ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2015.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2015UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY

Class	Book	Volume7*—

r

* Z) .

C $ ^ ^ ■

AMERICAN TARIFFS

FROM

PLYMOUTH ROCK TO McKINLEY

AND

PROPOSED TARIFF REVISION.

SPEECHES

HON. JACOB H. GALLINGER

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

IN THE

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

May 16,17,19, 1894, and May 27,1896.

[Part of Congressional Record.]	,

NEW YORK, 1896.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having
under consideration the bill (H. R. 4864) to re-
duce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov-
ernment, and for other purposes-
Mr. GALLINGER said:
Mr. President: The liistory of tariff
legislation in the United States is a sub-
ject of transcendent importance to the peo-
ple of this country, and I propose to
undertake the task of giving, as briefly as
may be, an accurate historical analysis of
legislation on this subject since the day the
Pilgrims placed foot on Plymouth Rock
to the present time. In this work 1 am
under great obligations to the American
Protective Tariff League for material pre-
pared by Hon. D. G. Harriman, a close
student of economic questions, whose
patient research and learning were utilized
in the preparation and arrangement of
much of the subject matter.

This historical contribution to the tariff
question is made primarily with the view
of endeavoring to persuade the Democratic
side of the Chamber to unite with the Re-
publican Senators against the pending bill,

but chiefly for the purpose of acquainting
the people of this country with the great
fact that impartial history teaches that
high tariffs have always brought pros-
perity to the people of the United States,
while low tariffs have invariably disturbed
business, prostrated industries, and
brought suffering and want to the laboring
masses of our people. There can be no
escape from this conclusion. It is written
on every page of American history, and the
terrible results of low tariffs have been
literally burned into the souls of the men
and women who earn th«ir bread by the
sweat of their brow. In this day of agita-
tion of so-called tariff reform it is well that
the truths of history be summoned to
sweep away the sophistries and idle theo-
ries of educated doctrinaires and free-
trade Congressmen.

Republican and Democratic Policies
Contrasted.—The New York Sun is the
ablest Democratic newspaper in the United
States, and is intensely partisan on nearly
all political subjects ; but in its issue of

195912July 12,1893, the following discriminating
article appeared, and as it comes from an
undoubted Democratic source and states the
difference of the two parties so fairly and
impartially, it is proper to quote it for the
benefit of the doubtful and for the encour-
agement of Protectionists:

Respecting Federal taxation, we will now state
vthe position of the Democracy as defined by the
(Chicago platform, upon which the overwhelming
victory of 1892 wa^ained. Ascertain the value of
the goq^s to be imported. Ascertain the amount
of revenue to be raised from imports for the ex-
penses of the Government honestly administered.
Fix the rate and collect it without discriminationi,
preference, or partiality. Anything else is unjusti-
fiable. Anything else is unconstitutional. Any-
thing else invades the rights of the citizen, and is
unlawful as well as undemocratic. That is clear
and comprehensive. That is what the Chicago
platform declared and what the people approved.

The Republican position is diametrically differ-
ent. Tariff duties, say the Republicans, should
not be levied for the mere purpose of revenue, but
largely with a view of promoting American manu-
factures and labor, and relieving farmers and me-
chanics from unfavorable foreign competition.
The Republicans say that it is one of the powers
and duties of a government to protect the people
who maintain it from unfair foreign competition,
as well as from hostile foreign invasion. The peo-
ple, through their representatives, impose the
taxes on goods entering into American ports from
other countries, and they have the right (and it is
natural that they should exercise it) so as to im-
pose those duties that the interests of Americans
will be favored and the interests of foreign rivals
in the same industries or pursuits discriminated
against. That is the Republican doctrine.

Some Definitions.—In order that there
may be no misunderstanding relative to
the meaning of certain terms and phrases,
it may be well to define them.

X

A tariff is a system of duties imposed
by the government of a country upon goods
imported or exported. In the United
States there is no duty on exports.

There are two kinds of tariff in the
United States:

1.	A Free Trade Tariff.

2.	A Protective Tariff.

A free trade tariff is simply a tariff
for revenue only; and revenue derived tliere-
frpm is intended for governmental expenses

exclusively. It is the system which is in
operation in England. Since it is designed
for revenue only, its duties are nearly all
levied upon articles (except luxuries) that
are in great and certain demand. It so
happens that the articles thus levied upon
(except luxuries) are constantly required by
the common people in their household
economy, and that they cannot be raised ^
produced profitably at home, such as tea
coffee, -etc.; and therefore cannot come
into competition with home productions.

A protective tariff not only provides
revenue for the expenses of the Govern-
ment, but also so discriminates its duties
that they are levied principally upon im-
ported articles that come in direct competi-
tion with home industries, and so adjusts
the rates that such competing foreign pro-
ductions cannot be placed upon the home
markets at prices less than the fair and
reasonable home market price.

By this means the high wages of our
home laborers are maintained, and need not
be reduced to the low level of cheap.foreign
labor; and under this kind of tariff, arti-
cles of necessity for the common people in
their household economy, and which can-
not be raise or produced profitably at home^
are admitted free of duty, such as tea,,
coffee, sugar,' etc.

Duties are the specific sums of money or
the rate per cent, that is levied upon the
goods passing through the custom house,
(Many use the term " tariff" synonymously
with " duty," but incorrectly.)

There are two kinds of duties:

1. Specific; 2. Ad valorem.

A specific duty is a fixed sum of money
to be paid upon each yard, ton, hundred,
etc. Illustration: Wheat pays a specific
duty of twenty-five cents a bushel without
reference to its market value.

An ad Yalorem duty is a stated per
cent, that is levied upon the value of the
goods imported. Illustration: The duty
on certain manufactures of silk is fifty
per cent, of their foreign value.A very strong objection to an ad valorem
duty is the opportunity it opens to fraud
and dishonesty by undervaluation of the
goods imported.

Both of these duties are sometimes
combined on the same article.

Illustration: Wilton carpets pay a
specific duty of sixty cents a square yard,
and an ad valorem, of forty per cent, on
their value.

Protection is that economic system which
requires that its sufficient duties shall be
levied only upon such commodities (besides
mere luxuries) as we are capable of pro-
ducing in economy and quantity to regu-
late prices in the home market (D.H.Rice).

Prior to 1883 we imported all our steel
wire nails; - the duty was one cent a pound,
and the nails cost us seven to eight cents a
pound. In 1883 the duty was raised to
four cents a pound, and in 1891 we made
over 4,000,000 kegs, and exported them to
all parts of the world; and our people
could buy them at about two cents a
pound.

Free trade is a cfream, a vagary, a
theory which, if it could be materialized,
would abolish all tariff duties and remove
all custom houses from our frontiers; and
let every nation into our markets as freely
as the air comes in; but such a system has
never been used or adopted without modi-
fications between or among civilized
nations.

It is taught nowhere except in colleges,
by theorists and doctrinaires, and is abso-
lutely impracticable.

Bounties are gifts or rewards from the
general Government for services which are
or will be for the public benefit; and with-
out which assistance certain industries and
lines of business could not otherwise be
established.

Illustration: Under the McKinley tariff
the duty on sugar, which had been about
two cents a pound, was all taken off, and
sugar was admitted free, a gain to the coun-
try of over $60,000,000. By that act we

should have utterly destroyed all the
sugar planters of the country if the law
had not provided a bounty of two cents a
pound on all their production, amounting
to $9,000,000. We thus saved a large and
growing industry, and after paying the
bounty, had a net gain of $51,000,000.

Subsidies are similar gifts to enable our
people to build and operate steamships and
other vessels, and so carry our own mails
and our own merchandise, instead of rely-
ing upon other nations to do it for us, to
our great loss and disadvantage.

Reciprocity is an arrangement or agree-
ment betweer our own nation and another
nation by whi«>^ we agree to admit, free of
duty, certain articles which we need, but
which we cannot raise or produce here;
and in return the other nation admits to its
ports, free of duty, certain articles which
we produce, and which they need, but can-
not produce in their own land.

Illustration: Brazil produces great
quantities of coffee and rubber, but does
not produce flour or machinery. We cannot
produce coffee and rubber, but we have a
surplus of flour and machinery. We ad-
mit free of duty their coffee and rubber,
and they admit free of duty our flour and
machinery, both nations are benefited, their
home productions are greatly increased,
their markets enlarged and the laborers of
each country find additional work and im-
proved wages at home.

Germany has a large surplus of beet
sugar which we need; and we have a
large surplus of pork which they need.
Each remitting the duty, we take their
sugar and they take our pork, and both
nations are richer.

From the very nature of the case, the
parties who thus reciprocate must do so on
differing productions. If we could raise
good coffee there would be 'no gain in
reciprocity with Brazil on coffee; and if
we could raise all the sugar we need, there
would be no advantage in exchanging pork
for sugar with Germany.

It will thus be seen that reciprocity is4

Impossible with those nations whose pro-
ductions are similar to our own. The op-
ponents of protection denounce reciprocity
as a "fraud" and a "humbug," and ask "if
reciprocity is desirable with South Amer-
ica and with Germany, why not with
Great Britain ?" The answer is plain and
ready: The productions of Great Britain
and our own are nearly all of similar
kinds, and there is therefore no opportu-
nity for reciprocity.

English laborers receive only half as
much wages as our laborers are paid, and
to admit the productions of Great Britain
(similar to our own) to our markets free
when they cost only about half as much in
wages as ours, would give our markets to
Great Britain, stop our own mills and fac-
tories, and turn our laborers into the
streets. Even so sturdy a Briton as Lord
Salisbury admits this, and in his celebrated
speech at Hastings in May, 1892, frankly
declared that England had no productions
for which she could ask us to reciprocate.

Among other things Lord Salisbury
said:

"Forty or fifty years ago everybody believed
that free trade had conquered the world, and they
prophesied that every nation would follow the ex-
ample of England and give itself up to absolute
free trade. The results are not exactly what they
prophesied, but the more adverse the results were
the more the devoted prophets of free trade de-
clared that all would come right at last.

" The worse the tariffs of foreign countries be-
came the more confident were the prophecies of
an early ^ctory, but we see now, after many
years1 experience tha't explain it, how many for-
eign nations are raising, one after another, a wall
—a brazen wall of protection—around their shores,
which excludes us from their markets, and, so far
as they are concerned, do their best to kill our
trade, and this state of things does not get better.
On the contrary, it constantly seems to get worse.

" We live in an age of a war of tariffs. Every
nation is trying how it can, by agreement with its
neighbor, get the greatest possible protection for
its own industries, and at the same time the great-
est possible access to the markets of its neighbors.

"The weapon with which they all fight is ad-
mission to their own markets—that is to say, A
says to B,(If you will make your duties such that
I can sell in your markets I will make my duties
such that you can sell in my market/

" But we begin by saying we will levy no duties
on anybody, and we declare that it would be con-
trary and disloyal to the glorious and sacred doc-
trine of free trade to levy any duty on anybody
for the sake of what we can get by it. [Cheers.]

" It may be noble, but it is not business. [Loud
cheers.]"—N. F. World.

Wages and Wage Earners.—The ques-
tion of wages is of the highest importance,
for wages are more quickly and power-
fully influenced by tariff changes than
even capital. Here is a fact that cannot
be refuted nor truthfully denied: that un-
der protection wages in the United States
have always been high and increasing, and
have also had a greater purchasing power,
while under a free trade tariff they have
always been lower and decreasing, and
have had a smaller purchasing power. In
all the many changes, or threatened
changes of our tariff policy since 178$,
this rule has been absolutely invariable;
so that we have a right to claim, and do
claim, that this important fact prevails
because of the change in tariff policy, and
for no other reason.

And the explanation is not difficult to
find. Under a low tariff importations are
much larger than when duties are high,
and consequently the demand for home
productions falls off, the manufacture is
decreased, and workmen are either dis-
charged or their wages are reduced, while
the exact reverse of this happens under a
high tariff. _______	'

Two undisputed facts will help to
make this matter clearer and show how nec-
essary protection is for the maintenance of
high wages.

First. The English laborer receives but
half, or less than half as much wages as
does the American laborer for the same
kinds of work.

Second. From seventy-five to ninety per
cent, of the cost of production (except the,
commonest menial work) is labor, and it
will now be easy to see that the English
manufacturer can turn out his productions-
at much less cost than can the American
manufacturer.frustration: Suppose some article of
production which is in general use costs
the American manufacturer $20 when
placed upon the market. This sum in-
cludes the labor (ninety per cent.), the
materials, and a fair profit to the maker.
From the fact that the English manufac-
turer pays only half as much for his labor
he can produce just as good an article for
about half as much, or say {11. To this
sum let us add a large profit and freight-
age, say $4; and if there is no tariff duty
the Englishman can place his article upon
our market and sell for $15; and when
placed side by side with the American
product the Englishman has a clear advan-
tage of $5 over the American; and, other
things being equal, the Englishman will
control the market; nay, he must do so, for
customers, as a rule, will not pay an extra
$5 for the sake of a sentiment.

There are in such cases but two possible
results: first, the American must stop
manufacturing; or,, second, he must re-
duce the wages of his workmen to the
English level.

How Protection Protects.—But right
here Republicans come forward with their
protective tariff, and under its beneficent
action the American is not obliged to stop
manufacturing nor to reduce the wages of
his employees; nor after competition is
established does the consumer pay more
than the English price for the article.

We say to English and other foreign
manufacturers, through our national Gov-
ernment: If yoti choose to have your la-
borers work for starvation wages; if you
prefer to keep them in such a state of
industrial vassalage that "what they eat
to-day they must earn to-morrow;" if you
think it right that the great mass of your
laborers, men and women, should spend
all their existence simply to obtain an
insufficient supply of inferior food and
jloUiing, and to wear out their weary
lives "vainly striving bread to win," that
is your own matter and we cannot prevent
it if we would. But we say to you dis-

tinctly and positively that American labor-
ers are not paid any more than fair and
reasonable wages, that we Will neither
permit our manufacturers to stop work
nor the wages of our workmen to be de-
graded to the English level of your cheap
labor; and for these rea&om we will levy
duties upon all your productions that com-
pete with our own, so that you cannot
bring them here and put them upon our
markets at prices less than our own, nor
undersell our goods of the same classes,
unless you do it at a loss 4o yourselves.
Bring up your wages to the American level
and we will then take our chances against
you, but not otherwise.

The Tariff and Wages: Some Important
Opinions.

James 0. Blaine years ago said: "The
tariff question is essentially a question of
wages."

Thomas B. Reed's opinion on the

question of wages as stated in his great
speech against the Wilson Bill in the
House of Representatives on February 1,
1894, is pertinent and is in part as fol-
lows: " I confess to you that this question
of wages is to me the vital question. To
insure our growth in civilization and
wealth, we must not only have wages as
high as they now are, but constantly and
steadily increasing. In my judgment,
upon wages and the consequent distribu-
tion of consumable wealth are based all
our hopes of the future and all the pos-
sible increase of our civilization. The
progress of this nation is dependent upon
the progress of all. The fact that in this
country all the workers have been getting
better wages than elsewhere is the Very
reason why our market is the best in the
world, and why all the nations of the
world are trying to break into it."

Congressman Cannon, of Illinois, in
the same discussion said: "Wages are
higher here than abroad. Prove it? Yes.
The 500,000 to 700,000 who cross the
ocean annually come here to find homes.6

Why? Because they better their condi-
tion; because their wages are better. If
the cheaper labor of the Old World sends
its products to the United States free and
sells them in our markets in competition
with like products of our better paid labor,
this would not elevate their labor, but
would pull down our labor. If the Old
World wants free trade with us, let it
elevate its labor to an equality with our
own; and until this is done let us protect
our own."

Congressman Lacey, of Iowa, said:
" The question of protection is one of
wages. Employers cut wages and their
workmen strike. A political party cuts
wages by legislation, and it must expect
the workingmen of the country to return
the blow with interest at more than five
per cent."

