Government and are most able to pay it; one of the last taxes imposed by the Government in the hour of its extremity and one of the first repealed when the war was over, not because it was an improper tax or an unjust ta."'\:, but because those who paid it were hearclaand were powerful in ·the councils of the nation, while the toiling millions who pay the bulk of tariff and excise taxes were not heard and were impotent there.

But these views, l\Ir. Chairman, have been characterized as utopian. Perhaps they are utopian to those one-ideaed gentlemen, if there be such,

. whose sole object is to reduce the tariff, no matter what the consequences may be, and those other gentlemen whose sole idea is protection, at whatever cost to the farmer, the mechanic, and the day laborer of the country.

But to Democrats of the old scLool .they are not "Utopian." To Democrats who have been "brought up at the feet" of Jefferson, the Democratic " Gamaliel," they are sound Democracy. To them any system of direct taxation by the Federal Government is objectionable, and justifiable only by the most urgent necessity. The old Democratic idea, as taught and practiced by this grand old party, the party ot the Constitution and of the people, is to raise all Federal revenues at the ports on goods of foreign manufacture, and leave all direct taxation to the States and local governments, from which to derive the means of their support. Mr. Jefferson said: It may be the pride and pleasure of an American to ask what farmer, what

mechanic, what laborer ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States.

For the last twenty years it would be difficult to find any one of these classes who has not seen not only one but many, and they often accompanied by armed men in all the '' pomp and circumstance of glorious war."

Again, the father of Democracy said, in his second inaugural address:

The suppression of unnecessary officers, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue internal taxes. These covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary taxation which once entered upon is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property.

The American people cH.n fully realize the force of this prophetic language. Accustomed for a quarter of a century to these iniquitous Jaws, Congress at its last session extended the sphere of their operation by enacting the oleomargarine law, the object and end and effect of which is to strike down one legitimate industry for the benefit of another.

Encouraged by this concession made by the last Con!n'ess to the insatiate demands of monopoly, this had scarcely assembled when demand was made for the striking down of another legitimate and important industry, cotton-seed oil, to satiate the greed of another monopoly. And thus it will go on from Congress to Congress, if this pernicious system is not abandoned. One industry will be hampered and strangled by these unjust and inquisitorial laws for the benefit of another. Pope never uttered a wiser sentence than when he said:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first.endure, then pity, then embrace.

No tyrant ever robbed a people of all their liberties at one time, but always one at a time, gradually, imperceptibly.

The fathers of the Republic rebelled against the British crown, not because the taxes imposed were heavy taxes, but because they were unjust; not because they were taxed onerously, but because they were taxed at all.

But I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the idea of the repeal of all the internal taxes was not only the idea of Jefferson and all the apostles of Democracy in the early history of the country, but also of the Democrats who assembled from every State and Territory and Congressional district in the last national convention. Let them speak for themselves. That convention, the mouthpiece of the national Democracy, said:

Sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of the Federal Government economically administ-ered, including pensions, interest and principal of the public debt, can be got under our present system of taxation from custom-house taxes on fewer imported articles, heRring heaviest on articles of luxury and bearing lightest on articles of necessity.

This is the judgment of the high court of appeals for the adjustment of all Democratic differences. This is the voice of the people the:rhsel ves in national convention assembled. It is the "vox popttli" and therefore the "vox dei" of Democracy.

All the noise a bon t '' free whisky and taxed clothing '' is uncalled for. NoDemocratwantseither. Neither is necessary. Clothing ought to be and must be as free as possible. I always have voted and always will vote to make it so; and as to whisky, the sovereign States of this Union always hitherto have been able to take care of that. They are still able to do that. If revenue is to be derived from liquors, let the States have it. They need it; the General Government does not. Let the liquor tax go into the treasuries of the States, and relieve the farmers of the country to that extent from the onerous taxes now imposed upon their lands. Talk about "protection." If there is a class of men on the American continent which needs the fostering care of legislation, State and Federal, it is the overtaxed, oYerworked, poorly paid farmers of the South and West. '

•

Equally senseless and pernicious is the demand for the perpetuation of thew hisky tax as a promotive of temperance among the people. This demand is made not by the temperance people themselves, but by some politicians who care nothing about temperance. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the most numerous, widespread, and effective corps of temperance workers in the country, have unanimously asked for the repeal of these laws as a hinderanee rather than a help to the noble cause of temperance.

The prohibition party in my own State, for which I will be pardoned for saying there is no use and no room in Georgia, adopted as a plank in its platform a few days ago a demand for the total and immediate repeal of the Federal excise taxes. So far as I am iutormed this is the po ition of every temperance organization in the country.

But, Mr. Chairman, if it were not, the maintenance of these laws for any purpose other than to raise revenue in cases of extreme necessity is unwise and unwarranted, not only for the reasons I have given, but for the additional reason, whicb is perhaps after all the most cogent, that it is dangerous to try to legislate morality into the people. Our Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion and legislation on the subject. Its spirit, if not its .letter, forbids legislating on moral questions. It would be an abridgement of the liberty of conscience. More than that, such legislation by the Federal Government is an infringement upon the rights of the States and a long step toward thn.t centralization of power against which Democracy has always fought and for which the enemies of Democracy have contended.

But, Mr. Chairman, so much for the evils of a protective tariff and an excise tax. Great as these evils are, there is, if possible, a still greater, threatening, not one industry or one class of our people, but every industry and every class.

The rapidly increasing surplus revenue accumulating in the Treasury inviting extravagant and useless and unwarranted expenditures of public money, and withdrawing from .the channels of trade the circulating medium of the country can but result in disaster to every interest of the people.

The attention of Congress has been called in unmist.akab:Le tones to calamities impending over the business of the country from this cause by the President inhis last annual message. Resays, andhislanguage is addressed to us, the representatives of the people, upon whom at last the responsibility rests :

I have deemed it my duty to thus bring to the knowledge of my countrymen, as wellRs to the attention of their representatives charged with the responsibility of legislative relief, the gravity of our financial situation. The failure of the Congress heretofore to provide against the dangers which it was quite evident the yery nature of the difficulty must necessarily produce, caused a condition of financial distress and apprehension since your last adjournment, which taxed to the utmost all the authority and expedients within Executive control; and these appear now to be exh.ansted. If disaster results from the continued inaction of Congress, the responsibility must rest where it belongs.

Though the situation thus far considered is fraught with danger which should be fully realized, and though it presents features of wrong to the people as well as peril to the country, it is but a result growing out of a perfectly palpable and apparent cause, constantly reproducing the same alarming circumstances-a congested national Treasury and a. depleted monetary condition in the bu iness of the country. It need hardly be stated that while the present situation demands a. remedy, we can only be saved from alike predicament in the future b:y the removal of its cause.

We have got to meet this responsibility and avert, by the wisest legislation possible, the evils threatening the country. These evils not only threaten but are inevitable if Congress still persists in its course of nonaction. To prevent these abortive attempts at legislation and accomplish any results tending to avert the impending dangers mutual concession is necessary. All wise legislation in an emergency like this is the result of compromise and mutual concession.

This spirit of compromise has marked some of the wisest legislation that has ever been enacted in this or any other country. The greatest intellects which have adorned the pages of our country's history have not deemed it derogatory to their dignity nor their manhood to concede something to the opinions of others. •

We ought to emulate their example. We ought to remember that however unjust, obnoxious, and partial the present tariff laws aTe, and however cruel, oppressive and odious the internal-revenue laws may be, however greatly and injuriously they effect certain interests and certain sections of the country, an enormous surplus in the Treasury, withdrawing from the channels of trade the money of the people, the lifeblood of commerce, is equally injurious, equally destructive of every interest in every section of the country. We oug~t to remember that the whole volume of money in the country, including both metals and the paper currency, is only $1,336,000,000. Of this amount not less than half is not in the channels of trade, but hoarded up in the Treasury of the Government or in the vaults of the banks or in the coffers of misers, leaving notover$700,000 000 to do the business of the country. Of ~his amount three hundred and seventy millions will be collected this year in the Federal Treasury alone, more than half the volume of currency employecl in trade, more than a million every day that God sends, Sunday included, more than $6 a head fo~ every man, woman, and child in the land, more than 30 a head for every voter in the Republic. ·

The business of the count.ry can not stand this strain. If it continues long, ruin must come to every interest. It must be averted; ·we must avert it; this Congress must avert it. It must avert it by preventing the accu~ula.tion of this vast surplus, by keeping in the channels of

'\ l

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. :3985 trade the already too small stream of money left to the people to propel the wheels of our mills and factories and irrigate our fields. It can only be done by lowering taxes. We can not afford to stop to qu:urel as to how this shall be done or on what. If we can not get the internal revenue abolished we must reduce tariff taxation. If we can not get the tariff revised we must abolish the internal revenue. If we can not get all of either, let us take a little of both. We must compromise; we must make concessi:)ns to one another. Thisis wisdom; this is statesmanship; this is the spirit of democracy.

The Committee ofWays and Means of this House, the body .charged under the rules of the House with the primary consideration of questions of taxation and revenue, have bad the conservatism and moral courage to act on this principle, and as a result have presented to the Hou_c a bill which, while it does not embody my ideas as to what a revenue bill ought at tbis juncture to contain, and perhaps does not embody the ideas of its distinguished cbairma~. nor those of any other member of the committee, is still a bill framed on the idea of mutual concession and compromise, and will, to some extent at least, remedy the evils under which the country labors. It does not remove all the protective features of the present tariff laws; nor is it neces3ary that i t should, for if, in laying duties to raise revenue for the support of the Government, they should reach the protective point, it is no violation of the traditions of the Democratic party, but is legitimate protection.

It does not repeal the entire internal-revenue system, but it does bring from under it'3 blighting influence one of our chief agricultural prod nets, tobacco, and remo\e many of the asperities of the law and the rigors of its enforcement in the collection of the liquor taxes. It is perbaps as fair a compromise of the extreme views on the questions of how to raise our Federal revenue and prevent a dangerous accumulation of surplus in the Treasury as could be offered.

I therefore! Mr. Chairman, as is well known in this Honse, long since. determined to accept the compromise in the spirit in which it is offered, and shall give the bill a hearty support. In this position I am sustained by the ever-faithful Democraey of Georgia, who on yesterday assembled in convention in the city of Atlanta, and adopted the Mills bill as the party platform on questions of Federal taxation. The DemQcrats from the mountains, to whom the internal-revenue laws are so odious and oppressive, and the Democrats from the cotton and rice fields of Central and Southern Georgia, who have not felt the oppression and injustice of these Ia,ws, but who have felt tbe burden of the hi,ghest tariff taxes in the world, realizing the perils to the people of the country from the accumulation of hundreds of millions of surplus in the Tre..'\Snry, compromised their differences, as all true Democrats in this House ought to do, by adopting this moderate measure of revenue reform as the party platform.

I take my position on that platform, and shall talk and vote and work to secure the enactment of this Lill into law, trusting and believing that it will be found po sible in the near future to wipe from the statutebook the entire ~ystem of internal-revenue taxation, and that it may never again be found necessary to restore to it laws so unjust, so annoying, so inquisitorial, so oppressive, and so undemocratic to harass a.no worry a brave and patriotic people.

Mr. POST. Mr. Chairman, in this discussion all agree that it was not the inenttion of the tariff and internal-revenue laws to curt-ail the curr ency of the country and hoard it in the national Treasury; that the surp lus now there should not be allowed to remain there; and that the laws should be so revised that no more money shall be collected than is necessary for an economical administration of the Government. Both the great parties are pledged to these principles, and every gentleman on this floor is desirous of accomplishing these o~jects.

The disagreement commences with the method of reduction. The free-trader con tends that the tariff should be for revenue only and that the reduction should be made in the interest of free trade, with a view to exchanging our agricultural products in a foreign market for manufactured articles produced by cheap foreign labor. The protectionist adheres to the principle that the tariff for revenue should also be for protection, and that the reduction should be made in the interest of American industries, with a view to furnishing a home market for our agricultural products, with well-paid American artisans and mechanics as consumers.

'l'he free-trader asserts that the farmers are being robbed by a tariff for tho benefit of American manufacturers, and that they should buy where they can buy cheapest, which he assumes is wherever labor is cheapest. The protectionist declares that those employed in American factories are now consumers of the products of the soil; that if forced out of employme!lt in manufacture they will cease to be consumers, and must 'tlecome agriculturists and competitors of the farmers; that the policy of exchanging farm products for foreign goods will not benefit the American farme1·, but will the European manufacturer.

Mr. Chairman, when I am the member of a Congress which legislates for the whole world I will be a free-trader and will advocate the theories of free trade. This Congress legislates for the United States only, and its duty is to defend the int-erests of our citizens against the rest of the world. The American free-trader is endeavoring to fulfill the prophecy made by Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, when be said: It will take le&,'i time to people America than it does to civilize a. barbarous

XIX- -250

nation; and as it becomes populous it wilt consume the produce of nations who haYe more men and less territory. Rich in the possess ion of a fertile soil, possessing the knowledge and feeling the wants of the most civilized nations of Europe, they will exchange the produce of their soil for tlle products of our la-~~ .

This pictures Americn, as merely a big farm tributary to European greatness. • That was \\"hat the British Governmeat tried to make the colonies by prohibi t ing manufactures and forcing the colonists to be a people of agriculturists. Our Revolutionary forefathers remoYed these restrictions by the sword, and within the space of a single century under the protective system \Te have become the greatest manufacturing nation on earth. What t he British Government forced this conntry to do as colonies, tbe Cobden Club and the Democratic party are endeavoring to persuade it to do D~W that it is au independer;tt nation .

The free-trader considers a. tariff as a necessary evil, to be justified only as a means of raising revenue. But if the tariff is what it has been described by the President and by gentlemen upon this floor why use it as a syst-em of raising revenue? If it raises the price of every- · thing consumed without any corresponding advantage to om· citizens, if it robs the poor for the benefit of the rich, if it "impoverishes the people and protects those who are not entitled to protection, and whom it is a shame and a crime to protect, at the expense, the toil, and the suffering of their coq,ntrymen," why not abandon the system? .

The President calls the tariff ''the vicious, inequitable, illogical source of unnecessary taxation.'' The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. HE.:tlPHILL] declares it to be au ''unholy and unhallowed scheme erroneously called protection." The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. ' CARUTH] says:

This tru:ilf is a most insidious enemy. It works in silence and under cover, and whilst it pretends to be giving us "protection," it is really stealing our sub-stance and destroying our lives. ·

If these statements arc true, then I am opposed t.o a tariff for revenue or to any kind of a taT iff.

These very moderate denunciations at the nation's capital have been echoed by friends of the Administration throughout the country, amplified and specifically applied. Hon. Frank Hurd, while recently instructing and edifying the Democracy of illinois, is reported as follows:

The tariff touches five thousand articles that enter into daily consumption. They are increased in price 45 per cent. , and those most used by the poor 70 per cent. The average wages are $!00 a year, and if the tariff is but 50 per cent. out of his $400 the workman has to pay $?...00. He gets nothing out of the tariff-is absolutely robbed of $200. Six months of every year is owned and controlled by other men.