Fifty Tears of Free Trade Tariff in
Great Britain.—What has it .done and
what is it doing for her toiling millions ?
England collects annually from customs
duties on articles which she does not pro-
duce, but which her wage earners regard
as necessaries of life, the sum of $100,000,-
000. The laborers of England pay more
than three-fourths of this sum. They pay
a duty of seventy-live cents or more a
pound on tobacco; on coffee, three to four
cents a pound; on tea, twelve cents; and
other things in proportion. Then look at
the places they call "homes." In Man-
ek@ster great numbers of houses have
but one small room, and this is used for
all purposes by the family because they
have no other. In London over 60,000
families aire similarly situated. It is no
better in Dundee. In Glasgow 45,000
families live each in a single room. In
Scotland one-third of the laboring families
live each in a single room. It is not un-
usual to find in these single rooms all over
Great Britain families numbering from six
to nine persons of all ages and both sexes.
Is such life living, or is it herding ? In
one year the public authorities furnished
relief to English laborers as follows: in

Yorkshire to 50,000; in London to 500,000;
and in all of Great Britain to 922,000 per-
sons. In London, the wealthiest city of
the world, one out of every nine died in
the workhouse, and in Great Britain one
out of every seven died in the workhouse.
The paupers of England number nearly
1,000,000, or one to every thirty-six per-
sons, and her pauperism and consequent
crime cost her over $80,000,000. A house
owner among workingmen is seldom
found. Land is going out of cultivation,
and already 2,500,000 acres have been
abandoned to foxes and birds. In ten
years, 1871 to 1881, sheep decreased in
number 6,000,000; farms and farmers, ten
per cent.; and the number of those engaged
in gainful occupations decreased about
3,000,000. Women and girls by tens ef
thousands are obliged to work in coal
mines, in coal yards, in brick yards, in nail
shops, and in other degrading places, at
the merest pittance of wages. As black as
is this picture of England's laborers much
more could be added, and with all of these
discomforts and disadvantages they have
no single advantage that our workingmen
are deprived of.

Sornt English Opinions.

Lest it may be thought that this deScrip*
tion of the English laborers was the prej-
udiced opinion of an American pro*
tectionist, I will briefly quote from a few
Englishmen of high standing:

John Rusk in: "Though England is
deafened with spinning wheels, her people
have not clothes; though she is black with
the digging of fuel, they die of cold ; and
though she has sold her soul fot grain,
they die of hunger."

John Bright: '' Nearly one-third of the
whole people dwell in homes of only one
room; and more than two-thirds of the
people of Scotland dwell in homes of not
more than two rooms. We find poverty
and misery. What does it mean? R
means more than I can describe and more
than I will attempt to describe; and as7

heed begets need, so poverty and misery
beget poverty and misery. In fact, in
looking at the past, to me it is a melancholy
thing to look at, there is much of it which
iexcites in me not astonishment, but horror.
The fact is, there passes before my eyes a
Vision of millions - ol families—not in-
dividuals, but families—fathers, mothers,
and children—passing, ghastly, sorrow-
stricken, in never-ending procession from
their cradles to their graves."

Bennet Burleigh: " There is no gain-
saying the existence, rich and potent as the
British empire is, of widespread privation
among the working classes of Great Brit-
ain. This distress has now become a
constant, an aggravated quantity. Men,
women, and children, by hundreds of thou-
sands, miserably half-clad, have to face
the chill English winter, hibernating as
best they can in dark, frowzy abodes, fronj
which they emerge but to plead for
bread."

Joseph Chamberlain : " The class of
agricultural laborers of this country [Great
Britain] are never able to do more than
make both ends meet, and have to look for-
ward in times of illness, or on the approach
of old-age, to the workhouse as the one in-
evitable refuge against starvation. The
ordinary conditions of life among the large
proportion of the population are such that
common decency is absolutely impossible ;
and all this goes on in sight of the mansions
of the "rich."

John Morley : " It is an awful fact—it
is really not short of awful—that in this
country [Great Britain] with all its wealth,
all its vast resources, all its power, forty-
five per cent.—that is to say, nearly one-
half—of the persons who reach the age of
sixty are or have been paupers. I say it
is a most tremendous fact, and I cannot
conceive any subject more worthy of the
attention of the legislature, more worthy
of the attention of all."

Thomas Carlyle: "British industrial
existence seems fast becoming one huge

poison swamp of reeking pestilence—plky*^
ical and morSl—a hideous living Golgotha
of souls and bodies buried alive. Thirty
thousand outcast needlewomen working
themselves swiftly to death. Three mil-
lion paupers rotting in forced idleness; and
these are but items in the sad ledger of
despair."

Prof. Huxley: "A population whose
labor is insufficiently remunerated must be-
come physically and morally unhealthy and
socially unstable; and though it may suc-
ceed for awhile in industrial competition,
by reason of the cheapness of its produce,
it must in the end fall, through hideous
misery and degradation, to utter ruin."

And yet this British free trade tariff, the
parent of most of the poverty and degra-
dation above referred to, is the kind of tariff
free traders would have us adopt.

An Invariable Rule.—Mr. D. H. Mason
says: 1 All the prosperity enjoyed by the
American people—absolutely all the pros-
perity without any reservation whatever—
from the foundation of the United States
Government down to the present time, haa
been under the reign of protective prin-
ciples; and all the hard times suffered by
the American people in the same period!
have been preceded either by a heavy re-
duction of duties on imports (or by a threat
of such reduction) or by insufficient prov
tection; thus refuting all free trade the^
orieS on the subject."

The truth or falsity of this declaration*
will be established by the historical fact#
of mir colonial and national experiences^
Let us examine these facts, and let theim
determine which is true.

First Free Trade Period, 1620-178$
—1. Under the Colonial Government
—2. Under the Confederacy.—Since4
1620, and through our colonial history,,
but especially since the Treaty of 1783, by
which the Revolutionary War was closed!
and our independence established, wllave^
tried and thoroughly tested all the different
phases of this economic question, from ex-8

treme free trade under the Confederacy
(1783 to 1789) to tlie lii^h prcrtective tariff
under the rule of the Republican party,
since 1861.

Free Trade Under the Confederacy.

—It is an historical fact, though compara-
tively few of our people seem, to be aware
of it, that during the Confederacy, the
period preceding the adoption of our Con-
situ tion, we made for the first and only time
in our history a full and fair trial of free
trade, of practically unrestricted imports.

England boasts of being the great free
trade nation of the world, but she has
never had a free trade system that ap-
proaches the one we " enjoyed" from 1783
to 1789. How much we enjoyed it appears
hereafter.

Congress Under the Confederacy.—

Under the Confederacy the States were
held together by a rope of sand. The
powers of Congress were exceedingly limit-
ed, especially on this question. It had no
authority to enact a general tariff on
imports without the consent of every one
of the thirteen States, and such consent*
was never given.

The States thought that [they were, in-
dividually, competent to manage those
matters for themselves, and that they
could protect their separate rights better
than Congress could do it for them. Each
State had the right to regulate its own
trade, and each imposed upon foreign prod-
ucts, and upon the products of the other
States, such duties as it deemed best.
Each strove to secure trade for itself, with-
out regard to the interests of any other
State.

Jealonsy of the States.—Jealousy of
each other seems to have been the under-
lying motive of their unfortunate actions.
Pennsylvania established a duty of two
and one-half per cent., but even this was
an ineffectual remedy; for New Jersey
opened a free port at Burlington, where
the Pennsylvania merchants entered their
goods and took them clandestinely across

the river to Pennsylvania, without paying
any duty.

New Jersey voted to allow Congress to
impose a general tariff, while New York,
on account of her situation relative to Con-
necticut and New Jersey, and the advan-
tages this situation gave her in the matter
of importations, refused to do so. New
Jersey, thereupon, withdrew her consent,
and, in order to annoy New York, estab-
lished a free port at Paulus Hook, opposite
New York City, and New York merchants
repeated the tactics of Philadelphia, and
got their goods free of duty.

* Hamilton urged upon the States the nece^
sity of stopping this suicidal policy and
of vesting Congress with full power to reg-
ulate trade, and he contrasted the " pros-
pect of a number of petty States, jarring,
jealous, and perverse, fluctuating and un-
happy at home, and weak by their dissen-
sions in the eyes of other nations," with a
"noble and magnificent perspective of a
great Republic but it was years before
he and others could persuade the States to
do this. As just stated, Congress had no
power in itself to lay duties or to regulate
trade, and as the States would not agree
upon a uniform rate of duty, each sought
its own advantage at the expense of* its
neighbors, and as a necessary consequence
the country at large fell an easy prey to
foreign nations, which lost no time in
passing such laws as they judged most
likely to destroy our commerce and extend
their own.

Great Britain's Barbarous Policy.—
Especially was this true of Great Britain,
then as now the most selfish and grasp-
ing commercial power on the earth. And
her conduct during this period of the
Confederacy was in conformity with the
policy she has always maintained.

How Great Britain Treated the
Colonies.—In 1699 Parliament decreed
that 4 'after the 1st day of December,
1699, no wool, yarn, cloth, or woolen
manufactures of the English Plantations
in America shall be shipped from any ofsaid Plantations, or otherwise laden, in
order to be transported thence to any
place whatsoever, under a penalty of for-
feiting both ship and cargo and £500
[$£,500] for each offense."

England went even further than to im-
pose heavy fines and penalties upon the
people of the colonies, in some instances
actually mutilating their bodies if they
transgressed her barbarous export laws.
For instance, the following provision is
found in the British statutes relative to
wool (Stat. 8 Eliz. Cap. III., Sec. 1):

u No person shall send or take into any ship any
rams, sheep or lambs, alive, to be carried out of
any of the Queen's Dominions, upon pain that
every such person, their abettors, etc., shall for
their first offense forfeit all their goods, half to
the Queen and half to him that will sue. Every
such offender shall suffer imprisonment one year,
and at the year's end shall, in some market town,
in the fullness of the market, have his left hand
cut off, to be nailed up in the openest place of
such market; and every person offending against
this statute shall be adjudged a felon."

In 1732 Parliament prohibited the ex-
portation of hats from province to prov-
ince and limited the number of appren-
tices to be taken by hatter^. In 1750 the
erection of any mill or engine for splitting
or rolling iron was prohibited under a
penalty of $1,000 for each offense; but
pig iron could be exported to England,
duty free, in order that it might be manu-
factured there and returned to the colo-
nies. Later, Lord Chatham declared that
he would not permit the colonists to make
even a hob-nail or a horseshoe for them-
selves, and his views were subsequently
carried into effect by the absolute prohibi-
tion, in 1765, of the export of artisans; in
1781, of woolen machinery; in 1782, of
cotton machinery and artificers in cotton;
in 1785 (when the States most needed
them), of iron and steel making machinery
and workmen in those departments of
trade; and in 1799 by the prohibition of
the export of colliers, lest other countries
should acquire the art of mining coal.
England's object was to keep the colonists
all farmers, so as to supply her home

people, engaged mostly in manufacturing,
with food and raw materials, and to com-
pel the colonists to take from her in
return her manufactured products; also to
pay profit both ways; in other words, to
compel them to sell to England all they
had to sell—their agricultural surplus—
and to buy from her ail they were obliged
to purchase—all manufactured articles of
any importance. This process was pleas-
ing and remunerative to British manufac-
turers and capitalists, but it kept the
colonists poor and almost ruined them.
For, as has been shown, they were forbid-
den to manufacture anything themselves,
and they were never able to raise an agri-
cultural surplus sufficient to pay for what
they had to import.

With no tariff on imports at home, but
subject to such burdens on our exports
abroad as was pleasing to those to whom
we were obliged to sell, the imports of the
colonists in 1771 exceeded their exports
by $13,750,000—-an enormous sum in those
days.

Is it any wonder that. our forefathers
rebelled? And not satisfied with these
measures to prevent and repress all manu-
facturing enterprises in the States, she also
attempted to destroy all our commerce by
enforcing post barbarously iniquitous laws
with respect to navigation.

By the Navigation] Act Great Britain
decreed that "No goods or commodities
whatever, of tho growth, production, or
manufacture of Europe, Africa, or America,
shall be imported into England or Ireland,
or into any of the Plantations [American
colonies] except in ships belonging to
English subjects, of which the master and
the greater number of the crew shall also
be English."

^pur trade with her West Indian colonies
was prohibited; and, by the enforcement
of these navigation acts, our commerce
was nearly destroyed. As we had no tariff,
foreign vessels and goods were freely
admitted into our States, while our vessels
and goods were burdened with heavy rates10

Mid duties in foreign ports. It thus hap-
pened tliat the prices of goods imported
and the prices of our exports were subject
to the will of foreigners. They demanded
their own prices for their imports, and we
had to pay them; and they offered us their
own prices for our goods, and we had to
take them; for, being without a national
tariff, we were absolutely at their mercy.

Before this Navigation Act was passed
the colonists had sent their trading ships
to all the known ports of the world, and
their commerce had become considerable
and valuable to them, but by that act it
was annihilated at a blow. Even Burke
'declared in Parliament that "by it the
^commerce of the colonies was not only
tied, but strangled. " Is it not true that
England was and is the most selfish of
nations ? Her object will be stated further
on.

How the States Were Affected.—In

the comparative condition of the United
States and Great Britain, after the close of
the Revolutionary War, not a hatter, a
boot or shoe maker, a saddler, or a brass
founder here could carry on his business,
except in the coarsest and most ordinary
production, under the pressure of this
foreign dictation. Thus was presented
the extraordinary and calamitous spectacle
of a successful revolution wholly failing
of its ultimate object. The people of
America had gone to war, not for names,
but for things; to redress their own griev-
ances, to improve their own condition, and
to throw off the burden which the colonial
system had laid on their industry. To at-
tain these objects they had endured incred-
ible hardships, and borne and suffered
almost beyond the measure of humanity.

And when their independence was at-
tained they found that, by the ungenerous,
uncivilized, and unchristian legislation and
action of Great Britain, it was merely a
piece of parchment. The industry which
had been burdened in the colonies had
been crushed in the free States, and the
^mechanics and manufacturers of the

country found themselves, in the bitter-
ness of their hearts, independent but
ruined.

Daniel Webster in a speech on the 8th
of July, 1833, affirmed the truth of the
foregoing statements when he said: " From
the close of the War of the Revolution
there came a period of depression and dis-
tress on the Atlantic coast, such as the
people had hardly felt during the sharpest
crisis of the war itself. Ship-owners, ship-
builders, mechanics, artisans, all were
destitute of employment, and some of them
destitute of bread. British ships came
freely, and British ships came plentifully;
while to American ships and American
products there was neither protection on the
one side nor the equivalent of reciprocal
free trade on the other. The cheaper
labor of England supplied the inhabitants
of the Atlantic shores with everything.
Ready-made clothes among the rest, from
the crown of the head to the soles of the
feet, were for sale in every city. All these
things came free from any general system
of imposts, Some of the States attempted
to establish their own partial systems, but
they failed."

George Bancroft, on page 432, Vol. I.
History of the Constitution, paints the pic-
ture of this period (1785) even a darker
shade when he says:

4' It is certain that the English have the
trade of these States almost wholly in
their hands; whereby their influence must
increase; and a constantly increasing
scarcity of money begins to be felt, since
no ship sails hence to England without
large sums of money on board, especially
the English packet-boats, which monthly
take with them between forty and fifty
thousand pounds sterling." Again on page
439 we find this:

" The scarcity of money makes the prod-
uce of the country cheap, to the disap-
pointment of the farmers, and the dis-
couragement of husbandry. Thus the
two classes, merchants and farmers, thatii

divide nearly all America, ate discontented
and distressed."

Greedy Selfishness of Great Britain.—

It may be remarked in passing that it has
always been the leading object of Great
Britain to manufacture for the world, to
monopolize the bulk of reproductive
power, and, if possible, to keep all other
countries in a state of industrial vassalage,
by means of her great tcapital, her cheap
labor, Jier skill, and her mercantile marine.
Her policy has been, and is, to force all
other countries to compete in her home
markets for the sale of their so-called raw
materials. Why? To enable her to fix
the price of what she buys. It has also
been, and is, her policy to force all other
nations to compete in her home markets
for the purchase of her finished products.
Why ? To enable her to fix the price of
what she sells. Of course that is business;
and if England can eniorce such policies
she will, indeed, become the mistress of
the world. This policy she enforced upon
us under the Confederacy.

In proof that this selfish policy has pre-
vailed in England, many of her ablest
public men might be quoted; but two or
three will suffice at this time.

Years ago Lord Goderich publicly de-
clared in the English Parliament: "Other
nations know that what we English mean
by free trade is nothing more no less than
by means of the great advantages we enjoy
to get the monoply of all the markets of
other nations for our manufactures; and
to prevent them [the foreign nations"! one
and all from ever becoming manufacturing
nations."

David Syme, another prominent English
free trader and Member of Parliament,
openly said:

" In any quarter of the globe, where
competition shows itself as likely to inter-
fere with English monopoly, immediately
the capital of her manufacturers is massed
in that particular quarter; and goods are
exported there in large quantities, and
sold at such prices that outside competition

is effectually counted out. English manu-
facturers have been known to export goods
to a distant market and sell them under
cost for years, with a view of getting
the market into their own hands again, and
keep that foreign market, and step in for
the whole when prices revive/'

v No comment is called for at this time;
but historical facts establish the accuracy
of the statement as to the selfishness of
Great Britain beyond all question, and her
conduct toward this country after the close
of the War of the Revolution as well as
after the close of our second war with that
power will be found instructive.

Besults of Such a Policy.—And so the
years from 1783 to 1789 were lovely,
halcyon days for the merchants and states-
men of Great Britain. In about three
years* time nearly all the money of the
country had passed into the pockets of
British merchants and manufacturers, and
we were left "poor indeed;" for not enly
did they take from us our money, but they
took also our good name for integrity, in-
dependence and common-sense, which we
had won in the Revolutionary War.

As there was no tariff to prevent, foreign
nations literally poured in upon us their
products of every kind and description, in
such quantities and at such prices that our
people could not compete with them.

Our domestic industries were suspended.
The weaver, the shoemaker, the hatter,
the saddler, the rope-maker, and many
others, were reduced to bankruptcy; our
markets were glutted with foreign products;
prices fell; our manufacturers, generally,
were ruined; our laborers beggared; our
artisans without employment; our mer-
chants insolvent, and our farmers neces-
sarily followed all these classes into the
vortex of general financial destruction.

" Depreciation seized upon every species
of property. Legal pressure to enforce
payment of debts caused alarming sac-
rifices of both personal and real estate;
spread distress far and wide among the
masses of the people; aroused in the hearts12

of the sufferers the bitterest feelings
against lawyers, the courts and the
whole creditor class; led to a popular
clamor for stay-laws and various other
radical measures of supposed relief, and
finally filled the whole land with excite-
ment, apprehension and sense of weakness
and a tendency to despair of the Republic.
Inability to pay even necessary taxes be-
came general, and often these could be
collected only by levy and sale of the
homestead." (M^son.)

Such were the ruinous results that neces-
sarily followed the adoption of a free trade
policy under the Confederacy.

A writer of that period says : " We are
poor with a profusion of material wealth
in our possession. That we are poor needs
no other proof than our prisons, bankrupt-
cies, judgments, executions, auctions,
mortgages, etc., and the shameless
quantity of business in our courts of
law."

Hildreth's History, page 465, Vol. III.,
speaking of this period, has this true but
terrible indictment: "The large importa-
tion of foreign goods, subject to little or
no duty, and sold at peace prices, was
proving ruinous to all those domestic
manufactures and mechanical employ-
ments which the non-consumption agree-
ments and the war had created and fostered.
Immediately after the peace, the country
had been flooded with imported goods, and
debts had been unwarily contracted, for
which there was no means to pay."

In Bolle's Financial History of the
United States, Vol. II., page 437, will be
found these instructive words: ° From
1783 to 1789 the trade of the thirteen old
States was perfectly free to the whole
world. The result was that Great Britain
filled every section of our country with
her manufactures of wool, cotton, linen,
leather, iron, glass and all other articles
used here; and in four years she swept
from the country every dollar and every
piece of gold."

Our imports from Great Britain alone

were $30,000,000 in l?84-85, while out et-
ports to her were only $9,000,000—a
frightful balance on the wrong side.
They drained us of our last dollar and left
us for a circulating medium only orders oil
State tax-collectors and depreciated certifi-
cates of State and Federal debt, themselves
worthless.

Other Calamitous Results.—The dis-
tress became universal and alarming.

In the district of Maine a convention
was held for the purpose of revolting from
the State of Massachusetts. In New Hamp-
shire the people surrounded the building
where the Legislature was in session and
declared that it should not adjourn till it had
passed measures to abolish debt, or to
relieve the people in some other way.

In Massachusetts fully one-third of the
population joined in Shay's Rebellion on
account of the abject poverty and distress
of the people, and nothing less than mili-
tary force was able to repress all these
lawless demonstrations and revolts.

Among the causes that led to Shay's
Rebellion Hildreth mentions: "The want
of a certain and remunerative market for
the produce of the farmer, and the depres-
sion of domestic manufactures by com-
petition from abroad."

The French minister at that period,
after relating the foregoing disturbances^
adds: " It must be agreed that these insur-
rections are, in a great part, due to the
scarcity of specie."

In Connecticut more than five hundred
farms were offered for sale for arrears of
taxes, which the owners were too poor to
pay; and in Pennsylvania, North Carolina
and South Carolina, matters were scarcely
any better.

There was no market for real estate, and
debtors, who were compelled to sell their
lands, were ruined, without paying one-
fourth of the demands against them.

Men universally distrusted each other.
The bonds of men whose competency
should have been unquestioned could not13

be negotiated, except at a discount of
thirty, forty, or even fifty per cent.

Free Trade the Real Cause of These
Evils.—It was generally understood and
agreed, by the writers and statesmen of
that distressful period, that the widespread
and almost universal ruin which then in-
volved the States in general disorder, re-
volt, and rebellion were in great part, if
not wholly, due to the scarcity of specie, or
good money.

In his "History'of the Insurrection,"
Minot regards as one of the leading causes
that led to those troubles: " The loss of
many markets to which Americans had
formerly resorted with their produce.
Thus was the usual means of remittance
by articles of the growth of the country
almost annihilated, and little else than
specie remained to answer the demands
incurred by importations. The money, of
course, was drawn off, and this being
inadequate to the purpose of discharging
the whole amount of foreign contracts, the
rest was chiefly sunk by the bankruptcies
of the importers. The scarcity of specie,
arising principally from this cause, was
attended with evident consequences; it
checked commercial intercourse through
the community, and furnished reluctant deb-
tors with an apology for withholding their
dues both from individuals and the public."

But the scarcity of specie, or money, was
due, as has aiready been shown, to the free
trade policy of that period, which allowed
and encouraged such enormous excess of
. imports over exports, and thus necessitated
the withdrawal of the gold and silver from
the country to pay such excess.

"Had there been no free trade, there
would have been no inundation of foreign
goods; had there been no inundation of for-
eign goods, there would have been no drain
of specie; had there been no drain of
specie, there would have been no lack of a
circulating medium; had there been no
such distress, there would have been no
impulse toward insubordination to the
$tate." (Mason.)

Consequently, it follows legitimately
that free trade was the principal .source or
cause of the widespread discontent, dis-
tress, and the demoralization of that
period.

A Summary of These Evil Results.—

Free trade was the starting point. It was
quickly followed by imports largely in ex-
cess of exports; then by a glut of foreign
productions; then by suspension of our
own manufactures of all kinds; then by a
gradual but complete loss of all our
specie; then by the necessary stoppage of
most of our business; then by the enforced
idleness of our laborers and artisans; then
by universal debt; then by a crushing
depreciation of real-estate; then by a posi-
tive inability on the part of nearly every-
body to pay their debts; then by general
distress and financial ruin; and finally, by
insurrections and rebellions which threat-
ened destruction to the life and liberties of
the nation.

"As this was the closest approach to
absolute free trade ever tried by this
country, so there was the largest harvest
of dangers and calamities ever experienced
by the American people." (Mason.)

For this reason I have dwelt more at
length upon the period of the Confederacy,
and for the further reason that the causes
of the terrible sufferings and disasters of
our forefathers, under the free trade policy
of that period, are so little understood and
appreciated.

The Influence of English Teachings.

—Lured on by these false doctrines of polit-
ical economy, our people had been draw-
ing closer and closer to the brink of in-
dividual and national bankruptcy, and
consequent political annihilation; and at
last they stood where another step in that
direction was impossible without plunging
the country into that bottomless abyss. If
they would survive as a nation, there was
but one thing for them to do, or that they
could do—and that was to turn away from
free trade and lay hold on protection.

Our forefathers were not fools, thoughthey sometimes acted very foolishly. They
had been educated, as just stated, in the
false doctrines of political economy as
taught in England—the most swinishly
selfish system ever formulated by man;
and these doctrines had been so firmly
established in their minds that nothing less
than the bitter school of adversity could
correct and eradicate them.

But standing there upon that brink of
sure destruction, they had the good sense
to see the truth, and to declare that while
they were willing to give up everything,
even to life itself, to maintain liberty and
national independence, they could not see
any good reason why they should sacrifice
themselves to maintain a doctrine (free
trade) that had brought to them only dis-
tress, misery and financial ruin.

Demand for a National Constitution.

—And now having discovered their im-
pending danger, and the cause of it; hav-
ing been convinced of the false and ruinous
commercial policy of England toward them
—the policy of practical free trade—and
having comprehended the fact that a home
market and home protection affords the
only real safety for the American people,
they took immediate steps to convene a
Constitutional Convention, to draft a Con-
stitution which should secure these great
blessings, with others, to them and their
posterity forever. They had learned that
a strong central power was necessary, and
that many rights, then reserved to the
States, must be delegated to this central
power.

The Leading Question.—There were
other great questions to be discussed and
settled, but the leading question was:
"How shall we secure protection to home
industries ?"

" The people of this country demanded
a Union stronger than the Confederation,
for the very purpose of shielding home in-
dustries from the prostrating assaults of
foreign competition, through the regula-
tion of commerce with other nations, so as
to check or to prohibit the importation of

commodities that interfered with the
growth and prosperity of domestic manu-
factures; and so as to give native produc-
tions an impetus which would develop
all the resources inherent within the
boundaries of the nation, essential for the
supply and consumption of the population
at all times. No fact is more securely
established than is this." (Mason.)

In the debate on the first tariff bill in
1789, Fisher Ames, one of the ablest men
in that Congress, said:

" I conceive, sir, that the present Con-
stitution was dictated by commerical neces-
sity more than by any other cause. The
want of an efficient government to secure
the manufacturing interest, and to ad-
vance our commerce, was long seen by
men of judgment and pointed out by
patriots solicitous to promote our general
welfare."

The historian Bancroft says: "The
necessity for regulating commerce (i.e., for
providing a proper tariff) gave the im-
mediate impulse to a more perfect Constitu^
tion."—(Vol. I., page 146.)

Daniel Webster, historically known as
" the Great Expounder of the Constitu-
tion," in a speech at Buffalo, June, 1833,
declared: "The protection of American
labor against the injurious competition of
foreign labor, so far at least as respects
general handicraft productions, is known
historically to have been one end designed
to be obtained by establishing the Con-
stitution."

Years later Mr. Webster repeated this
idea, but much clearer and stronger, in a
speech at Albany, in August, 1844, when
he said:

" In colonial times, and during the time
of the Convention, the idea was held up
that domestic industry could not prosper,
manufactures and the mechanic arts could
not advance, the condition of the common
country could not be carried up to any
considerable elevation, unless there should
be one government to lay one rate of duty
upon imports throughout the Union; regard15

to be had, in laying this duty, to tlie pro-
tection of American labor and industry.

"I defy the man in any degree con-
versant with the history, in any degree
acquainted with the annals of this country
from 1787 to 1789, when the Constitution
was adopted, to say that protection of
American labor and industry was not a
leading, I might almost say, the leading
motive South as well as North, for the
formation of the new government. With-
out that provision in the Constitution it
never could have been adopted."

Another remarkable man who made
a careful study of this matter (Rufus
Choate) declared: "A whole people, a
whole generation of our fathers, had in
view, as one grand end 'and purpose of
their new government, the acquisition of
the means of restraining, by governmental
action, the importation of foreign manu-
factures, for the encouragement of manu-
factures and of labor at home; and desired
and meant to do this by clothing the new
government with this specific power of
regulating commerce. This whole coun-
try, with one voice, demanded to have
inserted in the Constitution the power to
enact protective legislation, a power which
they held as another declaration of inde-
dependence—a power by which we are
able to protect all our children of labor.
This power must not be surrendered, must
not sleep, until the Union flag shall be
hauled down from the last masthead—a
sight which, I trust, neither we nor our
children to the thousandth generation are
doomed to see."

This position could be fortified with
other quotations from Fisher Ames, Ed-
ward Everett, James Madison, and many
others, but they must be omitted at this
time.

The Convention was held; the Constitu-
tion was drafted, accepted, and adopted,
The First Congress was elected under its
provisions, and by this Congress, the
splendid machinery of the Constitution
was set in motion.

First Protection Period—1789 to
1816. 1789: The Tariff the First
Question.—The tariff question was the
very first subject discussed by the First
Congress, and for more than one hundred
years has been the one subject that has
never been finally settled.

Nullification, Secession, Banks, Slavery,
and Reconstruction have had their times
of fierce discussion, and have all been
forever settled, but the tariff was never a
more vital question than it is to-day.

The first act of the First Congress regu»
lated the form of the oath to be taken by
officials, and was merely formal, but the
first act of that Congress affecting the
country was the act establishing a Protect*
ive Tariff, passed and signed by George
Washington, July 4, 1789.

The discussion was long and earnest. It
was participated in by such men as James
Madison, R. H. Lee, Charles Carroll,
Rufus King, Oliver Ellsworth, Fisher
Ames, Roger Sherman, J. Trumbull, and
others; and a Congress composed of such
men passed a Tariff Act in the interest of
protection and not for "revenue only," for
in the preamble to the act occur these
words: "Whereas, it is necessary for the
support of the Government, for the dis-
charge of the debt of the United States,
and for the encouragement and protection
of manufactures, that duties be laid on
imported goods, etc., therefore be it enact-
ed," etc.

It may be remarked in passing that a
large majority of that First Congress were
farmers, but they saw the necessity of
encouraging and protecting manufactures,
in order that they might be free from
servile and dangerous dependence upon
foreign nations for the arms, the imple-
ments of farming and other machinery
needed for their own safety, protection and
independence.

It is thus seen that the doctrine of pro-
tection to home manufactures—to home
products—was coeval with our national
organization. It had its enemies even16

then; and then, as now, the most con-
spicuous were either Englishmen or men
imbued with English ideas; but all of the
leading men, the men whose actions and
legislation made the Revolution a success;
the men who formulated our glorious
Constitution and secured its adoption by
the several States—all voted for the Pro-
tective Tariff Bill, and rejoiced greatly
when it became a law.

Opinions of Presidents.-—Five of these
leading men became Presidents while the
law of 1789 remained on our statute-book,
and it may not be uninteresting nor un-
profitable to learn right here what these
great men thought of protection to home
manufactures.

George Washington, in his first annual
message, speaking of our nation as "a free
people," said:

"Their safety and interest require that
they promote such manufactures as tend
to render them independent of others for
essentials, particularly military supplies."

In his seventh annual message he shows
that "our agriculture, commerce, and
manufactures prosper beyond example
[under the tariff of 1789]. Every part of
the Union displays indications of rapid
and various improvement, and with bur-
dens so light as scarcely to be perceived.
Is it too much to say that our country
exhibits a spectacle of national happiness
never surpassed, if ever before equaled ?"

In his eighth and last annual message
Washington said: "Congress has repeat-
edly and not without success directed their
attention to the encouragement of manu-
factures. The object is of too much con-
sequence not to insure a. continuance of
their efforts in every way which shall ap-
pear eligible."

John Adams, our second President, in
his last annual message referred to our
economic system, and congratulated the
country upon the great prosperity then
existing, and added: "I observe, with much
satisfaction, that the product of the rev-
enue during the present year has been

more considerable than during any former
period.

" This result affords conclusive evidence
of the great resources of the country and
of the wisdom and efficiency of the meas-
ures which have been adopted by Congress
for the protection of commerce and pres-
ervation of the public credit."

Thomas Jefferson, our third President,
often referred to as the founder of the
Democratic party, in his second annual
message, in enumerating the landmarks by
which we are to guide ourselves in all our
proceedings, mentions the following as one
of the most prominent; " To protect the
manufactures adapted to our circum-
stances."

Our protective system, under the Tariff
Act of 1789, had produced results far
greater and more satisfactory than had been
anticipated; and in 1806 Mr. Jefferson
found that there was likely to be a consid-
erable surplus after paying all the public
debt called for by our contracts; and in his
sixth annual message he thus presents his
views to the country as to the best method
of disposing of that surplus; "Shall we,"
he asks, "suppress the imposts [duties]
and give that advantage to foreign over
our domestic manufactures? On a few
articles of more general and necessary use,
the suppression in due season will doubt-
less be right; but the great mass of the
articles on which imposts are laid are
foreign luxuries, purchased by those only
who are rich enough to afford themselves
the use of them."

Again he wrote: " The general inquiry
now is, shall we make our own comforts
or go without them at the will of a foreign
nation ? He, therefore, who is now against
domestic manufactures, must be for re-
ducing us either to a dependence upon
that nation, or to be clothed in skins and
live like beasts in caves and dens. I am
proud to say I am not one of these. Ex
perience has taught me that manufactures
are now as necessary to our independence
as to our comforts.17

"The prohibiting duties we Jay on all
articles of foreign manufacture, which
prudence requires us to establish at home,
with the patriotic determination of every
good citizen to use no foreign article which
can be made within ourselves, without re-
gard to difference of price, secures us
against a relapse into foreign dependency."

In his letter to Humphrey, 1809, he
wrote: " My own idea is that we should
encourage home manufactures to the ex-
tent of our own consumption of everything
of which we raise the raw materials."