According to all these statement.<::! the tariff itself is at fault. Lowering the duty one-half would, according to Mr. Hurd's theory, still rob the workingman of$100. Reducing the tariff would not stop, but would only mitigate, the evil.

If there be no incidental protection in a tariff; if there is no advantage arising to our people from a home market; ifitis a tax on every man, and only justified as a meausofraisiugrevenue, then by all means daaway with it at once and raise the revenue by an income tax or by direct taxation. If it be true that it taxes everybody without reference to their ability to pay, the workman and the capitalist alike, it is the most unfair and iniquitous system of raising revenue ever devised. Unless it encourages manufactures, gives employment to labor, and makes a home market for the products of agriculture, it can not be justified. If the system is "legalized robbery," "an unholy and unhallowed scheme," '• an insidious enemy stealin;; our s bstance and destroying our lives,'' it is a system which ought not to be used for raising even necessary revenue. Whether high or low, a tariff for protection or for revenue, it is an outrage upon justice and ought not to be tolerated by a civilized people.

In addition to all these ten·ible effects of a prote.ctive tariff we are told that it was the outgrowth of the late war, and that it is illegal and unconstitutional. If this statement be true the other arguments were unnecessary; but if it can be proved to be untrue it will cloud with suspicion the testimony·of those who make the assertion.

The second act signed by President Washington was the tariff act of July 4, 1789, and the preamble reads as follows:

Whereas it is necessary for the support of the Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactm·es, that duties be laid upon goods, wares, and merchandise imported, etc. ·

This pro.•es that the protective policy was not the outgrowth of the late war, that it is older than the Democratic party, and that it is the traditionary policy of onr Government, as venerable as the Constitution it.self. The fathers of the Republic honestly and openly declared the tariff to be for ''the encouragement and protection of m::mufactures, '' and such a tariff bas e\er since existed in peace and in war, and whether bigh or low, it has always bad in view the object stated in the preamble of the act signed by Washington.

Let us hope that the tariff discussion will never entail the misery upon this country which sprang from the discu$Sion of State rights. The people of the United States established a government,. and immediately a certain cJnss of men began to discuss State rights, and for half a century this discu~sion continued, until it seemed as though the Democratic party believed or half believed that it was a fundamental principle of government; but the moment the attempt was made to exercise the rights so long asserted they were astonished to find that a large ·

3986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 1a,

number of those who acquiesced in the doctrine would not permit it to be carried into practical execution.

In alike manner our forefathers who established the Government established a protective tariff. · A discussion in favor of free trade afterwards commenced, and has continued from that time to this. But it is merely a Pickwickian· opposition; it pleases those who like controversy, and does not seem to hurt the tariff. An attempt to carry into practice the doctrine of absolute free trade would be met by the farmers and workingmen as the attempt to carry out the doctrine of State rights was met by the loyal men of America.

We are again reviewing the same old question of" protection," so ably presented by Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and so fully discussed in the Presidential campaign of 1844. But under what different circumstances does it now come before the American people for discussion! What a wealth of statistics has been brought forward in this debate, showing the beneficent influence of protection in creating American industries and a home market! Fifty years ago the advocates of protection argued as to what it would do; to-day they point to what it has done.

For the last quarter of a. century the tariff in the United States has been higher than was ever dreamed of :fifty years ago. Has the country been ruined by it? The census shows that all the wealth accumulated in this country from the time of ita discovery up to 1860 was in round numbers sixteen thousand million dollars. The census of 1880 disclosed the wealth of the United States to be forty-four thousand million dol-

• lars-an increase in twenty years of twenty-eight thousand million dollars. :Millions of men were for four years of that period withdrawn from production and hundreds of millions of dollars in val ne were wasted or destroyed by the war, and yet the wealth of the nation was three times as great when the Republican party ceased to control the Government as when it came into power twenty-four years before. The protective tariff in force _during those years did not ruin the country.

CURRENCY Ali'D CllEA.P TRANSPORTATION.

Whatever system of revenue laws a country may have it can not prosper under a policy which curtails the currency. With ~ pop,liation and business constantly increasing and a currency stationary or decreasing no genuine prosperity is po!lsible, except to those who control the money of the country. Our western farmers and producers understand this. They are not asking for free trade to enable them to send their corn and potatoes to England and to receive in return the clothing, boots and shoes manufactured in England, the American farmer paying the transportation both ways.

They have to pay too much and too hlgh transportation already. They are aware that the average rate of freight has been greatly reduced since 1861 by improvements in transportation facilities on the Great Lakes and on land. They know that railroads have improved, that their road-beds have been ballasted, that they have steel rails iu place of iron, that the size of engines ~as been in~reased and the capacity offreightcarsdoubled. They knowthatthese 1mprovementshave decrea ed the expenses of railroad corporations, enabling them to reduce freights and yet increase profits. They also know that 00,000,000 are annually gathered from them as the net earnings of the railroads and 'taken to the money centers; and these net earnings are not always the interest on capital actually invested, but are dividends on fictitious stock. · They do not ask for a policy which will close the factories of this country, increase the cost of transportation by adding thousands of miles to the distance, and place them entirely at the mercy of transportation corporations. They ask that the water ways be improved and deepened; that the artificial wate~ in railway corporations may be squeezed out by competition with transportation on natural water.

Every other civilized government has assumed that cheap communication and transportation is the most important method of contributing to the public welfare. They foster, subsidize, and own railroads, not for the benefit of individuals and corporations, but in order to fix a maximum rate on freights and to control them in the interest of producer and consumer. In this country our system of railway legislation, or rather la.ck of system, has conferred the right of eminent domain on corporations, and corporations are controlled by single individuals. In effect it takes the property of the citizen and transfers it to some one ·stock manipulator, who uses it theoretically for the public benefit bnt practically for his own.

Under a different system of railway legislation the right of the State to condemn the property of the citizen would be exercised by the State i tself, and the title would never leave the State except to revert to the original owner when the land was no longer required for public nse. The enterprise of individuals wonld only be invoked to operate transportation lines for a term of years for the public benefit under strict limitations as to maximum charges, which would insure only just and reasonable compensation for the skill and labor involved. Other nations have solved the transportation problem by providing that capitalists may enjoy dividends for a term of years and that when the charters expire the roads they built shall become freely::md absolutely the propert.r of the people and transportation be furnished at the mere cost of operating the roads. In this country we recklessly provide for the present and only such rights ann prerogatives ha>e been preser>ed to the people as it is not in the power_ of Legislatures to give away.

1\Ir. Chairman, the American people are at a disadvantage in the international struggle for lack of cheaper transportation. Russia and Germany are providing internal improvements on a scale commensurate with the importance of those empires. France has 7,069 miles of canals which have cost $200,000,000, and 1,813 miles are projected which will cost $218,000,000 more.

The fact that the wheat of India competes with that of the United States in foreign markets has been frequently referred to in this debate. Such competition was made possible by direct governmental expenditures in the construction of canals and railroads. Over 5100,000,000 has been expended for canals in India, while the government railroads are run in the interestofproducers and atalossof$124,000,000 in twentyfour years. With the government furnishing cheap transportation, it is easy to flood the markets of Western Europe with the wheat of India. It is, therefore, not alone with the cheaper labor of lndh'll that the American farmers will .have to contend, but ·with governments which neither hoard money in their treasuries nor pay a premium on bonds not yet due, but wisely provide cheap transportation for their farmers and producers, protecting these unorganized classes from the extortion of organized corporations.

If our Western farmers are to compete in European markets with the wheat of India, will they have the same governmental aid in transportation which India has? We know they will not. We know that even the na>igable rive.rs and water ways over which the National Government retains legal and exclosi>e control have not been improved to the proper extent. The excuse for neglecting this plain duty has hereto- . tore been the lack of money and the great national debt; but that excuse does not avail when there is a surplus in the Treasury which creditors will not consent to take except upon the condition that unearned interest be added.

THE FARMERS' liiESSAGE.

I will not undertake to say what the cotton States want, nor what the stock operators and bankers at the money centers want; but if the farmers and producers of the Mississippi Valley had been required to send a message to Congress referring to those questions of national importance, which "imperatively demand immediate and careful consideration," it would have contained something different from what w.as embodied _in the President's message. Although they were not required by law to give information to Congress, yet every citizen there has as profound and intelligent an interest in the welfare of this nation as any citizen elsewhere, whether he be in private station or holding the highest office. They have addressed a message to Congress, to which it is_ my pleasure and duty to direct your attention. -

A convention was in session at Peoria on the 11th and 12th of October, 1887, a few weeks before the assembling of this Congress, composed of 607 delegates from seven States of the Union, representing the commercial and industrial interests of the West, and particularly those of the farmers and producers of that great section. These delegates were selected with on t regard to party affiliations, and they nni ted in address-· ing the following message to the Fiftieth Congress:

"Whereas natural water ways, capable of floating: large river steamers, furnish a medium of successful transportation that is open to the public and can not be monopolized by private interests; and

'Vhereas in promoting the interstate commerce of the country the true policy of the United States Government is to foster, protect, and improve and artificially connect as far as possible all the natural water ways of the country which are of sufficient importance and extent to partake of interstate character; and

Whereas the proper improvement of the lllinoisand Desplaines Rivers, with a few miles of a wide and deep canal, will connect 1,660 miles of large river navigation with 1, 700 miles of lake navigation, all within the boundaries of the United States, permeating the heart of the Republic, furnishing more miles of inland navigation than exists in any other portion of the world, which, when completed, will add to the clear profits of the interstate commerce and industries of the count.ry a sum greater each year than the entire cost of the improvement, and at the same time furnish an imperatively necessary assistance to our military and naval defenses: Therefore,

Be it resolt·ecl, First. That the highest consideration of patriotism1 a reasonable

solicitude for our national defenses. the interests of commerce andmdustry and the public welfare of the nation all imperatively demand that the aforesaid improvement shall be vigorously prosecuted to· an early completion.

Second. That to that end we hereby respectfully urge upon Congress that nt the coming session it accept the locks and dams ceded to the General Government by the State oflllinois and appropriate tho amount of money estimated and asked by the engineers to complete the two locks and dams now under construction on the Lower Illinois, and appropriate at least one-third of the amount estimated t~ improve the rivers to Joliet.

Third . That Congress may early in the coming session authorize and provide by a suit..'\ble appropriation to provide ~or the. apl?ointment of a corps of l!n_it;ed State!il engineers to make !!Urveys and mvestigations and report the feasibility and estimated cost of developing b water way from Joliet to Lake l\1ichigan at the city of Chicago, suitable for the largest river steamers and capable of drawing from said lake not less than 600,000 feet of water per minute, with a. current suitable for navigation purposes, and to report the effect thereof upon the waters nnd navigation of the Desplaines, lllinois, and Mississippi Rivers.

Fourth. That we respectfully urge that these surveys and estimates be ordered ear ly in the coming session, that the engineers may at. once therea~r proceed to their work and be able to report to Congress for actiOn before adJournment.

Fifth. That inasmuch as practically no returns for this expenditure of money can be realized by commerce and industry, or in providing for our national de· fense until the whole improvement is completed, we would also 1·espectfully urge ~t the coming session of Congress a suitable appropriation to be applied upon the section of the improvement from Joliet to Lake Michigan, and by this means the entire route in all its sections will be in course of rapid completion, which will be much more economical than if it should be delayed through a long conrse of years by small annual appropriation~.. . .

Sixth. That we cordially indorse the propos1tion to connect Lake M1chigan

~ ·

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3987 with the upper :Mississippi River by a. canal from Hennepin to said river at or near Rock Island ns a nationa l u n iertaking of great importance to producers in the \Vest and shippers in the East·, and earnestly commend it to Congress and the people of the United States ns a national water way to be promptly acted upon. .

Seventh. Thitt while tb is convention is especially desirous of the improvement of the Illinois a n d Desplaines Rivers and con oecting the same with Lake Mit:higan for purposes of navigation and military defense, it is at the same time in hearty sympathy with all efforts being made to improve the navigation of the l\Iississippi River and its great tributaries, as well as all other feasible water ways of the country.

This message was indorsed by another convention which assembled at Memphis on the 20th of October, and the Farmers' Congress of the United States (Chicago, NOvember 11, 12, 1887) declared that itregards as of the highest importance to the agricultural intet<estsof the country the early completion of the project of connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico by means o( a water route from Lake 'l\lichigan at Chicago to the Desplaines River, thence by way of the lllinois and Mississippi Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico, and that the United States engineers be dir•cted to report on the feasibility a nd approximate cost of the undertaking, and that such water route shall be of such capacity as to allow of the passage of the largest river steamers and of all naval vessels in time of war.

1\Ir. Chairman, this is the message of the farmers to the Fiftieth Congress, and, sir, no mes.<!.age bas come before it of greater or more pressing importance. It urges that the two greatest inland water-way systems of the whole world be connected in the interest of commerce and national defense. In the language of a United States engineer-It is a plain problem of creating or rather opening up anew what was once

a great wat-er-course between the Lakes and the Mi sissippi River. In lhe onward march of this g1·ea t nation this has b een found to be necessary for the commercial interest of the com munity, and, as is easily seen, for the military de-fense of the country. ·

Then would the glorious prophecy of the Chicago Daily News be fulfilled:

A commercial fleet greater than the entire seacoast marine, now locked up in the ice-bound h arbors of the Lakes 37 per cent. of every year, would sweep through this cha nnel every fall, ca1·rying the prodnce and manufa."Ctures of the Northwest down to the Gulf for the Mexican, We.;t Indian, and South .imerican trade.

If the President of the Uniteu States bad recommended .that a :small part of the surplus could be wisely and economically expended for this great national object, thereby restoring the currency to circulation in the interest of cheaper t ransportation, the English free-trade journals might not have been fill ed with encomiums upon his wisdom, but he would have deserved the thanks of the American people.

AM:ZRICAN SHIPPING.

.A. recommendation for the revival of American shipping wonld also have been appreciated by the people. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. MANSUR] said that "the tariff has destroyed our shipping, our merchant marine." It surely did not destroy the vessels captured and burned during the war. The truth is, our shipping has not since revived because it is in direct competition with the ships of nations which have by subsidies encouraged their merchants to extend the

... maritime influence of their governments to the uttermost parts of the earth. I am earnestly in favor of restori.cg our flag to the ocean, so that our people may enjoy their fair share of the carrying trade, and I commend to the attenion of the House the following extracts from the report of the Admiral of the United States Navy:

Our shipping can not be revived without the same assistance that was given the ocean steam lines of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and, latt-erly, Spain. Heretofore, when it bas been proposed in Congress to grant Government aid to assist in putting afloat lines of ocean steamers, questions of free trade and tariff have been introduced to kill the measure.

* * * * * "' * There is a. growing feeling in the country with regard to the neglect which has been manifested in build!ng up our ocean mercantile marine, and it is to be hoped that this feeling will spread until the thousands of \memployed workmen have a. chance to earn good wages and the American ocean steamers have a fair share of the 3150,000,000 annually paid to fort>igners for carrying our goods.