In 1817, after the close of the second
war with Great Britain, in accepting an
election to membership in a <( Society for
the Encouragement, of Domestic Manufac-
tures," Jefferson wrote: " The history of
the last twenty years has been a significant
lesson for us all to depend for necessaries
on ourselves alone; and I hope twenty
pears more will place the American hemi-
sphere under a system of its own, essential-
ly peaceable and industrious and not need-
ing to extract its comforts out of the eternal
fires raging in the Old World."

James Madison, our fourth President,
recognized as '' the Father of the Constitu-
tion," in a special message to Congress,
May 23, 1809, said: " It will be worthy of
the just and provident care of Congress to
make such further alterations in the laws
as will more especially protect and foster
the several branches of manufacture which
have been recently instituted or extended
by the laudable exertions of our citizens."

Again in a special message, Feb. 20,
1815, Mr. Madison said: " But there is no
subject than can enter with greater force
and merit into the deliberations of Con-
gress than a consideration of the means to
preserve and promote the manufactures
which have sprung into existence and ob-
tained an unparalleled maturity throughout
the United States during the period of the
European wars. This source of national
independence and wealth I anxiously rec-
oiumend, therefore, to the prompt and
constant guay&anship of Congress."

James Monroe, our ^fth President, in
his inaugural said: " Our manufactures
will likewise require the systematic and
fostering care of the Government. Possess-
ing, as we do, all the raw materials, the
fruit of our own soil and industry, we
ought not to depend, in the degree we
have done, on supplies from other coun-
tries. Equally important is it to provide
at home a market for our raw materials, as
by extending the competition it will
enhance the price and protect the cultiva-
tor against the casualties incident to foreign
market."

In his seventh annual message he says:
" Having formerly communicated my
views to Congress respecting the encourage-
ment which ought to be given to our
manufactures, and the principles on which
it should be founded, I have only to add
that those views remain unchanged. I
recommend a review of the tariff for the
purpose of affording such additional pro-
tection to those articles which we are pre-
pared to manufacture, or which are more
immediately connected with the defense
and independence of the country."

Here, then, are the views in brief of our
first five presidents, and the feremost men
of the years in which the Tariff Act of
1789 was a law. We find no hint of dis-
satisfaction with protection; no suggestibn
of a repeal of the law, and no intimation
of a modification of the tariff laws, except
to give them " a prompt and constant
guardianship" and " additional protection
to those articles we are prepared to manu-
facture, " etc.

Let us now return to ourv historical
statement, and learn, if we may, what
were some of the resulting benefits from
the new Tariff Law.

Benefits of the Tariff of 1789.—

Agriculture became more extensive and
prosperous; commerce increased with
wonderful rapidity; old industries were
revived, and many new ones were estab-
lished in all parts of the country; our
merchant nav^ reyived ^4 multiplied;all branches of domestic trade were pros-
perous ; our revenue soon became sufficient
to pay the expenses of tlie Government,
and give relief to its ereditors; the people
again became contented and industrious;
and the whole country seemed to be, and
was, on the high-road to great national
wealth and prosperity.

No material changes in the law of 1789
were enacted till 1812, and the general
prosperity above indicated continued
through that period.

18$8.—Embargo Act.—This act has no
relation whatever to the Tariff Act; neither
was it a Tariff Act; but, as in tracing the
history of the tariff from 1789, free traders
often refer to this act as " tariff legisla-
tion prohibiting all importation, followed
by universal disaster," it may be well to
see just what the truth is about it.

They (the free traders) intend to convey
the impression that this absolute prohibi-
tion of importations in 1808 was passed in
the interest of protection; than which noth-
ing could be further from the truth.

This " prohibition" was the celebrated
" Embargo Act" of 1808, and grew out of
the war between Great Britain and France.

Each of these countries had prohibited
all commerce with the other, established
blockades, and authorized the search of
neutral vessels. So outrageous was their
conduct that President Jefferson wrote that
"England was a den of pirates and France
a den of thieves;" and at his suggestion
Congress passed the Embargo Act as a
measure of retaliation against these nations.
But as our home productions were then quite
limited, it was soon found that the Em-
bargo Act was more hurtful to us than to
our enemies; and within a year, at Jef-
ferson's suggestion, it was repealed. But
in all the discussion that led to its enact-
ment or repeal, nothing was said about

tariff" or "protection." But even that
act was not without its compensation; for
it gave a great stimulus to the establish-
ment of new industries and manufactures
for making those articles which formerly

were imported, but which under that pro-
hibition had to be made here or not at all.

1812.—The Tariff Duties Raised.—

In 1812, as a measure to raise money to
carry on the war with England, the tariff
duties were nearly doubled, greatly to the
benefit of the country and of its home
industries—the increase to be taken off
after the close of the war.

This was the period of our second war
with Great Britain; and of course our im-
portations were very small, as England
would sell us nothing, and, with her war
vessels, strove to destroy all our importa-
tions from other countries.

The very fact that our importations
were thus all stopped, or nearly so, com-
pelled us to erect factories and foundries
of our own, and start new industries
to supply our necessities; and notwith-
standing this tremendous stain and demand
upon our resources, caused by the three
years' war from 1812, we made rapid prog-
ress in national wealth and manufacturing
ability during this period. Of course,
there was much of distress and hard times;
war always produces these. New England
shipping was somewhat disturbed, but
New England was more than compensated
by the great increase that came to her
manufactures during this period. In a
special message President Madison earnest-
ly asked of Congress " deliberate consider-
ation of the means to preserve and promote
the manufactures which have sprung into
existence and attained an unparalleled
maturity throughout the United States
during the period of the European wars."

Second Free Trade Period—1816-
1824. 1816: Repeal of the Tariff.—
But in 1816, by one of those inexplicable
changes in public opinion, probably a
mere desire for a change similar to those
of 1884 and 1892, there was a decided re-
action from the high tariff rates of 1812,
and in favor of the Democratic party and
its economic ideas, which have always
leaned toward free trade or very low tariff
rates. The law of 1789 and the amend'19

ment of 1812 were repealed, and lower
duties substituted therefor. And while
there were some protective features retained
in the act of 1816, it was nevertheless a
very wide and disastrous departure from
the tariff rates of 1812; and at the best
was only moderately protective.

Why the Tariff of 1810 Failed.—
But there were some extraordinary reasons
why the tariff of 1816 was a failure and
why its rates were insufficient.

At the close of the war between the
United States and Great Britain, England
and English manufacturers made two dis-
coveries which were very startling and dis-
agreeable to them. First, that having
been deprived of the American markets by
the Embargo Act and tlie subsequent war,
the British manufacturers found their
warehouses at the close of the war full to
bursting with unsold productions of various
kinds, for which they were very anxious,
but unable, to find a market. Second,
that the Americans, compelled by the
same reasons to rely upon themselves in-
stead of the English manufacturers for
their supplies during this period, had
established successfully a large number of
home industries, and were by this means
able to a great degree to supply their own
market.

In this dilemma England saw that she
must act promptly and crush out these
young American industries, or her Ameri-
can market would be forever lost and her
manufacturing industries* permanently
crippled. So she resolved to flood this
country with her goods then on hand,
many of which were old and out of fashion,
and sell them far below cost. It was a
matter of so much importance that it was
discussed in Parliament, and Mr. (after-
ward Lord) Brougham declared in the
House of Commons in 1816: "It is well
worth while to incur a loss upon the first
exportation, in order, by the glut, to stifle
in the cradle those infant manufactures in
the United States which the war has
forced into existence,"

This policy was decided upon, and Great
Britain poured her fabrics and accumulat-
ed stocks of goods into our markets in an
overwhelming torrent and far below cost.
The tariff of 1816 was intended as a barrier
against inundation, and under ordinary
circumstances would have proved such.
But it was a matter of life or death with
the English manufacturers, and so they
continued to pour in their goods upon us
at prices far lower than we could make
them; and true to British custom they
persevered in this policy till our own
industries were very nearly ruined.

The foreign goods imported at this
period were more than twice the quantity
that could be consumed. Niles, in his
history, says: " It is notorious that great
sums of money were expended by the
British to destroy our flocks of sheep, that
they might thereby ruin our manufactories.
They bought up and immediately
slaughtered great numbers of sheep; they
bought our best machinery and sent it off
to England, and hired our best mechanics
and most skillful workmen to go to Eng-
land, simply to get them out of this coun-
try, and so hinder and destroy our exist-
ing and prospective manufactures."

Results of the Repeal.—Then great
depression in all branches of business at
once followed. Bankruptcy soon became
general, and financial ruin was everywhere
present. It could not be otherwise. Carey,
Greeley, Clay, Benton and others show that
this was one of the most distressful jjeriods
of our national existence. Mr. Benton
gave this picture of the condition of the
times: "No price for property; no sales
except those of the sheriff and the marshal;
no purchasers at execution sales except the
creditor, or some hoarder of money; no
employment for industry; no demand for
labor; no sale for the products of the farm;
no sound of the hammer, except that of
the auctioneer knocking down property.
Distress was the universal cry of the people;
relief, the universal demand, was thun-20~

dered at the doors of all Legislatures,
State and Federal."

Horace Greeley says of this period: " At
the close of the second war with England,
peace found this country dotted with
furnaces and factories which had sprung
up under the precarious shelter of embargo
and war. These not yet firmly established
found themselves suddenly exposed to a
relentless and determined foreign competi-
tion. Great Britain poured her fabrics,
far below cost, upon our markets in a per-
fect deluge. Our manufactures went down
like grass before the mower, and our
agriculture and the wages of labor speed-
ily followed. Financial prostration was
general, and the presence of debt was uni-
versal. In New England, fully one-
fourth of the property went through the
sheriff's mill, and the prostration was
scarcely less general elsewhere. In Ken-
tucky the presence of debt was simply
intolerable. In New York, the leading
merchants, in 1817, united in a memorial
to Congress to save our commerce as well
as our manufactures from utter ruin, by
increasing the tariff duties."

Henry Clay declared that the average
depression in the value of property, under
that state of things, was not less than fifty
per cent.

1818.—The Tariff Act of 1818 was

simply an amendment by which tariff duty
was imposed upon a few articles which
prior thereto were free.

It thus appears that the Tariff Acts of
1816 and 1818 were no exception to the
rule that protective tariffs conduce to na-
tional prosperity, and very low tariff rates
to national adversity; for though they were
moderately protective in name, yet, under
the outrageous and disgracefully selfish
policy of Great Britain—a policy which we
could not then have anticipated—those
tariffs afforded insufficient protection; and
insufficient protection is practically as bad
as tariff for revenue only.

Second Protection Period —1824-
3,83$* 1824: Protection Again Re-

stored.-—The disastrous state of affairs
already described continued for several
years, until our people, with a mighty
effort, resolved to endure it no longer; and
in 1824 Congress gave us a new tariff, far
in advance of that of 1789, and it was the
first protective tariff that gave us real pro-
tection.

This tariff was passed in response to a
generrl demand of the country, and upon
the urgent recommendation of President
Monroe to give "additional protection to
those articles which we are prepared to
manufacture," etc. Everybody, except a
few free traders, had become disgusted
with a tariff that was nominally moderate-
ly protective, while in fact it afforded no
real protection; anft the Congress of that
year w *\s largely in favor of a strong pro-
tective tariff in fact as well as in name.

The advocates of this Tariff Act insisted
upon its passage, in order to give to the
country that strength and power which
arise from possessing within itself the
means of defense, and to rescue it from the
dangers and disgrace of habitual depend-
ence upon foreign nations for the common
daily necessaries of life.

The enemies of the bill were no less
determined in their opposition. No de-
nunciation of it could be too severe; no
prophecy of evil to come from it could be
too doleful.

Soon after the tariff bill of 1824 was re-
ported, the New York Evening Post, now,
as then, one of the ablest and most uncom-
promising advocates of free trade, said,
editorially:

'' Pass the tariff as reported by the com-
mittee and you palsy the nation. Pass it,
and where will you any longer find oc-
cupants for your costly piles of stores and
dwelling-houses? Pass it, and who will
be exempt from its grinding operation ?

" The poorer classes, especially, must
feel its effect in paying an additional price
for every article of clothing they and their
families wear, and every mouthful they
eat or drink, save cold water; and to that
will they ere long be reduced."SI

Major McKinley, commenting on this,
says: "None of these awful prophecies
were fulfilled; none of these dire results
ensued. The nation was not palsied, but
quickened into new life. The merchants
did not move out of their costly piles of
stores and dwelling-houses, they remained
only to require larger and finer and more
costly ones; the poorer classes were not
driven to cold water as their only food and
diet, but their labor was in greater demand
and their wages advanced in price. The
entire country under the tariff moved on
to higher triumphs in industrial progress,
and to a higher and better destiny for all
of its people."

John Randolph, one of the ablest of
Democrats, fiercely opposed the bill and in
a spepch in Congress, after showing the
great advantages of Great Britain in
manufacturing, added: " It is in such a
climate only that the human animal can
bear, without extirpation, the corrupted
air, the noisome exhalations, the incessant
labor of these accursed manufactories.
Yes, sir, accursed, for I say it is an ac-
cursed thing. We should have the yellow
fever from June to January, and January
to June. The climate of this country
alone, were there no other natural obsta-
cles to it, says aloud—You shall not manu-
facture."

One of its strongest advocates and sup-
porters was Andrew Jackson, then United
States Senator, and now the patron saint
of the Democratic party. Let us see what
he thought of protection in 1824: "Prov-
idence," said he, "has filled our moun-
tains and our plains with minerals—with
lead, iron and copper—and given us a
climate and soil for the growing of hemp
and wool. These being the greatest ma-
terials of our national defense, they ought
to have extended to them adequate and
fair protection, that our manufacturers and
laborers may be placed in a fair competi-
tion with those of Europe; and that we
may have within our country a supply of
those leading and important articles so
essential in war. We have been too long

subject to the policy of British merchants*
It is time we should become a little more
Americanized; and, instead of feeding the
paupers and laborers of England, feed our
own; or else in a short time by continuing
our present policy [that under the tariff of
1816] we shall all be rendered paupers
ourselves. It is my opinion, therefore,
that a careful and judicious tariff is much
wanted."

Results Quick and Helpful.—The bill
was passed, and again and at once an era
of great financial prosperity set in. So
marked and helpful was the improvement
that in 1828 the duties were raised still
higher; business improved; new industries
were started, and prosperity gladdened the
people.

Hear what President Andrew Jackson
said in his annual message in December,
1832, concerning the results and benefits
of eight years of protection under the
tariffs of 1824 and 1828: "Our country
presents, on every side, marks of prosperity
and happiness, unequaled, perhaps, in any
other portion of the world."

The relief to the country, attained
through these tariffs of 1824 and 1828,
"was profound and general, reaching all
classes—the farmer, the manufacturer, the
ship-owner, the mechanic, and the day-
laborer. The change was as great as was
wrought when Hamilton smote the rock of
public credit and abundant streams of
revenue gushed forth." (Webster.)

Henry Clay, speaking in the United
States Senate in 1832 about this period,
said: "On a general survey we behold
cultivation extended; the arts flourishing;
the face of the country improved; our
people fully and profitably employed; the
public countenance exhibiting tranquillity,
contentment and happiness; its public debt
of two wars nearly redeemed; and, to
crown all, the public treasury overflowing.
If the term of seven years were to be
selected of the greatest prosperity which
this people has enjoyed since the establish-
ment of their present Constitution, it would
be exactly that period of seven years whichimmediately followed the passage of the
tariff of 1824."

• This view is sustained by the best
writers concerning that period, who all
agree that our manufactures were flourish-
ing, that our currency was good, our crops
abundant, and our commerce prosperous.
These combined influences invariably
enhance the demand for labor, increase
its value, establish a general prosperity
for the country and contentment for the
people.

President John Quincy Adams, who
succeeded Mr. Monroe, was also a strong
friend of protection, and in his fourth
annual message discusses at some length
our agricultural, commercial, and manu-
facturing interests, and shows that " all
these interests are alike under the protect-
ing power of the legislative authority,"
and proceeds to make himself clear and
explicit in his defense of the principles of
protection.

1832.—Tariff of 1828 Amended.—The
Tariff Act of 1832 was really nothing but
some slight amendments to the act of 1828.
Southern feeling against the tariff of 1828
was exceedingly bitter, and they were de-
termined to have actual free trade if possi-
ble. They demanded through the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means that the
protective system be 4'utterly and abso-
lutely abandoned," and declared that
"Congress should adopt no half way meas-
ures, no temporary expedients, but reform
it altogether."

But the country, as a whole, had never
been so prosperous as under the policy of
the tariff of 1828, and they were in no
mood to yield to this foolish demand of the
South. But, for the sake of peace and of
conciliating the South, they were willing
to make some concessions to this free trade
prejudice, and, therefore, certain coarse
wools were put upon the free list, and
some reduction was granted upon articles
made from those wools. But the protect-
ive principle of the act of 1828 was still
retained on the express ground that it was

necessary for building tip and sustaining
our own manufactures as one of the essen-
tial means of increasing and maintaining
our national greatness.