By the course we have pursued in this countrywehaveactually given protection to foreign steam-ships at the expense of our own. The wharves of New York are decorated with foreign flags, while hardly an American ensign can be seen floating above a steamer suitable for conversion intoa.vesselofwar. This is free trade with a vengeance, all on one side and for the benefit of other nations.

, We ship our goods in foreign bottoms. and foreigners get the lion's share oft.be profits. No American steam-ships are employed in foreign trade because subsidized ships can drive them off and carry freight cheaper.

* * * * * * A closer examination of this subject than has heretofore been given it by the

m .ajority of our statesmen will show the loss this country has sustained by a failure of Congress to act in the premises. In the last eight years not less than $1.,200,000,000 have been )Jaid to foreign steam-ships, a sum almost_ equal to our national debt, and a. burden that is only made tolerable owing to the immense resources of our country. We should be still further depleted but for the fact that we are sustained by the tariff" on foreign merchandise and the protection of our manufactures, which prevents us from being undersold by foreigners and enables us to give employment to our working people, so that with all our drawbacks we grow rich.

POSTAL TELEGRAPII.

The President might safely also have recommended a postal telegraph, in order that communication by telegraph as well a.s mail might be at cost. The monopoly now exacting tribute from the people declares that Congress bas no constitutional right to establish a Governmenttelegraph. In the United States Statutes, volume 5, it appears that $30,000 was appropriated for testing the capacity and usefulness of the system of telegraph invented by Morse ''for the use of the Government oftbe United States by constructing a lineofsaidelectro-magnetictelegraphs." The appropriation bill approved March 31, 1845 (United States Statutes, volume 5) contains the following :

For defraying the expenses oftbe magnetic telegraph from the city of Washington to BaUimore for the current year ending on the 1st day of Februa.liY ne:x.t, Ute said sum to be disbursed under the direction 1md supe.rintel".dence of the Postmaster-General, $8,000.

The United States bas lost none of its constitutional powers in the last fifty years. The din ofWall street mmt have interposed between the ear of the President and the voice of the pP.ople, but the numerous petitions w bich have been sent to Congress indicate that the :r;eople intend to be heard. ·

THE SOLDIERS.

In connection with the recommendations for expenditures absolutely necessary for the prosperity and general welfa.re of the people, there is another question wbieh tol].ches tho honorof1.hisRepublic. Tbereare creditors whose rights rest upon the laws and precedents established in former wars and in force at the time that they volunteered for the defense of the Union. They performed their part of the contract, but while the Government was encumbered with debt they patriotically refused to press their claims. Years rolled on; the bondholders have been paid in gold and the Treasury is now overflowing. L<> it not time that t.he claims of the soldiers should be impartially considered with a view to determining whether such claims are lawful or unlawful; whether they are just or unjust? Would such a consideration be inconsistent with the "high and beneficent purposes of our Government?"

TilE ISIL VER SCARE.

During the political contest of 1884 the statement was heralded to the country by Democratic campaign orators that there was $400,000,000 withdrawn from circulation and locked up in the Treasury. President Cle>eland'sfirst message, and especially his recommendations regarding that surplus, were look_ed for with interest. It was a matter of great surprise; therefore, when this subject, together with that of the revision of the revenue laws, was lightly referred to on a single page of the message, while five pages were devoted to the impending danger to the country arising from the continued coinage of silver. A few sentences show the tenor of that message:

Nothing more important than the present condition of our currrency and coinage can claim your attention.

* * * * ' * t:: • That disaster bas not already overtaken us, furnishes no proof that danger

does not wait upon a continuation of lhe present silver coinage. '\'Ve b!l.ve been sayed by the most carefnl management and unusual e:xpedients, by a combination of fortunate conditions, and by a confident expectation that th~ course of the Government would be speedily changed by the action of Congress.

Prosperity hesitates upon our threshold beca.use of the dangers and uncer tainties SUI"rounding this question. Capital timidly shrinks fi·om trade, and investors are unwilling to take the cb!l.nce of the questionable shape in which their money will be returned to them, while enterprise halts at a. risk against which care and sagacious managem~nt do not protect.

As a necessary consequence labor lacks employment, and suffering and distress are visited upon a portion of our fellow-citizens especially entitled to tho careful consideration of those charged with the duties of legislation. No interest appeals to us so strongly for a safe and stable currency as the vast army of the unemployed ..

Notwithstanding the urgency of this message, notwithstanding that "disaster" waited upon us, that" prosperity hesitated upon our threshold," that "capital shrank from trade," that "labor lacked employment," that "suffering and distress were visited" upon us-notwithstanding all these dangers and evils incident upon a continuation of silver coinage, silver coinage continued unchanged.

BLAINE'S WARNING.

But before a year had rolled round another message came to the American people, not from the President, but from a statesman whose careful study of public questions and great experience in public affairs entitled his warnings to consideration, and, sir, this was the first complete statement of the "condition" which President Cleveland discovered more than a year afterwards. I quote from an address made on the 20~h of October, 1886, at Pittsburgh, Pa., by James G. Blaine:

Mr. Chairman, a crisis in the tariff system of the United States is rapidly approaching. For a long series of years, ever since the close of the war, we have bad a. vast debt to be paid. However large the national revenue, its surplus could o.lways be profitably applied to the liquidation of our national obligations. We have discharged that debt so rapidly that there remains now but little more than S'lOO,OOO,OOO of it that can be paid within t.bis century; and all of that falls due within four years from this date-its maturity thus rapidly approaching may be said to be even now pending-so that the matter is one that must be taken into consideration at once; because the remaining $700,000,000 or ~800,-000,000 goes over to lhe twentieth century.

When Secretary Sherman the most accomplished and able Secretary of tho Treasury since Alexander Hamilton, performed the marvelous feat of funding a large proportion of the public debt in United States 4 percents, his success was acknowledged on both sides of the Atlantic as unparalleled in financial administration. Butundertbe wiseadministration ofthe Federal Government by the Republican party the credit of the nation has increased so rapidly that the United States bonds which were at par but seven years ago now co·mmand nearly 130, and the holders will not relinquish them to the Treasury at less than that rat-e. It may therefore be assumed as a certainty that their payment is postponed until the next century, and that they fall outside of the present exigencies as they fall outside of the present power of the legislature of this nation.

'\Vben, therefore, you shall have diminished the total volume of the ob.ligations of the country to the amount of the $200,000,000now almost due, what aro you going to do with the surplus which annually flows into your Treasury? What disposition are you going to make of the large amount which each year you have been accustomed to apply to the payment of the national debt? The free-trader replies: "Get rid of your surplus by striking down this protective idea; lower the duty on many articles, put a large number of other articles on the free-list, and reduce your revenue in that way." The protectionistanswers: "Let us reduce our revenue, that. with a wise discrimination, the America.n

.

3988 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

laborer in his daily earnings may be protected by the national law, and keep that in view as a primal object." This is the que!ltiou which impends for your decision, and, afLer patient consideration of the probable consequences to result from that decision, I venture the assertion that there hns not been, since the national elecUon of 1860, a financial crisis so urgent and pressing as Lhe one which will be upon the American people within the next two years.

Dean Swift told the ministers of Queen Anne that they could double the duty and halve the revenue, or they could halve the duty and double the 1·evenue. \Ve may therefore increase the revenue while decrea.!"ing the duties, or we ma:y decreAse the revenue while increasing the duties. The main question, therefore, is whether you will exclude from the tariff the protective idea., or whether you will reduce the rates upon articles from the duties on which you gain no protection, and thus so wisely discriminate that, with a new tariff adapted to :;;100,000,000 less revenue, you will still gain all the protection needed.

I say to yon, gentlemen, that in only two periods in our history-namely, the beginning of the Federal Government and the outbreak of the civil war-has the financial ability of American statesmen been confronted by a problem of the magnitude of the one to which I have invited your attention. Never, therefore, was there a time when men who believe in protection to American industry were more imperatively called upon to gird about their loins for a great batlle on that qttestion. It is impending wit-hin two years, and will be settled favorably or adversely in that time.

I <'an not now go into details on the tariff as to the manner in which it should be regulated, but I can say this, that unless it is so adjusted as to continue the doctrine of protection, you gentlemen will see hard times in this country; and that is what I came here to say. For ad'\'ancing the same views since leaving home, and in the city of Philadelphia, I ha>e been complimented by the notice of the London Times, which tells me from across the water that the views which I hold have been negatived by the people of the United States, and that we are traveling toward free trade and away ft·om protection-from the dark days of our policy towards the enlightened policy of England.

In the same paper in which I read the cab!egram I have just quoted, in the same column and immediately following, among this morning's d ispatches, comes another from London which says that the poor have risen in a riot.against the lord mayor having a splendid dinner while the workmen of London are starving in their hovels. I give you those two telegrams together as forming a. better argument than any I could pJake on the question; and I send ba.ckgreet.ing to the London Times that I stand this moment before countless thousand'! of free American workingmen who have good wages and happy homes, with prosperity behind them and before them. [Tremendous cheering.]

President Cleveland's message to the Fiftieth Congress was but a fulfillment of Mr. Blaine's remarkable prophecy; and bow absurd appears the attempt to brand the Republican pa.rty as opposed to a re:::luction of the tariff, when it was a Republican statesman who thus called the attention of the American people to the growing surplus and the necessity for prompt and radrcal. reduction of tariff duties, and that., too, more than a year before the Pre.sident abandoned his silver-coinagedanger theory and sent his revenue-reduction theory to Congress.

The problem is comprehensively stated by Mr. Blaine: The main question, therefore, is whether you will exclude from the tariff the

protective idea or whether you will reduce the rates upon articfes from the dut.ies ou which you gain no protection, and thus so wisely discriminate that with a new tariff adapted to 8100,000,000 less revenue you will still gain all the protection needed.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. RICHARDSON] quotes that section of the Republican platform of 1884 which declared that-

The Republican party pledges itself to correct the inequalities of the tariff · e.nd to reduce the surplus.

And adds: They admitted the irregularities and promised to correct them. This was four

years ago, When and how, gentlemen, do you intend to redeem that pledge?

Mr. Chairman, we will redeem that pledge whenever we have control of this House so that itisin our power to do so. We are ready and anxious to do so now. We do not believe that the bill as presented by the majority of the Committee on Ways and Means met the approval of a majority of this House, though it is belie\ed to have had the approval of the executive branch of the Government. We have already had some experience in bills tending to reduce the surplus. .A. majority of this House were in favor ohefunding the direct ta.:x, and endeavored to overcome Southern obstruction during a legisbtive da,y of over 200 hours, but the Democratic party for some reason determined to keep that $17, 000,000 of the surplus in the Treasury out of reach of the peo-

pl~arly in the session I suggested to a distinguished Democrat that we reduce the revenue by taking the duty ofl' of the sugar imported from those countries which do not levy an export tax. He o~]ected on the ~ound that it would injure the sugar industries¢ Louisiana, and said that it was a strictly revenue tax. Such an objection from one theoretically opposed to protection was a. surprise. So far as it is a re\enue tax we do not need the revenue, and I favor free sugar bec.."tuse the tariff on sugar is a tax on a necessity without reference to ability to pay-the poor man with his large family is forced to pay more of it than the rich man with his small family. Better far a graded income tax, troublesome and inquisitorial to the rich, than to thus unjustly wring revenue from the poor!

The Republican sentiment of illinois has been voiced by Hon. Julius S. Starr, in a recent speech at Peoria, Ill., whtn be sa.id:

I would w1·ite it in letters n.s bright as gold that we are in fa\·or of a, speei!hr cvision of the tariff in the interest of our own products and our own J>; bo r: and that in the furlherance of such a. policy we believe it to be the duty of Coa"Tess to place all uw material including sugar not produced in this com:tr~· that does not in any considerable degree come in competitio:J. 'l':"ith onr o ·.\ 11

products and the labor of our own people. upon the free-list, and stipulate l.y treaty with the governments aud people that produce such ra;y ::wtcl'inl fo:· a just reciprocal relation with them, wht>re o~r peop_le may recci>? t!:? bencl_it,., of the rights conferred. Pla.ce over and against hor1zont l reductron rn the Intere;;t of England specific reduction in the interest of America; let it be proclaimed fro m the hill-tops and in the valleys; let it enter the mines aml the workshops; let it echo aero s the continent; let it be the rallying cry in the

campaign now upon us, that the distinctive difference upon this question between the Republican and Democratic parties is, that the Republicans are in faYor of a specific revision of the tariff in the interest of home labor and home products, and against a revision, as proposed by the Democratic party, in the interest of Southern products, foreign trade, and foreign labor.

NATURALIZED CITIZEKS.

The gentleman from Michigan (1\'Ir. FORD] has said: If you are going to legislate to make wages higher by imposing a tax you

should put the tax on men, not on goods. If you want to protect our workingmen against the pauper labor of Europe, why do you not take measures to keep that pauper labor from coming here?

This present<> the standard Democratic argument, that while the tariff protects us against the products of European labor the laborers themselves are admitted free.

This is true, and were it not for our tariff and our higher wag<'s there would be less reason tor these laborers coming. It is true that warmhearted liberty-loving Irishmen, thoughtful and thrifty Germans, industriousand persistent Scandinavians have peopled our Western prairies and are incorporated among our citizens. They have left the historic lands of their birth, they have joined in fighting our battles and in preserving the Union, they are here consumers and producers, not to add to the wealth of another country, but to aid in developing the resources of our own.

REVENUE REDUCTION.

The rules of the House of Representatives require that all proposed legislation with reference to revenue shall be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and aU such legislation is controlled by that committee, in which the Republicans are in a minority. So far as the formation of the bill under consideration is concerned, the committee-room has been locked against the Republican members as well as against the representatives of American industries and American wol'lringmen. The rules of this House do not, however, ba.mper the Republic::msof illinois, and their well-defined opinions about the surplus and revenue reduction were briefly, but comprehensively, stated by a convention in the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the safest depository for a surplus, especially under a Democratic administration, is the pockets of the people; and it should remain there until the necessities of the Government demand its payment to the publicTreasu~y. In case of urgent need the patriotism and liberality of the people may always be depended upon to meet the wants of the Government without hoarding· a surplus to be made a pretext for extravagant and useless appropriations, or to tempt dishonest officials, or corrupt the public morals: and to prevent the accumulation of such surplus, and relieve the people ft·om the burdens of laxation, we are iin favor of an immediate reduction of the tax on imports and an economical expenditure of the public money in all departments of the Government-.

Resolved, That we believe, with Lincoln and the Republican party of 1860, "that, while providing rev.enue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requil·es such adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; nnd we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workill ""n:l'('n liberal wa:res, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufucturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence ," and to obtain t-he e desired ' resu lts we belie \·e the presen t tariff laws should be fail·ly and impartially revised, and adjusted in t-he interest of tbe whole people-the consumer as well as the manufactu:·er and producer-and the tax on imports greatly reduced; that all raw material not produced in this country, nnd not in direct competition with our own productions and the labor of our own people, and lumber, salt, and sugar should be placed permanently on the free-list; and other products in direct competition with American skill, labor, and enterprise, should be so aJju!ted as to cover their increased cost of manufacture and production in this country over the cost of such articles in foreign countries, and no more.