Third Free Trade Period—1833-
1842. 1833 : Free Trade Again.—But

in 1833, the year following thaf in which
Jackson used the words just quoted, the
enemies of protection, led by the Demo-
cratic party, rallied their forces and again
secured control of Congress. Through a
disgraceful compromise with Southern
nullifiers protection was abandoned, the
protective Tariff Acts of 1824 and 1828 were
repealed, and duties too low to afford any
real protection to home industries were
established by that Congress.

The Tariff Act of 1833 was intended, as a
compromise and conciliatory measure. The
South was on the verge of open rebellion,
so determined were they not to submit to
the protective system. Mr. Clay and Con-
gress did not intend to give up the protect-
ive principle of the act of 1828; but, like
all such compromise measures, it yielded
just enough to completely destroy its effi-
ciency, as was subsequently learned to our
sorrow. It provided that by a sliding
scale of one-tenth biennially all duties in
excess of twenty per cent, should be abol-
ished within a period of ten years. In its
results and effects it was really an aban-
donment of the protective principle; for
the reductions allowed were soon found to
afford "insufficient protection," which is
practically no protection, as was so terribly
proved under the tariff of 1816. Industry
and trade soon declined, and again foreign
goods poured like an inundation into our
markets.

Results of This Appeal.—Again finan-
cial depression followed; assignments and
bankruptcies resulted everywhere; manu-
facturers suspended operations, and busi-
ness grew worse and worse, till the cul-
mination was reached in the financial crash
of 1837, one of the most appalling and
disastrous financial revulsions ever known23

—Severer even than that which followed
the repeal of the first tariff in 1816.

The revulsion of 1837 produced a far
greater havoc than was experienced in the
period above mentioned. The ruin came
quickly and fearfully. There were few
that could save themselves. Property .of
every description was parted with at prices
that were astounding, and as for the cur-
rency, there was scarcely any at all. "In
some parts of Pennsylvania the people
were obliged to divide bank notes into
halves, quarters, eighths, and so on, and
agree from necessity to use them as money.
In Ohio, with all her abundance, it was
hard to get money to pay taxes. The
sheriff of Muskingum County, as stated by
the Guernsey Times, in the summer of
1842, sold at auction one four-horse wagon
at $5.50; ten hogs at 6£ cents each; two
horses (said to be worth $50 to $75 each) at
$2 each; two cows at $1 each; a barrel of
sugar at $1.50, and a store of goods at that
rate. In Pike County, Mo., as stated by
the Hannibal Journal, the sheriff sold
three horses at $1.50 each; one large ox
at 12^ cents; five cows, two steers and one
calf, the lot at $3.25; twenty sheep at 13|
cents each; twenty-four hogs, the lot at 25
cents; one eight-day clock at $2.50; lot of
tobacco, seven or eight hogsheads, at $5;
three stacks of hay, each, at 25 cents, and
one stack of fodder at 25 cents." (Colton's
Life of Henry Clay, Vol. I.)

The whole country went into liquida-
tion; bank loans and discounts fell off
more than one-half; the money loss to the
country was not less than $1,000,000,000,
to say nothing of the tremendous strain
upon the moral sense of the people.

All prices fell off ruinously; production
was greatly diminished, and in many de-
partments practically ceased; thousands of
workmen were idle, with no hope of em-
ployment, and their families suffering
from want. Our farmers were without
markets; their products rotted in their
barns; their lands, teeming with rich har-
vests, were sold by the sheriff for debts
and taxes. The tariff which robbed our

industries of protection failed to supply the
Government with necessary revenues.
The national Treasury, in consequence,
was bankrupt, and the credit of the nation
very low. In the first six years after 1884
the revenue fell off twenty-five per cent.,
and the Government was obliged to borrow
money at high rates of interest to pay cur-
rent expenses.

1837.—President Martin Van Buren,
in 1837, superseded Mr. Jackson; but Mr.
Van Buren was so ambitious for office, so
reckless of priuciple in obtaining it, so
timid and abject before Southern politi-
cians in soliciting it, that, so far as I can
ascertain, he dared not express himself
officially upon the subject of protection.

He is believed to have been personally in
favor of protection; but he and President
Pierce, alone of all the Presidents, hold
the uneviable distinction of having lacked
the moral courage to state their opinions.
So far as is known officially Van Buren
was neither for nor against; and, like a
scripture party, because he was neither
hot nor cold, in 1840 the people spewed
him out of politics into inglorious retire-
ment.

1840.	— The Democratic National
Convention condemned protection and
indorsed practical free trade in its platform
of 1840.

1841.—President	William H. Har-
rison, a Whig and a strong protectionist,
succeeded Mr. Van Buren, but he lived
only a month after his inauguration and
had no opportunity to make his opinions
felt.

Vice-President John Tyler succeeded
Harrison, and while he was professedly a
protectionist his Southern training and as-
sociations had made him one of a very mild
type.

Fortunately, however, for the country a
strong Whig and Protectionist majority
now had control in Congress, and soon
made itself felt.

Third Protection Period. — 1842-
1846. 1842: Protection Once More.—The state of tilings as set forth under the
tariff of 1833 continued till 1842, when
the Whigs came back to power. They
found the country completely exhausted
by misrule and free trade, but quickly
turned the tide by passing another highly
protective tariff.

It was too high, indeed, to suit President
Tyler, and he vetoed it; but the country
by this time had become so earnest and de-
termined in this matter that Congress
dared not yield to him, and so passed it
over his veto.

Results.—No sooner was this done
than the financial gloom began to pass
away; the sun of prosperity shone forth;
business revived everywhere; and facto-
ries and other industries sprang up on
every hand throughout the North. Confi-
dence was restored, and customs receipts
increased the first year (1843) seventy-fi ve
per cent, over the last year of the com-
promise tariff of 1833.

" After four years of real prosperity
under this tariff of 1842 how great was the
change. Labor was everywhere in de-
mand. Planters had large crops, and the
domestic market was growing with a
rapidity that promised better prices. The
produce of the farm was in demand and
prices had risen. The consumption of
coal, iron, wool and cotton and woolen
cloth was immense and rapidly increasing,
while prices were falling because of the
rapidly improving character of the machin-
ery of production. Production of every
kind was immense, and commerce, internal
and external, was growing with unex-
ampled rapidity. Shipping was in de-
mand, and its quantity was being aug-
mented at a rate never before known.
Roads and canals were productive. Cor-
porations had been resuscitated, and States
had recommended payment, and the credit
of the Union was so high that the same
persons who had vilified the people and
the Government of the Union—under the
compromise tariff of 1833—were now

anxious to secure their custom on almost
any terms." (Carey.)

So very positive and decided was the im-
provement that President Polk, another
Democrat, and a free trader, in his annual
message of December, 1846, was con-
strained tasay:

" 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 her terri-
torial limits and in the rapid increase 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."

Compare this condition with those of the
previous free trade periods, already de-
scribed, and closing in 1789, 1824 and 1842
respectively, and decide which system is
the better for our country.

The South Opposed to Protection.
—But by this time (1842-43) the Slave
power of the South had gained complete
ascendency in the Democratic party. It
saw at once that ^this new and surprising
prosperity in the North, secured as it was
by means of protection to their home in-
dustries, under the new tariff, would
speedily checkmate and finally lead to the
overthrow of their political domination in -
the control of the Government.

Previous to this time the South had been
favorable to protection, and its greatest
statesman, John C. Calhoun, was one of the
stanchest defenders of a high protective
tariff. In March, 1816, Mr. Calhoun made
a strong speech in favor of a protective
tariff, and among other things said:

4 4 When our manufactures are grown to
a certain perfection, as they will under the
fostering care of Government, the farmer
will find a ready market for his surplus
product, and what is of almost equal conse-
quence, a certain and cheap supply of all
his wants. His prosperity will diffuse
itself to every class in the community. It25

[a protective tariff] is calculated to "bind to-
gether more closely our widespread
Republic, and give greater nerve to tlie
arm of Government.'

But no sooner did Mr. Calhoun and
other Southern leaders see their " peculiar
institution" (slavery) and their political
ascendency menaced by it, than they de-
cided to throw all their political power
against a protective tariff. So terrible,
however, had been the financial disaster of
1837 to 1842, under free trade, especially
in the North, that they were compelled to
resort to political fraud and deception if
they would surely win.

In 1844 the Democratic National
Convention reaffirmed in their platform
their opposition to protection and their
indorsement of practical free trade.

Fraudulent Campaign of 1844.—In
1844, as the opponent of Henry Clay, the
Whig candidate and the champion of pro-
tection, the Democratic party nominated
James K. Polk for President. He was a
good man personally, but weak, and he at
once became the pliant tool of the slave
oligarchy.

Colonel Benton in his "Thirty Years"
(Vol. II., page 591) tells us of the private
and personal intrigue made by Mr. Polk in
person with the Southern leaders, by which
he thoroughly satisfied them that he would
be with them in matters relating to tariff,
slavery extension, etc.; and Benton de-
nounces this intrigue as " one of the most
elaborate, complex and daring ever prac-
ticed in an intelligent country." Of
course, this intrigue was.not generally
known, but was confined to a few managers
in the South. They knew their man, how-
ever, and trusted him. He had voted
against the tariff of 1828, which was
favored by Jackson; he announced himself
as steadily opposed to a protective policy;
declared himself against the tariff of 1842,
and favored its repeal and the restoration
of the act of 1838.

Why should not the South have favored
his election ?

But Mr. Polk could not be elected with-
out the electoral vote of Pennsylvania;
and Pennsylvania was strongly protection-
ist. The protectionist supporters of Gen-
eral Jackson must be made to believe that
the tariff of 1842 would not be disturbed in
case of Mr. Polk's election, or he could
never get their votes. How was it possible
to arrange this difficult matter ?

A Double-Faced Candidate.—To be a
free trader in the South, and satisfy them
of his sincerity and trustworthiness, and
an undoubted protectionist in Penn-
sylvania, was indeed difficult and danger-
ous, and at the same time execrably dis-
honest; but it must be attempted or Mr.
Clay would certainly be elected. Mr.
Polk therefore wrote his celebrated " Kane
letter," occupying forty days in the process;
and never were words used to conceal
ideas more skillfull/ or dishonorably than
in this letter. His effort and intention
were to convey the impression to Penn-
sylvanians that he was a protectionist; to
appear to say this, but in fact to say noth-
ing of the kind. The scheme was entirely
successful. To help on this fraud George
M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, a professed
protectionist, was nominated for Vice-
President, to awaken State local pride.

In order to be entirely consistent, the
friends of Polk insidiously circulated all
through Pennsylvania the rumor that Mr.
Clay was unsound on protection; that if
elected he would use all his power to re-
peal the tariff of 1842, and that the only
way to insure the continuance of the tariff
of 1842 was to elect Mr. Polk. And so the
battle went on. In the South the rallying
cry was: '4 Polk,* Texas and Free Trade;"
in the North it was: " Polk, Dallas and
the tariff of '42."

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I wish to
inquire of the Senator from New Hamp-
shire whether he has stated the fact that
after Mr. Dallas made that campaign and
was elected Vice-President he gave, as
Vice-President, the casting vote to repeal
the Tariff Act of 1842 ?Mr. GALLIitfGER. I will say to the
Senator from Oregon tliat I am obliged to
him for calling attention to this interesting
historical fact, which appears later on in
this discussion.

It may now seem incredible that such
double dealing could have succeeded, but
it must be remembered that in those days
the telegraph was comparatively new and
undeveloped, and that the daily newspaper
had not become the tremendous and omni-
present power which it now is; that the
news was disseminated mainly by the easy-
going weeklies, whose circulation was
generally confined to limited areas, and
were delivered by country stages, instead
of swiftly-running railway trains; hence,
that scandalous duplicity, which now would
be exposed in every hamlet of the nation
within twenty four hgurs and cause in-
stant political death to its author, brought
victory to Polk. Of course, one of the
sections was most grossly and intentionally
deceived; but it was not the South.

Polk Severely Censured.—Years after-
ward Chace, a personal friend of Mr. Polk,
wrote a " History of Polk's Administra-
tion," and referring to Polk's connection
with this letter said: "If the principles
which Mr. Polk really entertained were
misunderstood, owing to the phraseology of
the Kane letter, he was not himself alto-
gether blameless. The voters in the North
were deceived by the use of language
which had the effect of obscuring, instead
of more clearly defining his position. The
statement that he was ' not in favor of a
tariff for protection merely' should have
been transposed to read that he was in
favor of a tariff for revenue merely."

After the election and when Dallas was
presiding in the Senate, Daniel Webster
characterized this deception in severest
terms; and Senator Reverdy Johnson, of
Maryland, excoriated Dallas in presence of
the Senate, by accusing him of being a
consenting party to the fraud; and closed
his remarks by declaring that "in the
entire history of our party struggles—in

all the agitations of the political element#
—in all our conflicts for power, during
every former period of the Government—
never had there existed such absolute, open
and vile deception as had been practiced
by the Democratic leaders and politicians
on confiding Pennsylvania."

Democratic Indorsement of Polk.—

The sentiments of Webster and Johnson
were very generally approved by the
country when the facts became known; but
under the lead of the free trade Democracy
of the South the Democratic party in its
National Convention in 1848

" Resolved, That the fruits of the great political
triumph of 1844, which elected James K. Polk and
George M. Dallas, have fulfilled the hopes of the
Democracy of the Union, in the noble impulse
given to the cause of free trade by the repeal of
the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the more
equal, honest and productive tariff of 1846; that
the confidence of the Democracy of the Union in
the principles, capacity, firmness and integrity of
James K. Polk, manifested by his nomination and
election in 1844, has been signally justified by the
strictness of his adherence to sound Democratic
doctrines.11

We have already seen how " his nomina-
tion and election" were brought about,
and what his personal and political friend
and biographer, as well as prominent
Senators, thought of Polk's conduct in that
campaign; and we see in this resolution
how free trade Democracy regarded it.
The country can form its own opinion from
the recorded facts.

[At this point the honorable Senator
yielded the floor.]

Thursday, May 17, 1894.

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, when
I yielded the floor yesterday in the discus-
sion of the interesting topic of the history
of tariff legislation in the United States, I
had reached the fourth free-trade period—
that from 1846 to 1861. I propose to-day
to occupy a little time in the f urther dis-
cussion of this question, with the promise
that when I get the floor again I shall con-
clude my remarks.

Fourth Free Trade Period—1846-1861. 1848: Free Trade Tariff On$e
More.—It was quickly discovered after
Polk was inaugurated that a great fraud
had been concealed in that cry of "Polk,
Dallas, and the Tariff of '42," for no sooner
were the Democrats in power than they, in
1846, repealed that very protective tariff
of 1842 for which they had shouted so
lustily; and, meanest of all, that repeal
was obtained by the casting vote of that
same professed protectionist, George M.
Dallas; and again a tariff of very low duties
became the policy of the country.

The passage of this tariff bill was op-
posed most strenuously by the Whigs in
Congress and by the protectionist news-
papers; and the direful results that fol-
lowed were almost literally pictured and
described.

Daniel Webster made one of his greatest
speeches, running through three days,
July 25, 27 and 28, 1846, and showed its
true character. He said: "You indulge in
the luxury of taxing the potgr man and the
laborer! That is the whole tendency, the
whole character, the whole effect of the
bill. One may see everywhere in it the
desire to revel in the delight of taking
way men's employment. It is not a bill
for the people or the masses. It is not a bill
to add the comforts of those in middle life,
or of the poor. It is not a bill for employ-
ment. It is a bill for the relief of the
highest and most luxurious classes of the
country, and a bill imposing onerous duties
on the great industrious masses, and for
taking away the means of living from
labor everywhere throughout the land."
He showed clearly that this bill narrowed
and diminished our industries, and thus
deprived the masses of needed employ-
ment, and added: " The interest of every
laboring community requires diversity of
occupations, pursuits, and objects of in-
dustry. The more that diversity is mul-
tiplied, even extended, the better. To
diversify employment is to increase em-
ployment and to enhance wages.

"And, sir, take this great truth; place it

on the title-page of every book of politick
economy intended for the use of the
United States; put it in every farmers'
almanac; let it be the heading of the
column of every mechanics' magazine;
proclaim it everywhere, and make it a
proverb that where there is work for the
hands of men there will be work for their
teeth. Where there is employment there
will be bread. It is a great blessing to
the poor to have cheap food, but greater
than that, prior to that, and of still higher
value, is the blessing of being able to buy
food by honest and respectable employ-
ment. Employment feeds and clothes and
instructs. Employment gives healthy
sobriety and morals. Constant employ-
ment and well-paid labor produce, in a
country like ours, general prosperity, con-
tent and cheerfulness.