Resolced. That the honest laborer is entitled to greater protection than the dishonest capitalist-the latter can take care of himself.

The geutlea1an from Indiana [Mr. BYNUM] says: 1.'he advocates of protection tell us that the country bas grown rich nnder this

system. 'l'rue, it bas gmwn rich; but where is the wealth? In the hands of the few, while poverty abides in the homes of the many. Why is it that the great masses of the people have no share in the wealth that has been \vt·ought by their hands? Of what benefit is it to us as a nation to pour millions into the coffers of the few, when it only increases their power for greater extortions from the many?

These questions are of such vital importance that it is to be regretted that the gentleman did not at least attempt to answer them himself.

Is wealth in free-trade England so much more generally distributed that we should adopt her precepts and follow her example? My own obserYation has been that this protected country has a less number of the very poor in proportion to its population than any country I base seen. We have received into this country thirteen millions of the poor of other nat.ions, and if they aU are not now rich they have n.t least been relieved from destitution. Will the gentleman point to any free-trade country with such a record?

Eut where is the wealth? Who arc the few whose accumulations hitYe been extorted from the many? Some of our fellow-citizens have ~~ro~n rich by the advance in rea.! estate, some in l?anufacturing, .a?d .·ome in the management of flocks and herd ; and m the commumtles where they liYe they are generally con::i'.lered examples of industry ·:•r.rthy of imitation. Their wealth i" the n~n lt of honest and Jegiti::::t to enterprise. Other names than tl";'""j:,.. :-:ptill;; inYolnntarily to the ~ip.-> at the mention of the uneqnal di,tralJlil.on of wenlth.

\\·hen the chairman of the \Vays aud ~.-Ie,.n-; Committee wished to :·: ll' rt man "able to pay his boot-black ~·.Jou a <by ' l1e named Mr. Jay •.:vil l tl ; when he referred to one "able to pay his hostler $10,000 a ) l'ar" he uamed Mr. Vanderbilt. It was in telegraph, tmnsportatio~1

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3989 Standard Oil monopolies, in business una.ffected by the tariff that the greatest fortunes have been accumulated; and these men are the veTy ones whom free trade will benefit by increasing the distance between producer and consumer. The Democratic proposition is to add to the fortunes of those who control transportation by carrying our corn to England and bringing back her manufactures. The Republicans advocate building fact.ories near the growing corn.

TRUSTS.

With like disingenuousness "trusts-" have been thrown into this debate, as though they were related to the tariff and not to the Democratic party. There was no such thing as a "trust" connected with imports or any article touched by the tariff during the whole twentyfour years in which the Republicans were in power. The Peoria Journal says:

The Democratic party found the country free from "trusts" with but one exception-the Standard Oil Company. During the last three years we have heard more about the combinations of capital against labor than ever before. 'Ve have the sugar trust, the zinc trust, the envelope trust, and the Lord only knows how many more trusts have sprung into existence during the last two or three years, and that, too, upon articles that are protected by a heavy tariff. One of these, the sugar trust, will cost the people of these United States 860,000,000 annually, and it is openly espoused and fostered by both Houses of Congress-Republican and Democratic alike.

The undeniable facts stated as to the growth of trusts under Democratic rule is coupled wit an assertion in regard to Congress which is novel. For my part, I repudiate the sugar and every trust intended t.o raise the price or in any manner monopolize the necessaries of life as contrary to public policy. Our laws must protect us against home trusts; our tariff against foreign trusts.

EXECUTIVE HOBGOBLINS.

But aside from the "trusts" which have beenrecentlyorganized, there are many other reasons for doubting whether the highest pro~perity will attend the country under Democratic rule. Laws resting. upon principles distasteful to the party in power are not likely to produce satisfactory resultB. The country should be guided by its friends, and the execution of the laws shonld not be intrusted to those who believe them to be "vicious, inequitable, illogical, and unjust."

A large discretion is necessarily intrusted to the executive Government, and if those in power exercise that discretion, so as to defeat wise appropriations or refuse to pay out the surplus in canceling the indebtedness of the country on purpose to compel a change of the laws according to English theories, the officers should be changed.

Mr. Chairman, at the close of the war we were struggling under an enormous debt which enemies maliciously predicted would never be paid.• The Government addressed itself with the same earnestness to re-establishing its credit as it had to re-establishing its authority. Having accomplished that and filled the Treasury to overflowing, it was but natural to suppose that measures for the general welfare, not before possible, would be recommended for the action of Congress. I have touched upon some of the more important of them, telegraphic com.: munication, transportation, the internal waterways, the ocean marine, and the consideration due thesoldierswho defended the State. Other governments in times of peace and prosperity devote especial care to these objects, and there is not a civilized government in existence today except our own which neglects them.

But these are questions calculated neither to delude :M:ugwumps, satisfy Wall-street money operators, nor arouse Democratic partisanship, and therefore in pla<!e of them have been substituted civil service, silver coinage, and the tariff. To each of these subjects in turn is assigned the exaggerated importance and unenviable honor of threatening the Republic with destruction and disaster. In President Cleveland's first message the dangers arising from Jacksonian Democrats aspiring in a fr~e country to hold public office was thus described:

Doubts may well be entertained whether our Government could survive the strain of a continuance of this system, which, upon every change of administration, inspires an immense army of claimants for office to lay siege to the patronage of the Government, engrossing the time of public officers with their Importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.

I ha-ve already quoted the predictions of ''disaster'' and ''danger'' to the Republic waiting "upon a continuation of the present silver coinage,'' and we are now assailed by the mythical terrors of a tariff.

To patriotic Americans devoted to the progress and glory of the Republic, to those who have demonstrated their willingness to shed their blood or lay down their lives in its defense, the solemn declaration of the Chief Executive that the country is in danger is a startling message calculated to excite profound concern. This generation has been confronted with all the responsibilities arising from such a peril, and many of them have been subjected to the rigid rule of war which decrees death to him who sounds a false al.arm. Why was the long roll beaten, and against what wa-s the country to be defended? Against the civil service of President .Jackson; against a silver coinage which existed from the beginning of the Government, and which attracted no attention until we felt the disastrous effects of stopping it; against a tariff under which the country has prospered beyond the wildest dreams of propltecy.

We are told that the marvelous prosperity of this country since1861 "Vas not due to Republican policy, but has come in spite of it. The

Pharisees of the Democratic party perceive that their creed is in danger, and though unable to deny that prosperity and progress distinguished every year of Republican rule, yet lift their hands in holy horror at the suggestion that it was due to the party in power. Addressing their partisans, who were blind, but now see that the truth conflicts with the Democratic creed, they exclaim, ."Give the natural resources all the praise; we know that the Republican party is a sinner."

To develop these national resources was the Republican purpose-a purpose which the Democratic reaetionary creed declares to be unconstitutionaL It was protection to home industries-agricultura.l and mechanical-free land to homesteaders, and the creation of a currency when money was found to be too scarce to carry on the business of the country; it was the prompt and wise governmental expenditures for necessary objects made by the Republican party in spite of Democratic protests and resistance which not merely saved the Union but placed it in the front rank of nations.

It should not be forgotten that when the Republicans came into power the Government had neither money nor credit; they left it with an overflowing Treasury and peerless credit. The false economy of the Democratic party since it has returned to power has hoarded money idly in the Treasury, curtailed the circulating medium, and squeezed the life out of the business of the country for the purpose of overthrowing the American policy, or, asitwas expressed by an eloquentlllinois Irishman, in order to "put out the furnace fires in America and light them on a foreign soil." [Applause.]

Mr. VANCE. Mr. Chairman, the State which I have the honor in part to represent is essentially a manufacturing one. The cheap wheat, corn, pork, and beef of the Westhavemadefarming a subsidiary occupation. There was a time when the farmers of Connecticut took from the soil enough for their own State and to spare for others, but this time bas gone, and were it notfor the markets made for the minor products

\of their soil, as well as the peculiar adaptability of the land for "the cultivation of specific articles, the farmers' occupation would be gone. · Nothing so well illustrates the success of the Western farmer, with his many advantages in the great crops, as the decadence of the Connecticut agriculturist in the same pursuit, and nowhere can a stronger argument be found, if we care to reason by analogy, for looking with suspicion upon foreign nations who, with cheap labor as their advantage, can bring about a similar result. The lesson within the limits of this country is one to which we can take no exceptions, indeed we all glory in the success of theW est and the growing greatness of the South, but we can draw a moral from it, and that morarleads one to the inevitable conclusion that the problem differs when we view it from an international standpoint. We must allow the advantages of situation to rule between the States, although we can not allow England to dictate our commercial policy or hand over to Europe the opportunity to put a price upon our labor. ·

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, my district is a manufacturing one, filled with busy industries, populated with men who are compelled to toil in order that they may eat; and with workmen who, by their skill and ingenuity, have helped to make Connecticut known all over this land. This is also true of the whole State, and it is for this reason that the outcome of this discussion is watched with so much interest, and why I desire to voice what I take to be the sentiments of those who sent me here.

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I do not care to base my appeal upon the shifting sands of figures. This House has been inundated with statements and bombarded with statistics. Perhaps they prove something and perhaps they do not. Arithmetic is usually supposed to be exact, but when the science of making figures support arguments is called upon in a tariff discussion the honors seem to be very easy. The statesman who can, with the aid of a few characters, demonstrate that~ a reduction of duty on a certain article 50 per cent. means a corresponding dimmution of revenue may be ingeniouS, although I hardly think he is wise.

There is one item within the domain of computation, however, which allows of no contradiction. It is doubtless true that within a few months the surplus in the vaults of the Treasury will be at least $130.000,000, and it follows that if Congress does not devise some method by which these vaults can be opened and the funds disseminated among the people the result will be an extremely disastrous-one. The circulating medium which was free is none too small for the good of the country, but if it is to be locked up at the rate of over $2,000,000 a week the ine:vitable result will be ruin and disaster. This is freely admitted, and it is also acknowledged that there is but one cure for the trouble, one panacea for the evil-reduction of taxation.

Just here appears to be the division of sentiment; for the protective idea enters as an element in the controversy, and men may differ as to the ~ants of their particular districts, although admitting that it would not be wise to ignore the demands of other locations. The people whom I represent do not object to a reduction of revenue-indeed, they demand it. They do ask, however, that it be accompanied with a proper regard for their needs. They are not philosophers. They look at life from the practical, not the theoretical, standpoint. Their chief aim is to secure a livelihooP.; they are content to gain that, for the competition in the labor market, which our Republican friends seem to regard

3!J90 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

with so much complacency, puts the price of labor at the lowest point. They do noy spend much time in studying the census reports; they are not adepts in discussing economic points; they have had no time in the busy struggle for existence to become visionaries, while their reading has not, in but few cases, included any one of that line of writers, from Adam Smith to Prof~or Sumner or Henry George, who seem to be quoted so much now. They are not averse to a reduction of the tariff provided it is a judicious one, and provided it leaves margin enough to protect them from the condition which many crossed the sea to escape. They recognize that even with the higher prices of labor which obtain here there is much which they produce which can be put upon the free-list if needs be, but they also are forced to the conclusion that there is still need of a duty on some articles.

They accept that declaration in the national Democratic platform of 1884 as sound doctrine, which states that in the revision of the revenue laws the industrial interests of the country shall be guarded and labor protected against the cheaper prices of labor in Europe. They do not believe in monopolies, they desire to have the needs of labor fully recognized in legislation which affects either national or international problems, but they want no law passed which interferes with the price of their labor; and they are firm in their convictions that the rugnity of the workingman should be upheld by not accepting as a criterion any condition of things or any country which debases the employe or looks upon all labor as a system of serfdom. In other words, they do not regard protection as a fetich-the time has passed for that-although they do not discard it as a system which is an element in the problem of' their existence. The worship has changed to respect, but the respect is deep seated, and it has a reason for its existence in this form.

No class of persons can be relied upon to favor the reduction or abolition of a customs duty if it fosters or upholds a monopoly, or if it leads to excessive or burdensome profits which are taken from the people, more than the average voter in New England; while on the othet· hand this same cia~ will object most strenuously to a reduction which takes a fair return from capital and puts labor at a disadvantage. Therefore I say, gentlemen, that I favor a judicious revision of the taxes imposed on imports. .1\fany of them are high and can be reduced; others can he abOlished altogether, with good results, in my opinion, while there are some which should not be interfered with. In other words, I think I am in line with those who sent me here, and in accord with the best sentiment of my State, when I say that what we want, and what the majority on this side of the House is disposed to give us, is a tariff which protects when protection can be shown to be a necessity-not a tariff which pampers or gives riches to one while it aids in making many poorer.

In illustration of this point-the necessity of a proper discrimination-allow me to call your attention to one industry which the bill under consideration treats, I imagine by an oversight, ratherrigorously, and this becomes a better illustration when I allude to the fact that the article under consideration is made by manufacturers who in several instances make other goods in the main. They are not asking for protection on the major part of their output, and yet it is given them, while on the minor portion, where it is needed, the bill deprives them of it. I allude to the manufacture of the article commercially known as wood-screws, which are used by every carpenter and wood-worker in the country, and which are made from iron rods by automatic machinery. This industry has practically grown up in this country since 1861, and although the tariff of 1883 reduced the duty it has managed to continue in existence. It employs $5,000,000 in capital in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and produces a product of $2,-000,000 each year. It was for a time assisted by the patents on its

, machinery, but these have now expired. The natural competition has reduced the price 60 per cent. within

the last few years, while the bill reported by the Ways and Meaus Committee now proposes to increase the duty on the iron rods from sixtenths to 1 cent a pound, and at the same time reduce that on the finished article about 5(} per cent., or to 35 per cent. ad valorem.

That such a reduction would be ruinous to the business is self-evident. It is simply nece..'Gary to study the following table, giving the distribution of the cost of the article, to pfove it: Labor ......... .......................................... ..................................................... ....... ~ Material: ·

Dutyon .......................................... .................................................. .......... 16t Rods .......................... . ............. ................................................................... 31

Other expenses, e:orcluding profit ........................... .......................................... 12

It will easily be seen by the above that any reduction in cost must be met by a corresponding decrease in wages, the other elements being fixed; and to illustrate the competition which must be met, I call your attention to the following table, which places the cost of production of the sizes whicb are classified under the sections of the present lawnot the selling price, but the cost of manufacture-in contradistinction to t-he English export price: Cla u se 12c.-Average of twenty sizes :

One gross U nited States cost to produce ......................... 062! One gross English e.xport pl'ice ....................................... 0366

Differen ce ................................................................... . . 0258 = 70 per cent.

Clause lOc.-Average of thirty-six sizes: One gross United States cost to produce ......................... 1076 One gross English export price...................................... . 0613

Difference .................................................................. -:o463' = 75 p er cent Clause 8c.-Average of fifty-three sizes: ·

One gross United States cost to produce ......................... 224.0 English export price......................................... ............ .ll89

Difference .................................................................... ~ = 88 per cent Cla use 6c.-Average of seventy-six sizes: •

One ~oss United St-ates cost to produce ......................... 7089 · English export price . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . ... . .. . .. .. .. . .. .... . .... ... .. ... . ... . 4209

Difference ............................................................ .. ....... 2880 = 70 per cent.

Thus the English list, with the discounts of 80, 2~, and 5 per cent. on 185 sizes averages 73 per cent. less than United States cost to pro~ duce.

The labor is done by automatic machinery, the human aid necessary being low priced, and it is just this point which makes the reduction all the more oppressive. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MILLS] alluded in eloquent terms the other day to the change which had been accomplished by American ingenuity and the skill of the American inventor.

If we could confine the results of this skill to our own country in this case the tariff tax would be a question of no moment but with American machines running in Italy, as they now are, :Mr. Chairman and with I~ labor at from 10 to 20 cents a day, when simila; labor costs here from 50 to 60 cents, protection becomes a vital matter. It resolves itselfintoasimplequestionofthe costoflaborin thi.s country and in Europe, and t.he result is inevitable. I desire, Mr. Chairman, in order that this House may have a better conception of thiB matter than I have had time to give it, to submit the following:

THE WOOD-SCREW MANUFA.CTURING INDUSTRY,

. In the bill to reduce taxation, etc.! introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr .. MILLs from the Committee on 'Vays and l'tfeans, on page 20, lines 275 and 276, 1t reads:

"Screws, commonly called wood-screws, 35 per cent. ad valorem." Except under very great reduction in the price paid to American labor it will

be impossible to continue the manufacture of wood-screws in the United' States if this becomes ala w; and therefore, in behalf of the great number of American workmen employed at remunerative wages in the manufacture of wood-screws the capital ~nv~ste~ in the b?-siness, located in six different States, the great cost of speClal mtncate machinery, worthless for other purposes than screw manufacture, we ask that this clause be stricken from the Mills bill; and in support thereof your considerate attention is respectfully invited to the follow· ingstatements:

The first screw factory of importance in the United States was established in 1838, or fifty years ago.

From 1838 until1860, during the period of great depression in general manufacturing business, consequent in part on the very slight duties on fort!'lgn importations, numerous wood-screw industries were started in the United States but at the end of this period the two surviving companies of any importance; and they the owners of valuable letters patent upon wood-screw· machinery, consolidated their capital and plants into one corporation. ·

Under the letters patents then controlled by this one company on screw-making machinery, including also a patent on a gimJet-point screw there were during the continuance of the life of these letters patent, no successful results following attempts made by other parties to manufacture wood-screws, and there is not now in e:ristence in the United States but one other screw-manufacturing company that started into the business prior to 1870, but the whole way was strewn with wrecks of earnest endeavors to found the business.

Under this condition of things, the tariff of 8 and 11 cents per pound, according to size, on wood-screws, was adopted in 1861, which rates continued until changed by the pre ent law, enacted in 1883, effecting considerable reduction in the average duties imposed.

There are more than six hundred sizes, lengths, and kinds of wood screws, in the regular assortment ranging from -}-inch, No. 0, to 6-inch, No. 30, made from iron, brass, and bronze wire, each size and length of different list price, and each kind of different discount; and the detailed knowledge and labor necessary to justly fix an ad valorem duty on each invoice of screws imported would be so great that a wide door will be opened to fraudulent importations. Under the present law it is only necessary to determine within which of the four classes of rates the importations may come by length and the weight included in each class of lengths to correctly fix the duties thereon.

During the period from 1861 to 1875 inclusive the average net price per gross of wood-screws was about 38 cents, the price varying higher or lower at different periods during the several years. It was prior to the close of this period, when, it is now alleged, a. portion of the then existing makers induced the English makers, for a. consideration, not to export their screws to this country. The principal screw makers at that time in England were Nettleford &; Chamberlain, of Birmingham, who then owned the English letters patent on the latest and most improved screw machinery, as well as the English patent on the gimlet-point screw. The Net.tleford ·& Chamberlain Company has since that pe1·iod, with other English companies, been consolidated into the present corporation, the Nettlefords Company, Limited, Biriil.ingham, England.

The statements regarding the peculiar arrangement between the American companies and the Nettleford & Chamberlain Company seems to have reached the general public through after-dinner remarks made by 1\Ir. Chamberlain at a dinner given him in Birmingham, England, last November, upon the eve of his departure for America as English commissioner upon the fisheries questions pending between the United States and Canada; and also through other statements made while he was in Washington; and it does not appear that the English party is not now desirous ot renewing the arrangement.

Whatever may be the truth in the matter, it is safe tosaytheamountinvoh·ed has b een greatly overstated, and whatever onus there may be should bear alike on both parties to the transaction, and certainly should not and can n ot justly attach to the screw industries of this country at this time, because thr eeqnat·tet·s of the screw comp anies now in existence were not then manufacture rs of scre ws, and o nly a portion ofthosethenin e:ristencearealleged to ha\e been p a rticipa nts in the transaction. F rom the year 1876 to the close of the y ear 1 7 wood-screws h ave averaged i n price about 15 cents per gro s, being only 40 per cent. o f t he :t'{'erRge p rice during tbeprevious term of years while the business W RS p rotected by t h e lette rs patents on screw machinery. •

During- the last. tt>rm of y ears the sharp competition among American manufacturers has held the price so low that the most favorably located companies

1888. CONGRE SION.AL RECORD-HOUSE. 3991 ha.ve not earned more than an average of 8 per cent. per annum on their inve tments, while. many have realized much less, and severn.! have wholly abandoned the business. The largest screw manufactory in the United Sta.tespaid to it stockholders no return whatever after Januaryl, 188!, unti1January,1888, and then only 1 per cent. on its capital stock, yet this company is believed by many now to be making large profits and to be a "great screw monopoly," which monopoly, in fact., existed only while under the protection of letters patents prior to 1875, and no company has since that date had any monopoly of the screw business.

There are now in the United States fourteen co=panies manufacturing wool serews-two in llla:ssachusetts, one in Rhode Island, seven in Connecticut, one in Pennsylvania, two in Ohio, and one in Illinois.

The industry employs directly more than thirty-five hundred people and au n.etive capital in excess of $>,000,000, not including a large amount on which no returns are expected, but which has been sunk in machinery suppla.nt~d by other machines havin~ latest improvements. .A. large share of this entire capital has been invested in the business since the tariff of 1861 and more than twothirds of the aggregate since 1874.

Whatever may be the statistical average of incren.se of the cost of labor in this country over that of similar labor in foreign countries, it is true of this industry that the screw manufacturers of the Unit~d States pay their labor three times as much as the same labor, male or female, is paid in Italy, two and one-ha.!f times as much as in Germany or Belgium, twice as muc as in France, and nearly twice as much as in England.

Substantially the same pattern of machinery, 1..-nown ns the Hartford machines, which combine the best featm~es used in screw machinery prior to the expiration of letters ~nt, with later impro>ements made, are in u e as pattern machines in the screw-works in the various foreign countries. The latest shipment of pattern mnchineswasmadetoNorwaywithinthe pastfewmonths.

There can be no considerable difference in the productive capacity of the machine, whether it be operated in the United States or in any foreign countrythe speed of the machine is controlled by the motive power which determines the rapidity of production-and certainly oar foreign competitors &re not behind us in the pertection of their motive power; consequently a. day's cheap labor operating this machine in any foreign country will produce the same nmnber of . and just as good screws as a day's well-paid labor in the Uniloo States.

The wire from which the screws are made, which to the screw-maker is raw material, costs about double in this country over that of England and Germ..'Uly. The rods from which U1e wire is drawn are now protected ~\- of one cent per pound, equal to about 50 percent. ad valorem, and if the l\Ii.lls bill contemplates an increa e of -It cents per pound, on screw-wire rods, making a new rate of one cent, which equals about 80 per cent. ad valorem, an additional burden will be laid upon the screw busine s. Other materials used in preparing the goods for market show a bent the same excess in cost o>er that used abroad. as is shown in t.he wire, and this, too, is wholly the product of .American labor. Notwithstanding the great reduction in market value of screws during the past twelve years, there has not been any reduction in the gold cost of labor during these years over the cost of labor during the previous period of fifteen years.

There is no margin whatever for the reduction of the tariff on wGod-screws without seriously crippling the industry, and unle...c;g corresponding reduction be =ade in the cost of America.n labor a reduction in the tariff will absolutely destroy the business, wipe out a large part of the inv~stments, and transfer the :manufacture of screws to foreign territory. During the tariff agitation of 186t to 1883, fearing untoward legislation, the .A.meri(l:lll Screw Company of Providence removed a portion of its machinery to Canada, and has recently built new and enlarged works there, preparing, in the event of a reduced ta.dff here, to manufacture, with Canadian labor and free material, wood-screws to supply the .American markets, and this while Canada protects its screw manufacturers by a tariff fully equal in effect to the present .American duty on screws. Besides this, such legisl tion would, while closing the .American market against American labor, open wide the doors for the infiow of screws from all foreign coun-tries. '

The manufacturers of wood screws do not knock at the door of Congress asking for special legislation .to promote an infant iud us try nor to SQ legislate that their in vestments be specially profitable; but they do ask that they may 1·eta.iu their American workmen at fair wages in this industry; that their capital, some of it contributed by widows and orphans as their only means of support, inve ted in the business when the laws of the United States afforded reaS<>nable protection against cheap foreign Ll.bor, capital largely expended in valuable and intricate special machlnery, worthless for other than screw-mal...-ing purposes, sbiill not by any legislation be destroyed and the4" industry banished from the United States and their employes driven to seek and learn other trades or find other employment less remunerative to themselves.

But rather that the law shall remain as now, in the enactment of 1883, affording reasonable wages to labor, a. fair return upon the capital e=ployed in this .American industry,and thus "strengthen the things tha.t remain."

All of which is respectfully submitted in behalf of the screw manufaeturers of the United Sts.te .

MAY 5,1888.

Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to become an exile from the district which sent me here, and if I were to vote for the proposal before the Honse in regard to this industry I certainly wonld deserve to be. Not caring to be an Ishmaelite, I can not vote to put myself on record as against the interests of my district. 'I'here are thirty-five lmndred people engaged in the manufacture of wood screws. Two-thirds of this nnm ber are employed in Connecticut, and fifteen hund.red of these are to-day at work in the city where I reside. Their interest is my interest; their reasonable desires are my mo~ves, and I can not look upon any reform with favor which eX!lcis as a requisite that the source of lhelihood which these people now have should be tumbled in ruin upon them, as was Pompeii n})Qn its residents.

And while I am discussing this point may I :c.ot allude to the impression that has -wrongfully been given out in certain locations and has been•more than once alluded to on this floor? I refer to the idea tbat this whole country is being drained of its substance for the benefit of the manufacturer, and that this class are the Shylocks of the times . If the majority ofthis House were as familiar with this portion of the people .of New England as I they would hesitate before g~ving credence to such ideas and halt before they turned to indiscriminate reductions of duties for relief. It is true that many manufacturers have become rich men; but did the tariff aid them? In nine cases out of ten the an wer is no.

You ask what did, and I reply by stating that you will find the true cause of rapid enrichment in the m-onopolies which the patent laws offer.

These la.ws give a protection which is out of the reach of any law re. ducing duties to restrict. They give the producer the privilege of charging what he pleases for his wares, and in them we have the foun· dation of almost every one of the colossal fortunes which h..we been made by manufactureTS of late. I do I).Ot care to discuss the justice of the present patent laws at this time, but I do desire to call the attention of the House to the erroneous assumption that the tariff and the protection which it gives allows one class to levy tribute upon another. Where competition rules in manufacturing the inevitable result is a cheapening ·of prices and a reduction of profits.

If you will honestly and in candor inqnire into the question of profits . you will find that a great number of American manufacturing establishments pay no dividends at all in some instances for several successive years. Others pay much less than the current rate of interest, and what justification the facts give for this talk about the enormous profits made is difficult to see. There is any amount of latent capital awaiting investment at 6 or even 5 per cent., and this capital will rush like air into a vacuum if it can be shown that dividends at such rates will be :paid.

'l'he idea that a protective tariff brings enormous profits in its train should be exploded. It is false, pernicious, and misleading, and has no reason behind it in these days of fierce strife for the market and constant competition between manufacturers. It can in no way be upheld except by ascribing to it the profits of monopolists, iheresultofb:rains, the outcome of indefatigable labor and stndy, or of business skill and shrewdness. Such results in dollars and cents the tariff can not abate, and if a desire rules to regulate these elements-the ones which are the source of all great returns-it must make itself felt outside of tariff legislation. If these elements are an evil to be fought, the tariff club is certainly not the weapon to be taken up against them. It would be simply a repetition of the contest between David and Goliah.

All this has been used as the argument of the Southern and Western farmer. I do not find fault with my associates for defending the farmers, although I do object to the putting of false arguments in their mouths. The truth is most potent, and the farmer is not being levied upon in any such ratio as is represented to him. But if this sympathy is genuine why should it not be univer&'ll? Why is the farmer in the East exempted from its embrace? What have the agriculturists in Connecticut done to put them away from the effects of this gentle dew of commiseration? It seems to me, under the circumstances, their Western and South

ern brethren in occupation havingtaken from them thechance to profitably cultivate the great crops, that they are entitled .to a greater portion of this intense desire to alleviate the burdens of their class than those of any other State. Has this been the result? No. Does the bill under comider:1tion embody it? No; on the contrary, it seems to single them out to bear the greatest burden, and exacts from them more concessions than it ~ks from any mechanical industry. I beli~ve this to be an unintentional error, but it is an error neve1·theless which would do great damage, as I think I can show.

Our farmers have one source of revenue which nature seems to lk'tYO

guarantied to them in the cultivation of tobacco suitable for the manufacture of cigam. The tobaccos of different States have different qualities, and while the Carolinas, Vrrginia, and Kentucky produce a crop which enters into the composition ofmanufactured tobacco, it remains for Connecticut and New York in the main to furnish the leaf of which cigars are made.

The proposed bill proposes to reduce the dnty on leaf-tobacco from 75 to 35 cents a pound, and while I know these rustinctions are odious, I ask you to examine the e:tfectofthis reduction from a sect.ional point of view. We will take, if you please, three of the States producing tobacco which is used in the .composition of manufactured tobacco, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina, and compare their crops with that of the cigar tobacco grown in Connecticut. The last censusputsit as follows: ·

Pounds.