The leading newspapers worked very
hard to prevent its passage, but in vain;
and after it became a law declared, with
true prophetic inspiration, what would
follow.

July 29, 1846, the New York Tribune
said:

"We believe the change just made
entirely wrong — flagrantly , grievously
wrong—yet we shall studiously avoid
' panic-making.' When the crisis has been
met with manful resolution, we apprehend
that there will be quite disaster enough,
suffering enough, because of this great
national mistake. We fear that thousands
upon ^thousands who would have been
steadily employed and comfortably situat-
ed, if this bill had not passed, will now
be destitute of employment aad dependent
upon charity for bread."

July 30, 1846, the New York Courier and
Enquirer said:

"The country will be flooded with
foreign goods, many manufactories will be
stopped, and others will work at half
price; the home market now being built
up will be injured, ruinously low prices of
agricultural products will follow, and the
day laborer will be required to work forfrfeduced wages. *tlie fcofcsequenfce of such
Excessive importations-will cause a balance
bf trade against us exceeding tlie amount
df specie within tlie country, which must
"be sent abroad, followed, perhaps, by a de-
rangement of our monetary system."

On the same day the New York Express
saidt

,x Whenever the news will go, it will
sound a death-knell in the ear of industry
and enterprise. No sadder tidings for
many a year have reached all branches of
labor, and the outcry, therefore, is gen-
eral."

Similar quotations could be made to a
great extent, but these must suffice.

The bill was passed, and went into
operation, and the direful prophecies con-
cerning its disastrous effects were fulfilled
almost literally.

The Inevitable Results.—The same
inevitable results followed, as always be-
fore, under free trade or very low duties,
though they were postponed for some
years by causes which will be referred to
presently. It can be stated truthfully
that for some years after the repeal of the
tariff of 1842 there was an apparently in-
creasing prosperity; but the apparent suc-
cess that seemed to follow the tariff of
1846 was wholly due to external, adventi-
tious, and unexpected causes. But as soon
as these unusual and accidental resources
were cut off, then followed the same dis-
astrous results as always before, under
free trade or very low duties. Many in-
dustries were destroyed; business was
paralyzed; total ruin overtook tens of
thousands c?f the most useful merchants
and manufacturers of the country; and
armies of toilers were hurled from the
factory or the shop into the streets to steal
or starve.

. Our exports of cotton, rice, tobacco, corn
and pork diminished; the demand for ships
and for labor fell off, and immigration,
which had trebled under the workings of
the tariff of 1842, greatly declined.

Tlie Prophecies Fulfilled.—On De-

cember 18, 1854, the New York TribunS
published a collection of facts which
showed the dreary and prospectively des-
perate condition of industry and commerce.
It showed that the chief industries neces-
sary to the life of the nation were partially
or wholly collapsed through the influences
and effects of the British free trade
doctrines put into operation here by the
tariff of 1846; that our people had been
brought to a condition which in Europe is
attendant upon revolution, and that in
every occupation and branch of business
the depression was so terrible that one-
half or more of all employees had been
thrown out of employment. The Tribune
added:

" What a picture is here presented! We
have supported European manufacturers
and artisans and middlemen to the neglect,
loss and destruction of our own men of in-
dustry and talent, of whatever kind, and
that is the sole reason of our difficulty."

One year Iftter, January 15, 1855, the
New York Iribune printed the following
pathetic article, which explains itself:

" Who is hungry? Go and see. You
that are full-fed and know not what it is to
be hungry—perhaps never saw a hungry
man—go and see. Go and see thousands,
men and women, boys and girls, old and
young, black and white, of all nations,
crowding and jostling each other, almost
fighting for a first chance, acting more
like hungry wolves than human beings, in
a land of plenty, waiting till the food is
ready for distribution. Such a scene may
be seen every day between eleven and two
o'clock around the corner of Orange and
Chatham Streets, where charity gives a din-
ner to the poor, and soup and bread to
others to carry to their miserable families.

" On Saturday we spent an hour there at
the Ijour of high tide. We have never
seen anything like it before. Upward of
a thousand people were fed with a plate of
soup, a piece of bread and a piece of meat,
on the premises, and in all more than
sixteen hundred. Oil the same day onethousand one hundred and thirty portions
of soup were dealt out from Stewart's
'soup kitchen,' corner of Reade Street and
Broadway. At the rooms on Duane Street
for the relief of the poor, on the same day,
they gave food to two thousand two hun-
dred and fifty-six. In the Sixth Ward
alone over six thousand persons were fed
by charity on Saturday, January 13th.
And this is only one day in one ward.
Meanwhile, scenes of a like nature are be-
ing enacted all over the city.

" The cry of hard times reaches us from
every part of the country. The making of
roads is stopped, factories are closed, and
houses and ships are no longer being
built. ~ Factory hands, road makers,
carpenters, bricklayers, and laborers are
idle, and paralysis is rapidly embracing
every pursuit in the country. The cause
of all this stoppage of circulation is to be
found in the steady outflow of gold to pay
foreign laborers for the cloth, the shoes,
the iron and the other things that could be
produced by American labor, but which
cannot be so produced under our present
revenue system. The. convulsion would
have come upon us sooner but for the
extraordinary demand in Europe for bread-
stuffs, growing out of huge famines and
big wars, and but for the dazzling and
magnificent discovery of gold mines in
California, by which hard Kioney, suf-
ficient to buy an empire, has been called
into existence and exported to Europe. If
we could stop the import of the foreign
articles, the gold would cease to flow out
to pay for them, and money would then
again become more abundant, labor would
then again be in demand, shoes, clothing
and other commodities would then again
be in demand, and men would then cease
to starve in the streets of our towns and
cities. If it be not stopped the gold must
continue to go abroad, and employment
must become from day to day more
scarce, until where there are now many
thousands we shall see tens of thousands
of men everywhere crying: 'Give me work!

Only give nie work! Make your owb

terms~-my wife and children have nothing"
to eat!'"

Mr. President, I know of nothing so
absolutely astounding and incomprehen-
sible as the Democratic claim that the
Walker tariff brought prosperity to the
country. It is the one low-tariff period to
which the average Democratic orator always
"points with pride;" the "golden era of
prosperity," as they call it. Well did
McKinley, the great apostle of protection,
once declare, " if that was a golden era of
prosperity, may God save the country from
any more such golden eras."

It is easy to make a glowing general
statement that -the Walker tariff brought
prosperity to our people. A new genera-
tion has come upon the stage of action since
the free trade policy of the Southern slave-
holding oligarchy was overthrown. But
there are some men living who remember
those days, and fortunately facts and fig-
ures are at hand to utterly disprove the
Democratic assertion.

No attention whatever seems to be paid
to the facts of history. Why, in 1850 Mr.
Samuel Bowles and other representative
citizens of Massachusetts sent a petition to
Congress entreating it to revise the tariff
of 1846 in the interest of protection, and
this is what that well-known editor of the
Springfield Republican and his associates
said at that time;

" Previous to the passage of that law the manu-
facturing and mechanical interests in this com-
munity were in a flourishing condition. Since
that time the condition of things has entirely
changed, and it is fully-believed that much ©f the
stagnation of business may be\raced to the oper-
ation of that law. Manufacturing languishes,
mechanics are thrown out of employment, busi-
ness of all kinds is dull, and unless protection can
be afforded to our laboring classes poverty will
overtake them. The subseribers therefore pray
that Congress will so alter the tariff of 1840 that
it will protect the labor and capital of the country
from.foreign competition.1'

In 1854 we find Hunt's Merchant8* Mag<x-
zine, a well-known free trade journal of
that period, declaring that30

"Confidence is shaken everywhere and all
classes are made to realize the insecurity of
worldly possessions. The causes which led to
this have been a long time at work. Goods which
had accumulated abroad when the demand had
almost ceased were crowded upon our shores at
whatever advance could be obtained, thus aggra-
vating the evil."

A little later, January 6,1855, the New
York Herald said editorially:

" Elsewhere will be found some mention of large
failures at Boston and New Orleans. The epi-
demic is traveling over the whole country. No
city of any note can hope to escape."

An address of the Unemployed Working-
men's Committee to the mayor of the city
of New York was published in the Herald
of that same date. These workingmen
said:

" We do not come as beggars, but we ask what
we deem right. We ask not alms, but work. We
don't want a little soup now, and cast-off clothing
to-morrow. But we do want work and the means
of making an honest livelihood. The condition of
the working classes is most piteous. They want
bread. Is there not enough in the city? They
want clothes. Is there none made nowadays?"

Can it be possible that those were pros-
perous times? If idleness, low wages,
hunger, failures, bankruptcy, are evidences
of prosperity, then indeed did the Walker
tariff bring prosperity to the country, but
not otherwise.

But the Democracy was still in power,
and was so infatuated with British free
trade that notwithstanding the fearful state
of things just described, it would not stop
the import of foreign-made goods that our
people might have work, nor the flow of
gold to Europe to pay for them. The con-
dition of the country went from bad to
worse until tha frightful culmination was
reached in the panic of 1857, which will be
discussed further on.

In 1849 President Zachary Taylor
succeeded Mr. Polk, and in his first annual
message, December, 1849, referring to in-
sufficient revenue under the tariff of 1846,
said:

" I recommend a revision of the existing
tariff, and its adjustment on a basis which
way augment the revenue, I do not

doubt the right or duty of Congress to
encourage domestic industry. I look to
the wisdom and patriotism of Congress for
the adoption of a system which may place
home labor, at last, on a sure and per-
manent footing, and, by due encourage-
ment of manufactures, give new and in-
creased stimulus to agriculture and promote
the development of our vast resources and
the extension of our commerce."

1850.—Vice-President Fillmore was
the successor of Mr. Taylor, who had lived
but a few months as President.

Hear what President Fillmore had to say
in his anuual message in December, 1851,
concerning the results flowing from the
repeal of the tariff of 1842. Said he:
" The value of our exports of breadstuffs
and provisions, which it was supposed the
incentive of a low tariff and large importa-
tions from abroad would have greatly
augmented, has fallen from $68,000,000 in
1847 to $21,000,000 in 1851, with almost
a certainty of a still further reduction in
1852. The policy which dictated a low
rate of duties on foreign merchandise, it
was thought by those who established it,
would tend to benefit the farming popula-
tion of this country by increasing the
demand and raising the price of our agri-
cultural products in foreign markets. The
foregoing facts, however, seem to show
incontestably that no such result has
followed the adoption of this policy."

The Reason for This Free Trade
Policy.—The action of Mr. Polk and his
administration in causing the repeal of the
protective tariff of 1842, and substituting
therefor the free trade tariff of 1846, is
so incomprehensible to Americans of the
present day that it may be helpful and
advantageous to us to find and understand
the reason that led them to do as they did
in this respect.

Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, was Mr.
Polk's Secretary of the Treasury, and
probably the ablest thinker and writer on
the free trade side this country has ever
produced.31

The South under slavery was irrevocably
committed to free trade, and Walker was
selected as its leading advocate. Cotton
was king and demanded an economic
system based upon agricultural pursuits
only. Walker wrote a long and very
elaborate report, in which he boldly pro-
claimed the new doctrine that was to
govern the nation from that time; and its
leading thought and principle was con-
tained in the following extract: "We
have more fertile lands than any other
nation; can raise a greater variety of prod-
ucts, and, it may be said, could feed and
clothe the people of nearly all the world.
Agriculture is our chief employment. It
is best adapted to our situation. We can
raise a larger surplus of agricultural prod-
ucts, and a greater variety than almost any
other nation, and at cheaper rates. Re-
move then from agriculture all our
restrictions, and by its own unfettered
power it will break down all foreign
restrictions, and ours being removed,
would feed the hungry and clothe the poor
of our fellow-men, through all the densely
peopled nations of the world."

This was the foundation stone of the
tariff of 1846; as, in this country, agricul-
ture must always be the basis of every
free trade [system. Like til free trade
arguments it is made up of assumptions;
but as Hon. William D. Kelley once de-
clared, "free trade is the science of as-
sumption." Whenever or wherever any
such economic system has been tried it has
invariably failed, and its fallacies and as-
sumptions have been made apparent.

Though the English statesmen were very
anxious to have us adopt the Walker free
trade policy, they knew it was wrong in
principle and could not long succeed. One
of their ablest leaders in Parliament, Lord
Goderich, referring to a protective policy
that France had adopted, said: "The
policy that France acts on is that of en-
couraging its native manufacturers, and it
is a wise policy; for if she were freely to
admit our manufactures, it would speedily

reduce her to an agricultural nation, and
therefore a poor nation, as all nations must
be that depend exclusively upon agricul-
ture."

Walker's Theory Answered.—The

answers to this theory of Mr. Walker and
the free traders were set forth with ex-
ceeding clearness; for they were based
upon absolute knowledge and practical
experience, and the doctrines contained in
them, protectionists say, have never failed
when they have been given a fair ancP
honorable test.

They are substantially as follows:

First. That the value of any product is
made up almost entirely of the wages paid
to produce it.

Second. That that is the best policy
that brings to the laborer the best possible
returns for his labor.

Third. That the average wages of labor
in the United States are from two to four
times greater than in European countries.

Fourth. That it would be extremely
foolish to adopt any system that would
reduce the wages of our laborers to the
level of the European wages.

Fifth. That this whole theory of Walker
was based upon two assumptions: first,
that agriculture could do what he claimed
for it; and second, that (assuming the first
assumption to be true) because it could do
what he claimed therefore it would do so;
they also said that with the whole country
cleared and under cultivation, if the whole
productive industry of the country were
employed in producing the articles we sell
abroad, which are mainly breadstuffs and
provisions, cotton, rice and tobacco, we
should produce a much larger quantity
than we could sell; foreign markets would
soon be glutted with these articles; the
price of them would fall; the labor that
produced them would, as a matter of
course, receive less wages than now; the
only stopping point in the decline of wages
would be the starving point, and the in-
evitable result would be a forced equality32

of wages between this country and Euro-
pean countries.

Sixth. That a protective tariff is a
necessity in this country to give variety to
production, a home market, and high
wages to labor.

1852.—The Democratic National
Convention in 1852 reaffirmed its former
doctrine respecting protection and free
trade.

Democratic Rule Continued, and

practical free trade prevailed; the Demo-
crats remained in power, and the low tariff
policy continued till 1857, though the
usual evil results were greatly modified
and postponed, as already stated, by a very
unusual and accidental series of events,
which occurred about as follows:

1.—The	Mexican War.—Very soon
after the passage of the tariff act of 1846,
war was declared by our Government
against Mexico. Our supply of arms and
of the numerous munitions of war was
very scanty, and new supplies had to be
created and paid for. This of itself put in
circulation in the nation considerably more
than $100,000,000.

2.—Famine	- in Ireland.—Close upon
the payment to our people of this great
sum followed that well-known and terrible
famine in Ireland, when so many thou-
sands suffered and perished from starva-
tion. This demand called for and obtained
our entire surplus of flour, grain, potatoes,
and many other things, and left heavy
payments of money therefor, which went
largely to our agricultural population.

8.—California Gold.—1849 brought to
our people the discovery of those amazing-
ly rich deposits of gold in California, the
output of gold averaging for ten years
from 1849 not less than $55,000,000 per
year. Many ships were required to trans-
port great numbers of men as well as large
supplies of food for the gold hunters; and
for a time the California business increased
the demand for labor and for our agricul-
tural produces.

4.—European	Revolutions.—About

the same time (1848-51) those violent rev-
olutions broke out in many European
countries, which most severely tested the
regular authorities of those nations in
putting down the revolutions, and almost
completely paralyzed their agricultural and
manufacturing industries.

These events caused an immense demand
upon our country, particularly for our
agricultural products: gave us increased
prices for them, and brought large sums of
money from those countries to pay for
them; and of course this money was widely
distributed, and tended to make the times
apparently prosperous.

5.—The	Crimean War.—Then right
upon the heels of these revolutions fol-
lowed the Crimean War between England,
France and Italy on one side, and Russia
on the other. This contest was long,
fierce, bloody and exhausting. Europe
was utterly unable to supply her own
people, and those great armies besides; and
a tremendous demand was again made,
upon us for our agricultural surplus at
advanced prices, which demand continued
for several years, and continued our ap-
parent prosperity.

Another s^ies of events like these has
never been known in the world's history.
So far as the nation and the tariff of 1846
were concerned they were pure accidents, -
and are never likely to occur again. But"
1854 saw the close of these events, and of
our apparent prosperity as well. As soon
as these extrinsic and unusual demands
ceased, we learned our true economic con-
dition. Under the low tariff we could not
compete successfully with foreign manu-
factures, and our own factories were closed;
general business was prostrated; the
foreign demand for our products fell off
heavily, and our own home market was
insufficient and constantly diminishing as
our manufacturing industries were sus-
pended or were closed.