Kentucky ..... - ..• ....... ·-····················-·········-········· ... •··· ..•................. 171,120,840 Virginia···--·· ···-···-·························~··~··········--································· 80,000,000 North Carolina.. .......... ........ -··-···-········-·-··················-····················· 26,986,218 Connecticut ................................................................. ·" .........•.... - ...• 1{, 044., 052

The relative importance of these States as tobacco producers ean be seen at a glance, and yet this proposed reduction affects Connecticut and the leaf-producing States alone for the very simple reason that the other States all export their crop in large quantities. Even now with the present rate of duty Sumatra tobacco, used for cigars alone, has greatly reduced the price of the Connecticut product; 3,651,349 pounds were imported within the Jast fiscal year alone. Listen to the following :figures, which give the imports and exports for the three months ending December 31, 1887: Imported: 6,638,477 pou!lds, valued at ......... ·-···· .......•........................... . $4, 394,809 Exported: 60,130,362 pounds, valued at............ ..................... ...... ... ........ 5, 205, 047

It will thus be seen that one sort of tobacco is exported largely, while anotheT is imported. The latter is the qnality which comes iu direct competition with leaf-tobacco, and it is now proposed to increase this competition and drive Connecticut farmers out of the field.

It is simply a question whether a Dutch syndicate or the American


farmer be given the preference, whether this tobacco iB to be grown by cooly labor or American citizens; and as for me I have no h~itation in declaring in favor of thefarmer who tills our land, pays his taxes here, and is with us and of us. It pleases me to say that the farmers who produce tobacco are practically in unison on this issue as far as I can learn. There iB no desire on the part of the Southern farmer who is not :financially troubled by this proposed reduction to have his Northern and Western brothers wrecked by it. He can see no reason why the difference in soil and the consequent difference in product should create invidious distinctions. He wants justice to tobacco-raisers as a class, and he does not accept hisownimmunity as all that is necessary, but allows his desires to cover all classes and to extend to all locations.

The farmers who cultivate tobacco have for years been clamoring for an abolition of the internal-revenue tax upon their manufactured product, and in this cry the interests of all sections have been united. They think that the $30,108,067.13 which was last year collected is an odious tax and a restriction upon their calling which the needs of the Government do not warrant. This cry bas but partially been heeded by the gentlemen on the Ways and Means Committee. They have recommended that the tax be "taken from manufactured tobacco, but fail to complete the work commenced by making it thorough. Is there any reason why this reform should stop at the door of the Connecticut farmer or leave his crop and its product as a spared monument to remind the people of the war period? None at all.

The committee have admitted, by the partial action which they have taken, that this theory is a good one, and there is no reason w by they should halt when it is but partially exemplified. This becomes all the more apparent when we note that the justice of the farmer's claim is admitted by a recommendation that the restrictions be taken from him and that he be allowed to sell his crop to whom he pleases. The committee evidently desire to do this, but the results will not follow their intentions. The only way in which this can be practically accomplished is to allow all, who have the skill, to make cigars-thus is the market thrown open in truth and not in theory. As long as the present restrictions remain the market is in the hands of monopolists who can make prices at their own option, as they have done, and the farmer is still at their mercy.

It seems anomalous to reflect upon the results of a bill which endeavors to do justice, but alters no condition now obtaining. It offers the farmer the right to sell to whom he pleases in one clau!;e, while in another it says that the number of persons who can buy or use his ~bacco shall be practically limited. It would be just as reasonable to restrict the number of millers and then state that a wheat-producer could sell to any,one. People who have no use for commodities do not usually buy them, and the privilege of selling to purchasers who do not want to buy is rather a barren one.

There is no alternative. If this House desires to give the farmer the same right to sell his tobacco that he now bas to dispose of his wheat, it can be done practically in no other way than by a total abolition of the tax on the manufactured product. There are no better students of this problem than the men who have to cope with it every day,and as a result of their experience I submit the following resolution, adopted by the New England Tobacco-Growers' Association, October 29, 1887:

Resolved That we unanimously favor and aggressively demand the aboliHou of all' internal-revenue taxes on tobacco and all internal restrictions on the tobacco tra de. In short , we demand free leaf of our own growing. We have subn:lltted patiently and patriotically to the present war tax, but now that (happily) the occasion for it no longer exists, we empbatics.lly protest agaiJ?St it and the restrictions and monopolies the internal-revenue system fosters 1n the tobacco industey.

Looking at this proposed law from the standpoint of the tax-collector de\elops a fact which is sufficient to condemn it. If it is thought best to collect a tax on cigars, nothing should be done to interfere with the thorough and efficient administration of the law. This, under the bill proposed, would be impossible. The restriction upon the farmer gives the data for the collection of the tax; that was the reason of its imposition, and without it no check remains or no guard exists by which manufacturers w bo retail can be compelled to pay their full proportion ,of tax if they see fit to evade the law. That it would put the large manufacturer who wholesales and the dealer who retails at the mercy of the ones who manufacture and also retail is self-evident, and as the tax is $3 per thousand, it can easily be seen that the temptation is great so to do.

It surely puts a premium on fraud and extends an opportunity for swindling without a possible chance of detection. The effect of the revenue tax on tobacco and cigars is a subject with which the people of Connecticut are familiar; the sentiment in favor of its total abolition has been gradually growing as the cause of the evils which it fosters and breeds bas been investigated, and as the latest crystallization of this sentiment I present the following section of the platform adopted by the Democracy of my State at a convention held but one week since:

Resolved, That the Democracy of Connecticut respectfully appeal to Congress to so amend the internal-revenue t-axes as to p ermit producers of tobacco to dispose of the ir crops as the farmers are permitted to dispose of their wheat , and that every individual or family may be permitted to manufacture our l eaftobacco without being subjected to arrest., fine, or imprisonment as criminals.

But there is anothnr argument which can be advanced in regard to the reform which I hope to see incorporated in this bilJ, ~n <l th:-t is the

one put forward by the workingmen. Thirty years ago when our farmer marketed his crop as he pleased, and when any person who could make cigars was allowed to do so wit"ilout being hampered, there were at least thirty persons making cigars in the district I have the honor to represent where there ii! one now. The tax has fortified the monopolists so strongly and aided the large manufacturers so materially that the individual bas had to succumb.

The mechanic is denied the right to exercise his calling by a Government that exacts a tribute which it has no use for. He is compelled to give bonds to snbrnit to a surveillance almost inquisitorial, to regulate his business by a law which he can not interpret, and in addition he must keep his accounts to the satisfaction of the guardian which the Government appoints to watch him. This, gentlemen, is the only branch of business in which a mechanic must have two trades in order to get a living by following one, for if be be never so good a cigarmaker be must of needs have a knowledge of book-keeping before his trade can be used. If he desires to exercise that privilege which all Americans are supposed to have, the laudable ambition to be his own master, he is debarred. He lives in fear of the collector and in the shadow of the jail. He turns to the law for infQrma.tion, to quiet his fears and dispel his apprehensions, and his consolation reads as follows:

He (the violator) shall, in addition to the penaHies elsewhere provided in this title for such offenses, forfeit to the United States all raw material and manufactured or partly manufactured tobacco and cigars, and all machinery, tool&, implements, apparatus. fixtures, boxes, barrels, and all other materials which shall be found in his possession or in his manufactory, and used in his business as such manufacturer, together with his estate or interest in the building or factory and the lot or tract of ground on which such factory or building is located, and all appurtenances thereunto belonging.

This is but a sample. It is simply the penalty for having in his possession an emptycigar-boxon which the stamp has not been destroyed. I could, if I had the time, give you many more choice selections from the cigar-makers Koran, but the above will convey a general idea of their rigor and positiveness. If he keeps out of jail he is extremely fortunate, and if he is not driven out of business by the milder punishment of a fine he congratulates himself. He is watched, harassed, treated as a thief, and compelled to disclose the results of his business by stating to whom his goods are sold and incidentally what prices they bring. He finally deserts the contest in deRpair, he can not compete with his greater rivals, and he relapses into his old state of dependency. His ambition is crushed, his hopes are wrecked, and be naturally looks upon the Government as the instrumentality. A.nd all this is possible in free America !

That this system of taxation has never been popular is a truth, and that it would be particularly oppressive if no part of it but that which applies to the growers and manufacturers of cigar-tobacco was allowed to remain must be apparent. We can go back to 1875 in the reports of the Commissioners of Internal Revenue and discover that Ron. D. D. ·Pratt; then acting, denounced the law in the following words:

These forms of taxation have never met with popular favor, and, with the exception ofthepresentrevenuelaw,bavenever maintained their footing upon the statute-book for any considerable time. The tax-gatherer from earliest history bas been an unwelcome presence and his business an ungracious one. His office is inquisitorial in its very nature, leading to inquiries in to people's affairs, the condition oftheir business, their losses and gains, matters w h ich most people prefer keeping secret from the public. The process of assessment and collection is summary, involving in case of delinquency penalties and sacrifice of property. The tax is & palpable thing to be paid, or some cherish ed possession is to be sold to meet it.

1\o circumstances of poverty, misfortune, sickness. or dealb stay the distraint. Injustice in the assessment itself is relievable only by a circuitous process , involving first an application for abatement, next an application for a ref~d after the tax is paid or collected, and, these being oveuuled, an appeal to the courts against the collector. Here at last the claimant, who bas insisted that he either owed no tax at all, or a tax less than that demanded, collects from the Government what he bas compulsorily paid, but frequently nt the expense of ruinous delay and sacrifice.

And now, Mr. ChairiWUl, I desire but to say in closing that the people of Connecticut desire a reduction of t.he revenue to the needs of the Government. They desire, as I have said before, that that portion which is to come from customs duties shall be deducted with discrimination. They are of the opinion that no sacrifices should be made to obtain a visionary foreign trade, and they think that when an E>dious tax can be removed with no attendant result but good it should be done. They fail to see why the farmers and men with one particular trade should be singled out for oppression by taxation, and they urge emphatically that justice shall be extended to all. This is their belief, and I hope the results reached by this House will indorse it. [Applause.]

1\Ir. WHITING, of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of the debate upon this bill it was not my intention to take any of the time of the House for the expression of my views; but since the gentlemen upon the other side have so grossly misrepresented the condition of things, as I conceive them to be, at least in Michigan, a part of which I ~have the honor to represent, and when I see them unwilling to meet this issue in a manly way, Mr. Chairman, I consider it a duty to state, in as brief a manner as possible, in what condition of prosperity, in my opinion, this bill :finds us after twenty-five years of Republican cont1·ol, and what will be its effect should it become a law.

Mr. Chairman, I view with concern and regret, the present and

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 3993 rapidlyincreasinginequalities existing among our people. And it seems to me that the man who is unable to discover, or who willingly closes his eyes to this most unfortunate tendency in our ·social life, is unworthy the inheritance bequeathed him by the founders of our Government. And he who does not know that it is the result of iniquitous class laws has given the social and political aspect of our country but little consideration. Allow me to call your attention to the warning of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS], delivered February 15, 1878, in the United States Senate. Mr. INGALLS said:

We can not disguise the truth that we are on the verge of an impending revolution;

THE OLD ISSUES ARE DEAD.

Mr. Chairman, how strangely this contrasts with this gentleman's recent brutal attack upon the honored memories of McClellan and HanC<'ck, for the evident purpose of reviving these "dead issues;" and how eagerly the members upon this floor, in weak imitation of their chief, harangue this House, and through it the country at large, about '' slavery,'' the '' ignorance,'' the '' violence,'' a.nd the '' fraud of the South," and the "evil designs " of the "Confederate brigadiers," all for one purpose-to trade upon men's prejudices rather than their intelligence. Mr. Chairman, there is another side to this charge against the solid South. While I admit that the South came out of the war crippled and impoverished, feeling greater need for the lessening of unnecessary and burdensome taxation, still, gentlemen, let me read to you the tariff plank of the Greenback _party of Michigan, adopted at the convention in 1886. It reads as follows:

The Constitut'ion expressly declares that Congress shall have powet· to levy a tariff for revenue; therefore we declare that we favor a constitutional tariff tor revenue so adjusted as to afford protection to such industries as employ labor without creating monopoly of any kind or increasing the burden of other in d. usries; and a tariff baljed upol! the selfish idea of protection to auy particular individual business or branch of industry at the expense or to the detriment of others is not only unconstitutional, at variance with the true theory of the Government, which is equality of persons and property before the law, but unjust and oppressive to the laboring and COiisuming classes of tho country and directly calculated to destroy industrial enterprise, establish manufacturing corporations, and build up colossal fortunes for the few at the expense of the many, and we denounce it as hypocritical, oppressive, and unjust.

Does not this furnish ample proof that it is not the South alone that desires, that asks this relief for her people? This party cast some 40,000 votes in :Michigan, and upon this question is in direct sympathy with the Democratic party, and,I\:lr. Chairman, I give it as my deliberate conviction that if we were to have a fair expression at the polls in November next upon this tariff question;uninfluenced by the money of the millionaires, made such by protection, Michigan would not send one Republican to the Fifty-first Congre...~. The people of Michigan want cheaper food, clothing, lumber, and farming implements. They are aware that they can escape the whisky and tobacco tax, if they so desire, by leaving these articles alone, and they also know that Congress alone has the power to furnish them t.he cheaper necessaries of life.

Mr. Chairman, let me quote further from the speech of the Kansas Senator. Mr. INGALLS proceeds:

The people are arraying themselves upon one side or the other of a portentous contest. On one side is capital, formidably intrenched in privilege, ~~orrogant from continued triumph, conservative, tenacious to old theories, demanding new concessions, enriched by domestic levy and foreign commerce, and struggline- to adjust all values to its own standard. On the other is labor, asking for employment, striving to develop domestic industries, battling with the forces of nature. and subduing the wilderness; labor, starving and sullen in cities, resolutely determined to overthrow a system under which the rich are growing richer aud the poor are growing poorer; a system which gives to a Vanderbilt the possession of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice and condemns the poor to a poverty which has no refuge from starvation but the prison or the grave.

Why did the able Senator abandon his convictions and again turn a deaf ear to the cause of oppressed humanity? Mr. Chairman, it was because he could not carry his party with him, although he was by no means the only ope who was temporarily conscience-stricken.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] has a history in this connection well known and so unsavory to the great majority of the people of Michigan that, were he a Presidential candidate, Michigan's place in the coming campaign would be predetermined. Nor was the knowledge that the legislation of their party was disastrous restricted to these gentlemen. The leaders of the party generally knew that their policy was viciou..q from the time they began paying the bondholder in one kind of money and the soldier in another down to and culminating in the shameless villainy and cunningly-devised fraud of 1873, whereby silver was demonetized and the most colossal and unparalleled robbery of the debtor class ever perpetrated -upon a free people was consummated,

Now, 1\Ir. Chairman, is it not astounding, after having bu,ilt palaces for some, and making wrecks and homeless tramps of others, that this great moral party should have the brazen audacity to continue to extort from the people-made poor by: their pernicious legislation-the maximum of burdens justified oiily in the exigency of war? Mr. Chairman, I am not disposed to criticize the tariff when it was necessary, nor am I willing to go back and traduce the South in order to divert the people from the calm consideration of a. question which is of the most vital importance to them. I do not believe that this tariff question will stagger the people; they know better than they ca.n be tol~ by the S~lons of th_is House whether their ''yoke is easy and the1r burdens light," or whether this measure to lessen and more equi-

tably distribute the cost of supporting the Government recommends itself to their favorable consideration or not.

·Mr. Chairman, I believe there are gentlemen upon the other side of this House who feel conscious, or at least fear that there is an increasing sentiment among the people, not only to question the wisdom but the sincerity of their position. One thing is certain, the limit of taxation is reached. Although certain ones favor a higher tariff-even a prohibitive tariff-and would build a Chinese wall around (' 11 t' country, these men are not the ones who shape the policy of their p ty, for no party dare come before the country with a proposition to mcrease the duties on the necessaries of life. What does this prove? Either we are satisfied with our present condition and determined not to do anything for therelief of the people or we must reduce the tariff. We should not be governed by the temporary interests of a much less than a. majority of our people, but we should try to place our country upon the highway of permanent success.

Mr. Chairman, it seems clear to me that when any article of commerce is held above its normal value, either by a duty or a trust, that the consumer who is unable to get an equally enhanced price for what he sells, which may be either products or services of whatever nature, is obliged to pay this difference. Let us see how this works. The large importer of foreign goods or 'jobber of American manufactured goods does not stand any of this increased price; in fact it helps to give him a monopoly to just such an extent as the increased price of the goods requires more capita.] to do business; and so in addition to the entire charge of the duty he is enabled to add· somewhat from decreased competition. Exactly the same thing is true with the retail merchant. So all is easily and very satisfactorily disposed of until the farmer and the laborer who are unable to pass the charge along become too poor to buy sufficiently to prevent overproduction.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we begin at the wrong end to establish permanent prosperity. Instead of trying to support agriculture by building up manufa-ctures, we should have our commercial greatness rest on the prosperity of our agricultural interests, which &re of necessity the source of all our wealth. As a merchant I know that it is ruinous to buy goods higher in price than customers can per for; it is equally ruinous for the Government to pursue a policy by which the manufactured goods, especially the necessaries of life, are made higher in price than its wealth producers are able to supply their wants with. I am aware that the wealthy manufacturer is afraid that his business will be ruined, and he cries out that he "will have to lower the wages oflabor." Capitalis always timid, and, with too much Government aid, is incapacitated to serve its proper use, and becomes a po itive mischief to industry, degrading skill aud destroying invention.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Mills bill, should it become a law, will not ruin the manufacturers. I admit it will lower his prices; just exactly what is most sadly needed. Who will deny the justice of a public policy which will furnish cheaper and better food and clothing? Who dare deny the demand for it? And who but a. protected and immatured statesman does not know that lower prices will develop a. better demand, and that a "nimble sixpence is better than a lazy shilling?" If any rich manufacturer distrusts his ability to meet this demand in inaugurating a new era in our commercial importance, let him call into his office one or more of his most competent and trusty employes and offer them an interest in the business; there will be no question of their meeting the demand and helping to place us on the highwa-y leading to the greatest commercial success.

1\:lr. Chairman, I have no desire to stigmatize or restrict the rights of capital-legitimate capital-acquired by industry and economy; but when capital wrung from the people by means of watered stocks, char .. tered privileges, unearned grants and trusts, stalks into this House and expects any other than its representatives to make laws for its especial good it presumes upon their ignorance. And in just so far as it succeeds, becomes a further menace to all capital engaged in legiti .. mate business.

Mr. Chairman, the ~entleman from Michigan (Mr. BURROWS] says in referring to the free-list:

There is not a. schedule of our tariff it does not invade. The great woolgrowing interest of the country, a. matter of prime necessity to a civilized people, only in the infancy of its development, capable of producing, if properly fostered and encouraged, the material for the clothing of all our people, is to be exposed to a ruinous foreign competition which will surely prove its ultimate destruction, with all the capital invested therein.

A most extraordinary statement to come from a man representing an agricultural district. No one knows better than thefarmerthat under this very protection he is robbed of the benefits of the duty. The com .. mission merchant, after he has secured the clip, rai3es the price just so much as the market, protected against foreign wool, can be manipulated. It is a very significant fact, :Mr. Chairman, that the great wool merchant is opposed to free wool upon the plea that it injures the farmer. If his profits were restricted to legitimate commissions, why should he object to foreign wool? That also will admit of regular commissions. But no, Mr. Chairman, merely legitimate commissions are not sufficient; he wants the privilege of fleecing the farmer under the plea of protecting him.

The gentleman also points with pride to the fact that the balance of trade, under protection, is in our favor. Why does he not go further and

3994 CONGRESSIOl~.AL RECORD-HOUSE. MAY 10,

show what class. of exports make up this balance of trade? Possibly also an established fact that the laborer in the United States can not, he has not investigated the matter to trot extent. Of manufaetm-ed as a general rule, save :mythim!: from the result of his toil at the end goods our imports are largely in exces;J of our exports; therefore this of eachyeM; nor can he do so in England, nor elsewhere in Europe, nor .. shortage and whatever more comprises the exports in excess of all our in India.. It is equally as well established that in all those countries imports is made up from farm products, and in order torell these prod- the laborer does eat and wear clothes adapted to his country and elinets abroad what is thefarm.erobliged to do? He has to meet the com- mate. Then what is the difterence between earning $1 per day or 10 petitionoftheworld, andmorethanthat, he hastocompetewithn::Ltions cents _per day, if the r~ult is the same, namely sufficient to eat to prewho enjoy better commercial relations in the mutual interchange o1 serve life and sufficient to wear to protect the body? _products than his own; and here it should be borne in .mind that he This plain, simple statement, that the babits of the people and the gets no higher price for the home consumption than what he gets abroad, cost of living are different in different countries is a complete and unwhile the manufacturer charges him a higher price than he receives answerable refutation of all the arguments that have been made which when be sends his products ab1·oad. So, Mr. Chairman, this system assume that a high tariff is necessary to protect labor. And it further makes the farmer not only pay the highestprioofor what he buys, but proves (if men act from moth·e) that this intense desire for proteetion also subjects him to a disadvantage in selling even when competing to protect the laboring m.a.n is the cry of the thief to "stop the thief., with the lowest Dl!l.rkets of the world. It is n"Ot to protect the la!>orer. He has never directly or indirectly de-

It seems strange to me that intelligent men would be wiili1lg to so ri>ed any benefit from it. Brrt it is to ens.ble a privileged class to inhandicap an industry so important, an industry than which none in crease their wealth at the expense and toil of the laboring masses • .America should be more profitable nor honorable, an industry which I maintain that this tariff for protection is the principal cause of an has generously borne more than its share of the burdens, and now, our troubles. It bas taken thepropertyofthosewbohavejustlyearned when its condition iB fully appreciated, it seems extreme selfishness and it and transferred it to those who have not earned lt; it has enabled a short-sightedness on thepa.rt.ofthe manufacturers not to yield the slight favored few to accumulate immense wealth; it has caused the creation reduction proposed by the Mills · bill. With reference to free wool, of trusts to an extent that threatens to make mere serfs of the people; which. no doubt many farmers think will cause them further loss, I it has lain the foundation for privileges that are sapping the necessary have only to add that were I a farmer I w~uld say to these high pro- wants of society; it bas created monopolies that have grown sufficiently tectionists: "Here gentlemen, I propose to 'tbJ.·ow in the tail with the powerful to defy the laws ofthe United States and ofthe several States; hide ' and p:rrt company with you! I propose no longer to be a re- it has caused the concentration of sufficient capital in the hands of the cipient of yonr kind of benefits, but from this time on shall be an act- few that has enabled them to extend the banking system, prevent the ual participator in a poliey which tends to distribute .more equitably payment of the public debt, avoid taxation., force the people to pay the products of labor." 111r. Cht.rinn..m, it is a policy which must be millions in interest, while they have million in their Treasury which adopted, or we as a· nation must retrograde, and so long as we put it could be used to extinguish the public debt. It has given them the off we show ou.rselves unable to meet a crying demand. I .am fumly exercise of a portion of the sovereign power, and -they a.ro attempting mnvinced that this bill is in the interest of oppressed humanity, and to use it to make the banking system perpetual. if passed will be but .an act of simple justice. It forces the farmer to compete on equal terms in the markets of

On.e more word in conclusion. The gentleman feels aggrieved and the world and pay a large premium on the purchase ~f his clothing thinks the country will suffer because the minority have not had suf- and other things of necessary use. It builds up an aristocracy that :ficient consideration shown them. Does he not know that the people degrades the laboring man and makes him the mere slave that mov-es at in placing them in the minority do not expect them to shape legisla- the will of his master, the protected nabob. It has do:ne.a.ll this and tion; that they purposely stripped them of that privilege when they much more, until labor, having grown restless and dissatisfied, an.d turned them out ofthe temple? And if they do not feel the consequent having looked in vain to the law-making power for relief, bas attempted chagrin and humiliation, it is because "God tempers the wind to the to right these wrongs within itself, and in many instances bas bidden shorn lamb." [Great applause.] defiance to the laws and by force demanded that their labor should

Mr. HARE. :Mr. Chai:rma.n. my only excuse for making any re- be compensated to some extent beyond the absolute wants of life. marks upon the proposed revision of our re-venue laws is that the im- It h:as caused labor and production to form combinations for .self-proportance of the subject seems to demand that every Representati:re! teetion. It has caused many goocl people rodemand that the Governshall _place ·upon the record his ideas of the extent and .manner in mentpurchaserailroadsand telegra])hiclines, and, in fact, thatin many whichitaxation shall be redu"Ced~ respects the Government shall become paternaL It has caused .a.-eon-

It is conceded by every member of this body that we are collecting dition<>f things that now -stalk in open daylight before the lawmaking more revenue than is necessary to defray the expenses of the Govern- power of this land, and in a manner not to be misunderstood, demand ment; that therefore a reduction has become a vital necessity. legislative relief; a condition that substantially says: If this relief is

The manner in which sueh reduction shall be made is the prolific refused, the peace of society, the safety of our institutions, the integrity source of di£Cnss1on and ~DTeem.ent1 and has gone to an extent tba~ of our Union may be jeopardized. threatens to leave tbe admitted l'Obbery and plunder of the people in These conditions are here, are in our midst, and the cause is a high statu quo. protective tariff. Allow me to give one illustration. Texas pays 4,0 per

If this excessive taxation i3 to remain as it now is, then it 1s surely cent. more for her manufactured goods than she would pay were there proper that the tax-payers should definitely know what party or what no tari.ft'-; therefore Texas, to the extent of that per cent., is impoverindividuals are responsible therefor. Hence, as before .stated, every ished.. member should tell where he stands :md place it upon record. This I Massachusetts sells her manufactured goods 40 per cent. higher than will attempt to do as briefly as possible. . · she could sell them were there no tariff, therefore Massachusetts is en-

I believe that a tariff for protection is the foundation a.nd principal riched this per cent. by reason of such protection. This is caused by cause of all the complaints and unrest that has either threatened or the law prescribing the mann~r in which taxes shall be collected. actually disturbed the public peace and quiet for years, because it fos- Now, result. If this statement be true (and it substantially and ters one industry at the expense of another, it transfers the lal!or and for illustration is), then does not Texas pay .the t::Lxesof Massachusetts, production of one class and gives it to another; thereby building up a and in addition thereto give her a bonus for the privilege? This may small class of great wealth and impoverishing the great body of our explain why Massachusetts favors a protective policy while Texas does people. not.

I am opposed to any tariff whatever for protection simply. There is nothing in the world that capital ever created without labor. I favor a tariff that will bring a sufficient revenue to defray the ex· Capital in itself is incapable of creating anything. Labor creates all

penses of the Government; and I favor this because we must collect a capital, and surely the laborer should have a just and full share of that tax sufficient to meet the actual wants of Government, and this is the which he creates. Labor and capital should he allies, not enemies. best way to make such collection. And iftheconntryallowslaborequal privileges with capital then there If we did not require moneytodefray the expenses of Government, would be no conflict. But when tbe Government steps in and by the

· I would be an absolute and uncompromising free-trader. exercise of power takes from labor the fruits of its production and gives A tariff, however, for revenue only necessarily gives some protection, it to capital, then labor becomes the slave of the master it has created.

and to the extent that it does protect it should be placed where it will Wealth has accumulated in this country in the past twenty years at do the most good and be the least bnrthensome to the people. a rate never before known, but it has been at a fearful cost to the great

I will not attempt to follow the innumerable and oftentimes sop his- bocly of the American people. The accumulation has not been of a tical arguments that have been made on this floor upon tlris question. uniform character. Wealth has been piled up in heaps. Hundreds I do not. deem it necessary, af~r so many extensive arguments, to make ba:ve grown to be millionaires, while tens of thousands have become more than a. general statement. _ p!lupers. Two classes have grown up under this protective system

The argument of those who favor p:rotecti"On is {among other things) that threaten the very existence of our Government. that such tariff is nece:;sary to protect labor and production, and, to On tho one han.d is the moneyed aristocratic class, clamoring for legis~ prove it, it is shown tha.t the ln.borer is paid higher wages in Am.erica Jati•e protection and such laws as will more effectually enable them than anywhere el e on the globe.. to go>ern the country exclusively in their interest.

Admitting the fact that in dollars and cents the United States pays Ou the .other hand comes the great body of men who nn.der the forms higher wages than England; that England pays more than othereoun- ofbw have been robbed oftheir share of the wealtn created by tbeir tries in Europe, and that Europe pays higher than India, yet it is labor, becoming desperate by their wa.r:.t of the necessaries of life n.nrll1y

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD"""""'"HOUSE. 3995 reason of the inequalities of law. They are the ready listeners to the anarchist and communist. In their zeal to right the wrongs under which they labor, they threaten to re_peat in this country the scenes and horrors of the French revolution.

However much we may desire to shut our eyes to the dangers that threaten the stability of our Government, we can not fail to see that the time bas come for the peace-loving men in all parties to realize the fact that steps must be taken to guide aright the ship of state and steer it clear of those dangerous rocks known as anarchy and communism. We must return to that just and fundamental principle which declares that all men shall be equal before the law; that exclusive privileges shall be given to none.

I believe in a poo:r government and a rich, happy, and prosperous people. I believe in protecting property and vested rights.

I commend the brain that by industry and management accumulates wealth.

I do not believe in a parental government, but would have e•ery one free to pursue the calling of his choice. I do believe that grea.t and grievous inequalities now exist. To my mind it is clear that one cL.•~.-s are now not only burdened with expenses Of government, bnt they are made to contribute a portion of their earnings to another class of our own citizens. Where all are supposed to be equal this state of things can not exist and peace be preserved.

We may fritter away our time here in tall..~g and wrangling. What - the people want is less talk and more results..

They demand a reduction of taxes. That the claim is just is admitted. They demand that such redaction shall be made on the nec-essaries, not luxuries, oflife. This claim seems to be equally just. Yet in a spirit more or less selfish many of liS are contending that speci:.tl interests of some particnlar constituency shall be exempt. They demand that the burdens of taxation shall be made equal. Yet with a sectional and partisan feeling, sometimes amounting to bitternes3, we are liable to disagree upon this plain fundamental and just claim of right.