1856—Democracy Again for Free
Trade.—Yet, notwithstanding theseevil results flowing from the free trade
tariff of* 1846, the Democratic party in
National Convention assembled in 1856

" Resolved, That the time has come for the peo-
ple of the United States to declare themselves in
favor of free seas, and progressive free trade
throughout the world.''

1867.—Lower Tariff and Beeper De-
pression.—In 1857 the Democrats, urged
on by the South and by their natural
tendency to free trade, as repeatedly shown
in their national platforms, again reduced
the duties already too low to the lowest
rates we have ever had since the adoption
of the Constitution; and again financial
revolution, appalling in its widespread
severity and distress, involved the nation
and for more than four years tortured and
impoverished our people, and exhaust-
ed our resources.

Both of these latter tariffs (1846 and
1857) were intended as tariffs for revenue
only. Whether or not they were success-
ful the resulting revenues shall demon-
strate.

From 1847 to 1857 the expenditures of
the Government exceeded its revenues by
$21,790,909, and the public debt increased
in the same period $13,149,629. Yet, not-
withstanding these facts, the act of 1857
kept in force the principles of that of 1846,
and reduced the duties upon all articles
that involved the doctrine of protection.

From this time to 1861, when a protect-
ive tariff was enacted by the Republicans,
the public debt increased nearly $46,-
000,000, and the expenditures exceeded
the receipts by $77,234,116 in the same
time. So much for tariff for revenue
only.

Hear what James Buchanan, the last
Democratic President before the rebellion
of 1861, in his annual message said official-
ly of that distressful free trade period:
"With unsurpassed plenty in all the pro-
ductions and all the elements of natural
wealth our manufacturers have suspend-
ed; our public works are retarded; our
private enterprises of different kinds are
^b^ndoned; $nd thousands of useful

laborers are thrown out of employment
and reduced to want. We have possessed
all the elements of material wealth in rich
abundance, and yet, notwithstanding all
these advantages, our country, in its
monetary interests, is in a deplorable con-
dition."

Small Revenues Make Loans Neces-
sary.—Buchanan, like Fillmore, not only
depicts the complete failure of low tariff
rates, but also proclaims the unutterable
misery and ruin which invariably and in-
evitably follow such low duties. Why,
under Buchanan and the tariff of 1857 our
revenues were so small that it became
necessary to obtain loans to meet even the
current expenses of the Government; and
these loans could be had only by paying
exorbitant rates of interest, running from
eight to twelve per cent., so low were our
national credit and resources.

I860.—The Democratic National
Convention reaffirmed in 1860 the plat-
form of 1856 in favor of "progressive free
trade throughout the world."

Fourth Protection Period—1861-
1892. 1892: Republican Success—Pro-
tection.—But in 1861 the Republicans for
the first time came into power in the
nation, both in the Presidency and in Con-
gress; and with its advent came back the
doctrine and practice of "protection to
home industries;" and, thank God, it came
back to stay, for even if temporarily Over-
thrown by the enactment of the pending
bill it will in due time be reestablished
upon firm and enduring foundations.

In 1861 a protective-tariff law, known as
the Morrill tariff, was enacted, and from
that time to the present "protection to
home industries" has been the leading
doctrine of the Republican party and of
the country, and has been the glory and
salvation of the nation.

Magnificent Results of Protectio^-

Under its benign influences we have ex-
perienced a degree of prosperity absolutely
unparalleled in the history of any nation,34

On account of the immensity of the work
but few of the census returns for 1890 are
ready, and it is impossible to show the full
benefits and increase in all material growth
Except those marked with the year, the
following figures relate to 1880.

Up to 1890 our population had increased
in thirty years over one hundred per cent.;
our capital from $26,000,000,000 to $70,-
000,000,000—an actual gain of $44,000,-
000,000, or at the average rate of about
$1,500,000,000 for thirty years in succes-
sion. Our foreign commerce up to 1884
was the astounding sum of over $2,400,-
000,000, with the balance of trade in our
favor at the average rate of $154,000,000 a
year sinct 1873; the population of our
cities has doubled; our annual output of
coal has increased from 14,000,000 tons to
100,000,000 tons; our iron ore from 900,-
000 to 14,500,000 tons (1890); our railway
mileage from 30,006 miles to 163,400 miles
(in 1888); our farms from 2,000,000 to over
5,000,000, and their value from $6,000,-
000,000 to $12,000,000,000; our cereals
from 1,230,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 bushels
(1890); our live stock from $1,000,000,000
to $2,500,000,000 (1890); our flocks from
22,000,000 to 50,600,000 (1884); our wool
from 60,000,000 pounds to 308,000,000
(1884); those engaged in gainful oc-
cupations from 12,000,000 to 20,000,000
(1890); and deposits in savings banks from
$253,200,000 to $1,629,000,000 (1890).
The census of Great Britain (1891) shows
her national capital to be $40,000)000,000—
a sum less by $4,000,000,000 than our gain
in national capital since 1860, under pro-
tection.

We consume more than any other nation
of similar numbers in the world. We are
less than five per cent, of the population
of the earth, but we consume twenty per
cent, of all the sugar produced in the
world; thirty per cent, of all the coffee;
thirty-three per cent, of all the iron and
|^el; twenty-five per cent, of all the cot-
ton; thirty-three per cent, of all the wool;
forty per cent, of all the coal; fifty per

cent, of all the marble, sixty per cent, of
all the rubber and fifty per cent, of all the
tin. Heretofore we have imposed our tin
and tin-plate, but now we shall, unless
pending legislation destroys the industry,
produce the tin from our own mines and
manufacture our own tin-plate.

From the few census returns of 1890 we
find that our population has increased in
the decade between 1*880 to 1890 13,000,-
000, a number equal to the population of
Belgium, Holland and Portugal combined;
we have redeemed from solitude 377,000
square miles of virgin soil, an area more
than three times larger than that of Great
Britain and Ireland; we have added 7,000,-
000 to our city population; we have
increased our hay crop from 85,000,000
tons in 1880 to 47,000,000 in 1890. Not-
withstanding the set-back caused by the
tariff of 1883 our wool product has in-
creased from 156,000,000 pounds in 1880 to
240,000,000 in 1890, about fifty-four per
cent.; the value of our cattle from $1,445,-
000,000 in 1880 to $2,500,000,000 in 1890,
about seventy-three per cent., and the
increase of value of our farm animals being
from $96,000,000 in 1880 to $139,000,000 in
1890, about forty-five per cent. Bo these
figures indicate any great depression or
suffering among our farmers ?

Since 1880 the value of our manufactured
products has increased $3,300,000,000, a
sum equal to our entire production in 1870;
and the wages paid to labor in manu-
factures has increased $50,000,000 a year in
that time. These are but a few of the
grand figures which in due time we shall
glean from the census of 1890.

This Success Due to Protection.—

Protectionists say, and the facts seem to
verify the statement, that this magnificent
and unparalleled success and prosperity
which our nation has achieved and enjoyed
since 1861 has been largely, if not wholly,
due to our splendid system of proteetion to
home industries, by means of which we
have established the grandest and most
valuable home market the world has ever35

kdown, and which consumes from ninety-
two to ninety-five per cent, of our produc-
tions of all kinds.

But to accomplish these wonderful
results patient and persistent effort and
Watchfulness have been required, and
numerous obstacles and seemingly insur-
mountable barriers have been overcome
and removed.

1861.—The Great Rebellion.—In 1861
eleven of our Southern States seceded, and
thereby inaugurated the greatest rebellion
of all time, and set up for themselves as
the Southern Confederacy. This was no
sudden movement, but had been carefully
planned and every means had been used,
as they believed, to make the new govern-
ment a success. Their two principal
objects were openly and boldly proclaimed.
These were to establish: first, a govern-
ment whose corner stone should be slavery,
and second, an economic system based
upon free trade. Relative to free trade,
their Constitution declared that " no
bounty shall be granted from the treasury
and no duties or taxes on importations
from foreign nations shall be laid to pro-
mote or foster any branch of industry."

[At this point the honorable Senator
yielded to a call of the Senate.]

Mr. GALLINGER.—The leaders of this
rebellion were in control of our G overn-
ment to the very date of secession; and
they did not hesitate to adopt any means
to make secession a success. So determined
were they to secure a government founded
upon slavery and free trade that they
robbed our Treasury of its specie and sent
it South; they dismantled our forts and
stole our guns and ammunition; they
scattered our navy to the ends of the
earth; they instilled treason into and
through most of our army and navy
officers of Southern birth, and believed
that they had so carefully demoralized the
people of the Northern States that no
successful resistance could be made to
their rebellion. Such were the leaders of
this gigantic rebellion, and nearly all the

people of those eleven States trusted and
followed them blindly and implicitly.

Fer reasons just stated the Northern
States at first were almost wholly unpre-
pared to enter upon such a eontest; but
they quickly comprehended the situation,
and as quickly resolved that the rebellion
must be put down and crushed out, no
matter what the cost of men or of money.

But to fight this terrible battle of free-
dom for four years, and finally to succeed,
required from the Northern States the
incredible number of 2,859,132 citizen sol-
diers and sailors, of whom nearly half a
million were laid in Southern graves, and
more than twice that number were crippled
and maimed for life. The cost in money
can never be accurately known, but soon
after tlie close of the war our public debt
amounted to $2,844,649,626, nearly all of
it the cost of the war then unpaid, being
an average expenditure of over one thou-
sand lives, and $2,000,000 a day, for four
years in succession.

Patriotism and Protection Success-
ful.—But notwithstanding all this frightful
cost of men and of money there was no
hesitation on the part of the North (with
some ignoble exceptions) till success
crowned their efforts. The demand grow-
ing out of the war for food and suste-
nance gave a great impetus to agriculture;
the imperative call of the army and* navy
for arms, cannon, clothing, etc., caused
the establishment all over the North of
a large number and variety of factories
for the production of these things; and
the necessity for quick transportation
called for a vast number of horses, mules,
wagons and railroad supplies and facilities.

All this, without a high tariff, would
have caused a temporary revival of Jbusi-
ness, but it would have disappeared with
the close of the war. But our splendid
tariff of 1861, and the amendments there-
to in connection with these things, gave
our farmers and manufacturers an assur-
ance of enduring prosperity after the close
of the war; provided employment for allwho wanted it; furnished us with an un-
equaled and remunerative home market,
and made it possible for the country to
carry on and close the war, and safe for
our own people to undertake expensive
works without fear of ruinous competition
from similar productions and manufac-
tures in foreign lands. Indeed> it is now
admitted by every intelligent person,
except free traders, that without that high
tariff we never could have raised the
means to conquer the rebellion; and also,
that we never could have established per-
manently those magnificent industries
which have made us so strong, so wealthy,
and so prosperous. Is it strange that the
free traders of the South and of England
hate and condemn a protective tariff ?

The Home Market ys. the Markets
Of the World.—In a brief discussion^like
this it is impossible to examine the tariff
question in all its details, but our tariff
history shows that there are a few points
upon which free traders lay great stress,
which it may be well to briefly consider at
th is time.

For fifty years the free- raders have
never tired of harping upon their dream
or theory of " capturing the markets of
the world." The means with which they
would do this have varied with different
periods.

In 1846 it was agriculture. Their great
leader, Robert J. Walker, wanted this to
be the general and principal business of our
country, and, as before quoted, said: "He-
move from agriculture all our restrictions
and by its own unfettered power it will
break down all foreign restrictions; and,
ours being removed, would feed the
hungry and clothe the poor of our fellow-
men through all the densely peopled
nations of the world."

The Democratic party accepted this
doctrine, and in the tariff of 1846 tried to
reduce it to practice; but instead of captur-
ing the markets of the world our exports of
breadstuffs fell off from $68,000,000 in
J847 to |21,000,000 in 1851, and much less

in 1852; the public debt increased many
millions, and the expenditures of the
Government from 1847 to 1861 exceeded its
receipts over $77,000,000.

Our agriculture failing to give them the
markets of the world they were obliged to
invent a new catchword.

Free Raw Materials.—For several
years they have been crying for " free
raw materials." " Give us free raw
materials and surely we will capture the
markets of the world."

They have, indeed, never been able to
make it clear what they mean by raw
materials. They apparently forget that
the moment labor has been expended upon
an article that moment it ceases to be raw
material, and becomes somebody's finished
product.

Wool is the farmer's finished product as
soon as it is clipped from the sheep; but it
is then the cloth manufacturer's raw
material. When he has woven it into
cloth, it is his finished product; but it is
then the tailor's raw material. What then
are raw materials? They are materials
just as we find them in nature, before any
labor whatever has been expended upon
them—such as iron ore or coal in the
mountain, or standing trees in the forest.

Now the free trader wants all these, and
similar articles, admitted here free of duty,
and feels deeply aggrieved because they
are subjected to a protective duty when
brought here. He evidently thinks it
would be better to get his wool from South
America or Australia; his coal from Nova
Scotia; his lead from Mexico; his tin from
Wales, etc., rather than, by the help of a
protective tariff, develop these industries
from our own native resources.

The protectionist believes the latter
course much the better for our country,
because it thereby develops our own re-
sources, gives remunerative wages to our
own workmen, affords fair returns to our
own capital, and keeps in our own country
the money that would otherwise go abroad
to pay for such materials and labor * and37

also because it prevents the reduction of
the wages of our own working people
nearly or quite fifty per cent, to the level
of the cheap foreign labor.

But ignoring all these benefits, the free
trader reiterates his plea: "Let us have
free raw materials, and the cost of home-
made goods will be so reduced that we can
export largely and take the foreign
markets."

We have not for years paid any duties
on cotton, hides, paper stock, silk, and
many other articles. Yet with these raw
materials free we do not export of the
manufactured goods in these lines as much
as we import,' as the following table
proves:

Articles.	1887. Manufactured Imports.	1887. Manufactured Exports.
Cottons...........	$29,150,059 10,933,570 1,985,264 31,264.276	$14,929,342 10,436,138 1,118,538 52,513
Hides.............		
Paper stock......  Silk...............		
		

For the Free Trader to Explain.—

Now a very pertinent question arises at
this point, and it demands a satisfactory
answer from the free trader: If your
plea is true, why is it that, with free
raw materials in these four important
articles—and the list might be largely
extended—our imports of articles manu-
factured therefrom so greatly exceed our
exports of the manufactured articles in the
same lines ?

Mr. Mills* Brilliant Answer.—At a

great Democracic mass meeting in New
Claven in the campaign of 1888 Mr. R. Q.
Mills, of Texas, the great free trade leader,
after making the familiar plea for raw
materials, etc., was asked this very
question by a respectable gentleman in
the audience. Mr. Mills was evidently
taken by surprise, but he answered it
promptly by saying: "Go home, sir, and
soak your head !" The wit and the lofty
dignity of this answer were immense, and
his audience cheered wildly. The pro-

tectionist need- not discuss tie politeness
nor the pertinence of the answer, but he
thinks that the facts warrant him in say-
ing that it probably is as clear and in^
telligent an answer as any other free
trader can formulate.

As already stated, cotton is a free raw
material, and yet it is an undeniable fact
that our exports Of manufactured cotton
goods is constantly falling off. In 188§
our exports in these goods were, in yards,
42,331,080 less than in 1888, and in Value,
$2,706,383 less.

In 1889 we manufactured of these goods
not less than $250,000,000 worth, fully the
equal of English goods in this line. But
protectionists have another and complete
answer for ouj free trade friends on this
point. For many years whenever any
article has been imported for manufacture
and export Congress has allowed a draw-
back of ninety per cent, of the duty paid
on the import when the manufactured
article was exported; and under the McKin-
ley act this drawback is increased to
ninety-nine per cent, of the tariff duty,
which is giving them practically free raw
materials. The free trader should explain
why we cut so sorry a figure as an exporter
of goods when we have the raw material
free.

Our Home Market.—But though the
free trader will not, or cannot, give a
satisfactory explanation, there is one and a
good one; and there is an answer to the
question so aptly propounded to Mr. Mills
much more gentlemanly and conclusive
than the one he gave.

The great and satisfactory reason why
we do not export more of our American
productions is that we have a home
market more accessible and more profitable
where we can readily dispose of about
ninety-five per cent, of all our agricultural
and manufactured products.

Br. Benjamin Franklin, one of our

greatest statesmen in Revolutionary times,
wrote: " Every manufacture encouraged in
our own country makes a home market38

and saves so much money to the country
that must otherwise be exported. In Eng-
land it is well known that whenever a
manufactory is established which employs
a number of hands it raises the value of
the land in the neighboring country all
around it, partly by the greater demand
near at hand for the products of the land
and partly by the increase of money drawn
by the manufactures to that place. It
seems, therefore, to the interest of all our
farmers and owners of land to encourage
home manufactures in preference to
foreign ones imported from different
countries."