\ "hatever may be the result or the manner in which we dispose of this bill, it ought to be clear that delay will in time make the rea..o:ona-' ble relief therein provided for harsher and severer. Delay will not mellow, butitwillintensify. The people are speaking, their determination can not be mistaken. The voice that comes almost unbroken is, ''Reduce the taxes, lessen expenses of Government, and let the neeessaries of life bear the benefit of such reduction." The man that fails to heed this warnin,q; has my sympathy, for such failure can only fiually result in his political death.

I here pause to inquire of those who oppose this bill. Do the almost constant and increasing labor uprisings mean nothing? Have this class, generally obedient to the law, no just cause of complaint? Do combinations of laborers and farmers mean nothing? Have they become exacting and unjust in their demands? I think not, and further, that the increasing momentum of their power ;must .arrest attention.

Why do many of our people favor the purcha.ge by the Government of telegraph lines? The answer must be that this enterprise has grown to be such a huge monopoly that no other means is left to curb or limit its power. Wh'ile I believe that such purchase woulcl he undemocratic, yet if there is no other remedy left, and it should appear that such purcha£e would result in eq nalizing burdens and be of benefit to the people, I shoulcl favor it, even though it might be paternal and tend to enrich the Government at the expense of the people-and ought not be done so long as it could be avoided. Yet, if it bas grown so powerful that it can break down all competition and can hold this great medium of intercourse as a monopoly, and the people are compelled to bow to its dictates, then if it can be reasonably shown that such condition now exists or may exist I should favor the purchase or building of telegraph lines by the Government.

I mention this because a protective tariff must go down with the monopolies :it has ereated.

I fully and unequivocally indorse the President's message. It demonstrates the wisdom of the people in placing him in this high posi-tion. ·

I indorse the substantial features of this bilL Possibly, slight amend-. ments might be advantageously made, but if I have any objections

they are that it doos not cut deep enough. I have confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of those who framed it, and it shall have my hearty support.

Having thus, in a general way, announced my position· on this important measure, I will (as all other Representatives must) account to my people for its correctness.

Mr. VANCE. I move that the committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. The committee accordingly rose; and ?tlr. McMILLIN having taken

the chair as Speaker pro tempore, .Mr. STOCKDALE reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had had under consideration the bi1l (H. R. 9051) and had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. LANE. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 55 min· utes p. m.) the House adjourned.

1PRIV ATE BILLS Th""Tl.WDuCED A.h'"D REFERRED.

Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced and referred as indicated below:

By Mr. BRU:Ul\I: A bill (H. R. 9918) for the relief of Mrs. Josephine D. Hellyer-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LAIRD: A bill (H. R. 9919) authorizing the President to appoint and retire John C. Fremont as a major-general in the United Stat-es Army-to the Committee on Uilitary Affairs.

By Mr~ SHIVELY: A bill (H. R. 9920) granting a pension to Daniel K. Harris-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. J. D. TAYLOR: A. bill (H. R.. 9921) granting a pension to Stewart E. Henderson-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIOXS, ETC.

The following petitions and :~=apet"S were laid on the Cle:rk s desk, under the rule, and referred as follows:

By ~Ir. T. M. BROWNE: Petition of 62 citizens of Dela""~¥are County, Indiana, for the establishment of a soldiers' home in Indiana-to the Committee on Uilitary Affairs.

Also, petition of J.Iary E. Thornburg, oiFarmland, Ind., for reliefto the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By 1\Ir. FULLER: Petition of E. M .. Carter and 50 oth~, citizens of Hesper, Iowa, for the passage of Senate bill reducing postage on seeds, bulbs, plants, etc.-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. GLOVER: Resolutions of the St. Louis Turnbezirk, relative to immigration laws-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. S. I. HOPKINS: PetitionofcitizensofPrince.George County, Virginia, in favor of pure food-to the Committ.ee on Agriculture.

By Mr. HOUK: Petition of ex-Union soldiers of Tennessee, for the establishment of a soldiers' home at Knoxville, Tenn.-to the Committee on Military A:fihlrs.

Also, evidence of H. C. Slover, and of ex-Union soldiers, and statement of W. U. Clark, in favor of B. L. Roarks-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. KELLEY: Petition of Martha A. 1\fegee, for a special act for her relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. McCULLOGH: Petition of Fayette Council, No. 142; of :Morning Star Council, No. 29; of Uniontown Council, No. 16i; of West Newton Council, No. 60; of Redstone Council, No. 78; of Warden Council, No. 182; of Security Council, No. 168; of Scottdale Council, No. 102; ofProvilla Council, No. 158; ofLogan Council, No. 145; of Valley Council, No. 93, and of Mayer Council, No. 166, Junior Order United American Mechanics of Pennsylvania, praying that February 22 be made a national holiday-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, petition of Trades Assembly of Western Pennsylvania, for the passage of the bill for the classification of clerks in first-class postoffices, et~.-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

.Also, remonstranceofFountainLodge, No. 77, andofJamesSwartman Lodge, No. 92, Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers of the United States, against legislation that would tend to cripple the industries of the country-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of W. D. Rogers and others, and of J. S. Berkley and others, citizens of Penpsylvania, for speedy action on the subject of protection to the wool-growing and woolen manufacturing industries of this country-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, petition of Jesse Reed and others, authorities of Uniontown, Pa., in fuvor of a general appropriation for the erection of public buildings-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

By l\Ir. MORGAN: Petition of citizens of Dixon County, of Perry County, and of Buena Vista, Miss., in favor of pure food-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By 1\Ir. CHARLES O'NEILL: Papers in the claim of I!enry Myers, of Philadelphia, Pa.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\Ir. RYAN: Petition of J. B. Williams and others, of Osage County, Kansas, for better protection of women and girls-to the Com-mittee on the Judiciary. ·

By Mr. SHIVEI,Y (by request): Petition of William H. Hessin & Co., of the Peru Bagging Company, and of the 1\Iuncie Bagging Manufacturing Company of Indiana, against the reduction of the tariff on burlaps and gunny cloth-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. STAHLNECKER: Argument against ''defining clause" in connection with uncleaned rice in the tariff bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, memoranda on the subject of public inspection of food products-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By l\Ir. SY.MF.S: Petition of Boulder County Medical Association, for the removal of the duty on books of surgery, instruments, etc.-to the Committee on Ways and 1\feans.. .

Also, petition of citizens of Denver, Colo., for payment of Indian depredation claims of citizens of Colorado-to the Select Committee on Indian Depredation Claims.

' I

. --


By Mr. J.D. TAYLOR: ~etition of H. B. Lacey and 14 others, of S. M. Boggs and 80 others, of W. A. Welsh and 47 others, of S. P. Dickerson and 15 others, of Robert N. Birney and 14 others, of R. B: Stewart and 19 others, of M. N: Giffen and 32 others, of J., A. Hanna and 8 others, of J. E. McPeek and 15 others, of W. E. Cunningham and 32 others, of F. 0. Holliday and 90 others, of B. F. Sherrow and 30 others, of Owen Anderson and 35 others, of Mahlon Weight and 59 others, of Theodora Dickerson and 59 others, of J. W. Nixon and 35 others, of H. L. Birney and 26 others, of A. Beatty and 34 others, of J. M. Phillips and 3 others, of A. H. Shillts and 61 others, of '.fhomas Mc:M:illen and 115 others, of M. R. MeN ary and 11 others, of William Adams and 45 others, of James S. Coulten and 97 others, of Albert Moore and 36 others, of James Cooke and 15 others, of W. M. Tipten and 67 others, of W. E. Simpson and 28 others, of Lewis Bethland a.nd 5 others, of N. B. Buckingham and 51 others, of J. C. Patterson and 22 others, of William Henderson and 20 others, of Edward Hagan and 6 others, of H. M. Thompson and 26 others, of R~ D. Wilson and 20 others, of Samuel Osburn and 16 others, of R. M. L6ve and 33 others, of J. S. Black and 22 othe1·s, of D. B. Galbraith and 37 others, of John Barclay and 11 others, of Parker Han and 22 others, of A .. J. Rea and 8 others, and of Samuel Stephen and 144 others, citizens of Harrison County, Ohio, against any further reduction of the tariff on wool, and for the restoration of the tariff of 1867 as applicable to wool and woolens-to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. WHEELER: Petition of Mary E. Reed, and of Willis P. Gresham, of Limestone County, and of A. J. Moore, and ofT. J. Haden, widow of H. H. Haden, of Madison County, Alabama, for reference of their claims to the Court of C1aims-to the Committee on War Claims.

The following petitions for the repeal or modification of the internalrevenue tax of $25levied on druggists were received and severally referred to the Committee on Ways and Means:

By Mr. JACKSON: Of druggists and physicians of Cannons burgh, Pa. By Mr. LIND: Of G. W. Franchere, of Lake Crystal, Minn. By :M:r. McCULLOGH: Of D. D. Matterson and others, druggistsof

Fayette County, and of R. A. Wilt and others, citizens of Pennsylvania. By Jrlr. RY A.N: Of A. H. Merrell, of Topeka, Kans. By 1\fr. SHIVELY: Of J. A. Dallas, of Pierceton, Ind.

The following petitions for the proper protection of the Yellowstone National Park, as proposed in Senate bill 283, were received and severally referred to the Committee on the Public Lands:

By Mr. MACDONALD: Of citizens of Dakota County, 1tlinnesota. By Mr. SYMES: Of citizens of Gilman, Colo.

HOUSE OL' REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, May 11,1888.

The House met at 12 o'clock rq. Pmyer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. MIL~URN, D. D.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings wM :read and approved. VETO 1\IESSAGE-GEORGIA A. STRICKLETr.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the . President of the United States; which was read, and, on motion of 1\Ir. HoLM.AN, referred_ to the Committee on Invalid Pe:QSions, and ordered to be printed: To the Bou of Rep1·esentatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7715, entitled ".A.n act for the relief of Georgia A. Stricklett."

By the terms of this bill a pension is allowed to the beneficiary above named, whose husband died on the 21st day of July, 1873. It appears from the records that he was mustered into the service to date from October 10, 1863, to serve for on-e year. It is alleged in the report of the committee of the House who reported this bill that he was wounded with buckshot in the face and head by bushwba-ekers when on ree1·uiting service, on the 23d day of July, 1863.

U these dates are correct, he was wounded before he entered the service; but this fact is not made the ba.sis of the disapproval of the widow's application for relief. There seems, however, to be no mention of any such injury during his term of service, though he is reported sick much of the time when present with his regiment, and is reported as once in hospital for a disease which, to say the least of it, can not be recognized as related to the service.

The soldier himself made no application for pension. A physician testifies that he was present on the 21st day of July, 1873, when

the soldier died; that he examined the body after death, and to the best of his knowledge such death was caused partially by epilepsy, and that the epilepsy was the result of "wounds about the face and head 1·eceived during his service during the war."

Another physician testifies that the soldier applied to him for treatment in 1868, and that his disability was the development of confirmed epilepsy, and he expresses the opinion that this was due to a wound from a buckshot. This physician, while not giving epilepsy as the cause of death, says that "had he lived to die a natural death he certainly would have died an insane epileptic .. "

The report speaks of his death by "an accidental shot.'' The truth appears to be that he was killed by a pistol-shot in an a.ltercation

with another man. Unless it shall be assumed that the epilepsy was caused by the buC'kshot

wound spoken of, and unless a pension should be allowed because, if the soldier had not been killed in an altercation, he might have soon died from such epi-lepsy, this bill is entirely devoid of merit. ·

Surely no one will seriously propose that a. claim for pension should rest upon a conjecture a.s to what would have caused death if it had not occurred in an entirely different way. '

The testimony of the physician who testified in this case tha:t death was caused partially by epilepsy suggests the extreme recklessness which ma.y characterize medical testimony in applications for pension. GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 10,1888.

PAY OF CERTAIN REVENUE OFFICERS. The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secre

tary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Commissioner . . . . . of Internal Revenue of appropriations for compensation to officers as-

The followmg petitiOns _for_ the more ~ffectual prot_ectwn of agncult- . signed to duty at distilleries a-nd rectifying-houses; which was referred ure, by the means of certain IID.port duties, were received and severally to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. referred to the Committee Qn Ways and Means: '

By Mr. GROSVENOR: OfM. •B. Rich and 108 others, of Ohio. LIFE-SAVING STATION,. KEWAUNEE. By Mr. McCULLOGH: Of John B. Woodfield and others, farmers of The SPEAKER also laid before the House the amendment of the

Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Senate to the bill (H. R. 1923) providing for the es1;ablishment of a

The following petitions, indorsing the per diem rated service-pension bill, based on the principle of paying all soldier&, sailors, and marines of the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for each day they were in the service, were severally referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions:

By Mr. CROUSE: Of C. R. Salsbury and 31 others, of Medina County, Ohio.

By Mr. GEST: Of citizens of Mercer County, Illinois. By 1\lr. HEARD: Of citizens of the Sixth district of Missouri. By lli. McCULLOGH: Of Thomas Williams and others, and of Will

iam Gregory and others, ex-soldiers and sailors, of Fayette, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania.

The following petitions, praying for the enactment of a law providing temporary aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of illiteracy, were severally referred to the Committee on Education:

By Mr. GIFFORD: Of 296 citizens of Davison and Turner Counties, Dakota.

By Mr. McCULLOGH: Of 119 citizens of Greene and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania.

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourth-class postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads:

By Mr. McRAE: Of J. A. Rowland and 64 others, citizensofLapill, Union County, Arkansas.

By Mr. MAISH: Of citizens of Flora Dale, Adams County, Pennsyl--vania. •

By Mr. ROBERTSON: Of J. L. Odom and others, of Dennis Mills, La.

life-saving station at .the harbor of Kewaunee, Wis.; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED. The SPEAKER also laid before the Honse bills of the Senate of the

fo1lowing titles; which were severally read twice, and referred as follows, namely:

The bill (S. 554) to amend Title LX, chapter 3, Revised Statutes-:-to the Committee on the Judiciary; and

The joint resolution (S. R. 62) in recognition of the services of Joseph Francis-to the Committee on the Library.

PUBLIC BUILDING, CHESTER, P .A. The SPEAKER also laid before the House the bill (S. 129) for the

erection of a public building at Chester, Pa. Mr. DARLINGTON. I ask unanimous consent for the presen~ con

sideration of this bill. It has paSsed the Senate twice, and has received favorable recognition from the last Congress as well as this. It is very much needed.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read subject to objection. The bill was read at length. Mr. McMILLIN. I think this had better take the regular course. The bill was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Public

Buildings and Grounds. LEAVE OF .ABSENCE.

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. MooRE, indefinitely, on account of sickness. To Mr. ScuLL, for four days, on account of important business. To Mr. GRANGER, for two weeks from next Monday, on account of

important business. To Mr. FRENCH, until the 17th of May, on account of important

business. To Mr. DARGAN, for ten days.

I

J

J

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE;

Documents