This lucid statement of Dr. Franklin is
the very essence of American protection.

In a country like ours, possessing such a
diversity of materials, and such an abun-
dance of .mechanical power, it should be,
and is, the great object of a protective tariff
to create and sustain a variety of manu-
facturing industries. For whenever a
manufacturing town or center is created
we have established at the same time a
center of consumption for agricultural prod-
wets; and the neighboring farmers are the
first to profit by the enterprise, as shown
by Dr. Franklin.

This law is infallible and allows of no
exception.

Now if, instead of one, we have hun-
dreds and thousands «f these great centers
of manufacture and consumption,, it fol-
lows absolutely that the advantage to the
neighboring farmer, and no less to the
home manufacturer, is multiplied pro-
portionally. Each of these classes be-
comes a helper and an assistant to the
other. As a rule, each can sell at his own
door to the other whatever he produces,
and both are thereby saved the frequent
losses and heavy expenses necessitated by
long transportation. And thus, under the
beneficent workings of a protective tariff,
we have created a home market the like
of which was never seen in any other
country.

Our Commissioner of Agriculture re-

ported in 1881 that the value of our an-
nual agricultural and mechanical produc-
tions amounted to about $15,000,000,000,
and the census of 1890 is showing a much
larger aggregate than that of 1880.

The custom house books show that of
all this enormous aggregate we now ex-
port not over five per cent., while fully
ninety-five per cent, is consumed by our
home market.

Immensity of Our Home Trade.—

Mr. Edward Atkinson, the eminent statis-
tician and opponent of protection, in
Bradstreefs for September, 1890, produced
figures and tables which -show that our
American home trade amounts to $50,000,-
000,000, and our foreign trade to only $1,-
600,000,000, or less than three and one-
half per cent, of the amount of our home
trade.

Here is another fact or two, to elucidate
the immensity of our home trade: "The
tonnage which passed through the Detroit
River alone during the two hundred and
thirty-four days of navigation in 1889 ex-
ceeded by 2,468,127 tons the entire British
and foreign tonnage which entered and
cleared at London and Liverpool that year
in the foreign* and coastwise trade. The
freight carried on the railroads of the
United States in 1890 exceeded by over
36,000,000 tons the aggregate carried on all
the railroads of Great Britain, Germany,
France and Russia in 1889." (Windom.)

Is it not, then, the part of wisdom for
America to develop, extend and protect our
home markets, and let the foreign markets
take care of themselves ?

The "Goods for Goods" Theory.—

Another favorite but very fallacious doc-
trine of our free trade friends has been
that we ought to buy largely of manu-
factured foreign products, as we should
thereby surely enlarge the foreign demand
for our own productions; in other words,
if we would sell to them, we must buy
from them.

Two or three facts will be more satis-
factory and conclusive on this point than$>£ges of argument. The following table
is taken from a report of a royal commis-
sion .to Parliament to show tlie annual
sales by Great Britain and to her from 1880
to 1884 inclusive, in her trade with the
leading nations of the world:

	Annually- Bought from Great Britain.	Annually Sold to Great Britain.	Balance Against Great Britain.
Russia.......  Germany.....  Holland.....  France ......  United States China........	$80,000,000 90,000,000 45,000,000 85,000,000 140,000,000 25,000,000	$90,000,000 125,000,000 185,000,000 195,000,000 485.000,000 65,000,000	$60,000,000 85,000,000 80,000,000 110,000,000 345.000,000 30,000,000
			

Great Britain is par excellence the
greatb^t manufacturing nation on the
globe, and manufactures her goods to sell,
and pushes her wares into every possible
market; but we see by the above table
that the "goods for goods" doctrine
worked against her to the enormous sum of
$660,000,000 per year, or $3,300,000,000 in
five years.

Remember, too, that this tremendous
balance, not being paid in goods, had to be
paid in money. How long can even a rich
nation stand such an annual drain of money
for imports ?

Many other facts showing similar results
between other nations could be given if I
had the time, bijt if the above table is not
convincing, no other would be.

And yet, as late as the second week in
March, 1891, so eminent an authority
among free traders as Professor Perry, in
a speech before the Tariff Reform League
of Boston, argued that foreign trade is
everything, and our home markets un-
worthy of consideration; and also held
that "a tariff that keeps out a dollar's
worth of goods that we want to buy, keeps
in a dollar's worth of goods that we want
to sell "—the old " goods for goods"
theory. The Boston Journal met that
statement with this crushing reply ; " In
1865 we sold to Great Britain $18,000,000
more than we bought from her. The next

year we sold her $85,O60,O60 more than We
bought. With some fluctuations this dis-
crepancy continued to increase till 1881,
when we sold of our products to Great
Britain $306,000,000 more than she was
able to sell us of her own. For the entire
period since 1865 Great Britain's purchases
of our products in excess of her sales to us
of her products reached the enormous
total of $4,054,000,000. What becomes of
Professor Perry's ' goods for goods' axiom,
in view of these figures ?"

"In 1890, the United States sold to
British Australia goods to the value of
$11,266,484, but we bought therefrom
goods to the value of only $4,277,676. It
is well known that we do not import any
railway cars, and but very few carriages;
but in seven months ending January 31,
1891, we exported American built carriages
and railway cars amounting to $3,128,688."
—N. Y. Press.

In the annual report of the British
Chamber of Commerce in Paris, published
in 1891, some of the lessons for English-
men to learn relative to French trade and
the French tariff are pointed out; and
among other things we find the following:
"Of late years there has been a steady
decline in the value of English exports to
France, the cause of this being attributed
to French duties; while French exports to
England have progressively risen. It is
estimated that the excess of exports in
favor of France gives employment to
95,000 French workmen."

These cold facts positively contradict the
free trade dogma that we cannot sell to other
nations unless we buy from them. A fact
is something that is; a theory is a scheme,
a speculation or hypothesis, which may be
true or may be a delusion. Since free
trade theory and actual facts, as set forth
above, do not and cannot agree, which will
be accepted and believed ?

Our Railroad Freights ys. the Im-
ports of the World.—From a carefully
prepared article in the New York Tribune
of November 6, 1890, I take the following:" The value of tlie freight carried on the
railroads of the United States in 1889 was
$13,930,587,840, almost $14,000,000,000, to
say nothing of that carried by water and
other means. More than ninety-two per
cent, of this was consumed in our home
market."

Suppose we should open oiir "home
market " to the world, and thereby capture
the markets of the entire world, what
would we gain ? The aggregate value of
the imports for 1888 of Great Britain,
France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Spain,
Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Turkey, Switzer-
land, Denmark, Norway and Sweden,
Greece, Netherlands, Mexico, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chili, China, Japan, Ecuador,
Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentine, Venezuela,
Peru, Gautemala, Corea, Hayti, Hawaii,
Morocco and Nicaragua, was $6,710,468,-
409. From this sum deduct our exports
to those countries—$660,000,000—and we
have as the imports of the world, in all
their own ports, the sum of $6,050,468,409;
or less than half the value of the freights
carried on our own railroads. In other
words, from the value of our railroad
freights alone we could have supplied all
the imports of the world except our own,
and have had left about $8,000,000,000.

The Home Market and the Farmer.
—" The home market, created by increased
manufactories, encouraged by a protective
tariff, has changed the condition of the
agriculturists of the country to their
advantage and profit. This system has
given to the farmers of this country,
whether they grow cotton or corn, wheat
or wool, the best domestic market any-
where offered; has given to our people a
diversity of employments, to our industries
wider range, and to our labor better wages,
than can be found elsewhere. Aside from
the men who labor in shop or mine, no
class of our citizens to-day are so deeply
interested in the maintenance of a pro-
tective system as the farmers. They sell
ninety-five per cent, of all their products
at home, and every mile of transportation

saved is money eatned. There is no por-
tion of our people, except labor, which
would be so seriously affected in income
and profits from the policy of free trade as
the farmers. The recent census shows the
remarkable growth of agriculture in the
last ten years under protection. In one
department, that of truck-farming, the
progress was almost phenomenal. Upward
of $100,000,000 are invested in this in-
dustry, the annual products reaching a
value of $76,517,155 on the farms, after
paying freights and commissions. There
are employed in this industry 216,765 men,
9,254 women, and 14,874 children, aided
by 75,866 horses and mules, and $8,791,-
207 worth of implements. This vast in-
dustry could not be possible except with a
home market. The products are perish-
able; would not stand long shipments;
must be consumed when ripe, and are of
little value except to home consumers.
Nothing could be so disastrous to the
American farmer as the surrender of the
home market for the foreign. The value
of every farm is increased by its nearness
to a manufacturing center, which is a home
consumer. The farmer wants more mpuths
to feed, more men who do not produce
from the soil, but who earn money in the
shop, and he wants them as near his field
of production as he oan get them. The
closer you can bring the field of production
to the field of consumption the better it
will be for the producer and the consumer;
and that is exactly what, under protection,
our home market is now doing. Ask the
farmer whether he would rather have
another farm or a factory beside him,
and he will take the factory." (William
McKinley).

Prior to the passage of the McKinley act
there was no duty on eggs, and the im-
portations from Canada and other countries
were enormous, greatly to the injury of
the American farmer. In April, 1890, we
imported 450,000 dozens, valued at $47,-
786, or 10.6 cents a dozen. In April, 1891,
after six months of the McKinley tariff,41

we imported about 25,000 dozens, valued
at $2,070, or 8.3 cents a dozen. It will
thus be seen that with a duty of 5 cents a
dozen, the country paid 2.8 cents a dozen
less than when they were free of duty,
while the American farmer found a market
for 425,000 dozens of eggs in one month, or
5,000,000 dozens a year more than he did
under free trade in eggs. Should the
farmer complain or be glad ?

Other Benefits from the Home
Market.—But the home market not only
helps the farmer as stated, but it gives "the
manufacturer better profits, enables him to
pay better wages to his workmen, and so
stimulate them to higher efficiency. It
also stimulates employer and employee to
lively competition, which in turn leads to
improved'machinery and new inventions to
lessen the cost of manufacture. Thus the
home market built up by protection be-
comes a direct stimulus to genius and en-
terprise; benefits producer and consumer
alike, and, indeed, is making us successful
competitors in certain lines in many other
markets.

Mr. H. E. Tremaine has aptly illustrat-
ed these facts in showing that fifty years
ago we imported a locomotive from Eng-
land as a sample. We have steadily pro
tected our iron and steel industries for
many years, and now we not only supply
our own railroads, but we export locomot-
ives to British America, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Central America, Chili, Peru, Argentine
Republic, Brazil, West Indies, Norway,
Russia, Sandwich Islands and Australia.
Over ninety-five per cent, of the locomo-
tives used in the English colonies were
built in the United States. We are com-
peting in watches with the English and
Swiss; and in textiles with Germany,
England, France and Switzerland. Our
progress in making American silk is really
marvelous, and is disturbing the silk works
of Europe, for we are already producing
over $40,000,000 worth annually. Yes, it
is the home market to which the American
producer naturally turns at first, let his

production be what it may; and it is un-
necessary for him to seek the foreign
market till he has fully supplied that at
home, unless the foreign prices are so
much higher as to make it advantageous
for him to export the goods.

Does it cost more to live in the
United States tbsin it does in England?
Our free trade friends are obliged to admit
—though they do it with great reluctance,
and never when they can avoid it—that
the wages of American workmen are fully
twice as much as are the English work-
men's wages for the same kind of work.
But they insist that this is a matter of no
account, because, they say, the cost of
living here is so much greater than in
England as to nearly or quite equalize
their wages.

If the reader will carefully scan the
prices current of England and the United
States for those articles used in respect-
able families he will be surprised but
gratified to learn that one doljar will buy
more tea, coffee, lamp-oil, flour, meat,
butter, bread, sugar, potatoes and soap in
the United States than it will in England;
and as much sheeting, shirting, calico,
boots and shoes here as there. A pair of-
boots here worth $2 can be paid for by one
day's work; in England they also cost $2,
bat the Englishman gets but half as much
wages and must work two days for his
boots. It is a well-known fact that a
large proportion of the flour, beef, pork,
bacon, cheese, etc., used in England is im-
ported from the United States. Is it
possible that Englishmen can come here
and buy these things, pay the freight and
other expenses of transportation to Eng-
land, and then sell them at lower prices
than we can buy them at home ? To ask
such a question is to answer it.

The comments of the Chicago Inter-
Ocean upon the foregoing facts are per-
tinent and worth repeating: " Our free
trade friends are invited to answer these
statements of fact. They are not request-
ed to say that 'the best thought of the42

Country tends toward free trade/ or that
'all the scholarship and argument are on
the side of free trade.' They are request-
ed to explain to the workmen of America
why they should desire a free trade policy
so long as a protectionist policy is enabling
them to buy more tea, coffee, lamp-oil,
flour, meat, butter, bread, sugar, potatoes
and soap, and as much of sheeting, shirt-
ing, calico, boots, shoes and clothing with
one day's wages in America as can be
bought with two days' wages in England,
the country which has made the largest
and most successful experiment in free
trade." This reasonable request has been
before them for more than a year, but no
free trader has yet answered it, and he
never will.

Mulhall, page 288, shows that the total
living expenses, including food, clothing,
rent, taxes and sundries, average in Great
Britain and Ireland 41.1 cents per day,
while in the United States the same daily
living expenses are only 31.4 cents, or one-
third greater in Great Britain than in the
United States.

Protection helps the workingman,
as will be seen by the following compari-
son of average annual wages, connected,
too, with the most highly protected in-
dustries:

Industries.	1860.	1880.	Increase. Per Cent.
Woolen and worsted goods.	$234	$300	28
Glass......................	330	375	15
	355	390	10
	200	246	23
Machinery.................	390	450	15
Jewelry....................	435	500	15
Saddlery and harness......	350	380	9

Even so zealous a free trader as Mr.
Edward Atkinson, the eminent statistician,
admits that the condition of the working-
men in this country has been greatly
improved since 1860; for in a recent report
by him to the Bureau of Statistics he shows
that the average annual wages of all me-
chanics in the United . States advanced
froxp $468 in 1860 to $720 in 1880, an in-

crease of $252, or 54 per cent.; and he also
shows that the greater cheapness of things
necessary for ordinary family support
virtually makes that increase of wages
from 26 to 46 per cent.

In other words, he shows that the things
which the workman could buy in 1860 for
his average wages of $468 he can now buy
for about $348, a saving of $120. Adding
$252, his actual average gain in wages, to
$120, his saving in the cost of family sup-
plies, and we have a net average gain to
all our mechanics of $372 a year. These
figures, coming from so eminent an
authority, must be regarded as true; and
they furnish incontestable proof of the
statement that protection helps the work-
ingman.

Let us now resume our tariff history in
chronological order.

186 7.—Higher Tariff on Wool—Re-
sults.—One of the most important amend-
ments to the tariff of 1861 was adopted
March, 1867, when the tariff duties on
wool were raised to 10 and 12 cents per
pound, and 10 and 11 per cent, ad valorem,
according to quality. Up to this time the
duty on wool had been so low that there
was no inducement to American farmers to
make a specialty of this business. From
1850 to 1860 under the low Tariffs of 1846
and 1857 the increase in the number of our
sheep was only 3£ per cent.; but between
1860 and 1870, with only three years of
high tariff, our sheep increased from 22,-
500,000 to 28,500,000, or 27 per cent., and
between 1870 and 1880 from 28,500,000 to
almost 41,000,000, or about 44 per cent.,
and in 1884 our sheep numbered 54,626,-
626. In 1860 we raised 60,264,918 pounds
of wool; in 1884, 308,000,000 pounds, an
increase of over 500 per cent., and during
the same period, under the stimulus of this
high tariff, farmers so improved their
sheep that the average weight of fleeces
rose from 2-£ and 3-J pounds in 1860 to 5
and 5i pounds in 1884. In 1884 about
one-twelfth of our male population was
connected more or less of their time with43

the wool industry; and our sheep farmers
at the same time were producing profitably
for the nation and for themselves an enor-
mous and increasing quantity of excellent
mutton. Why this magnificent and prof-
itable industry did not go on increasing in
numbers, in quantity, and in profits will
appear a little further on.

1868— Democracy and the Tariff.—

In 1868 the Democratic National Conven-
tion resolved in favor of "a tariff for rev-
enue only, with incidental protection "—
whatever that is.

1870.—High Tariff on Steel Bails,
etc.—Prior to 1870 the tariff duty on steel
rails was so low, and the wages of Ameri-
can laborers in that business were so high
in comparison with those of English labor-
ers, that it was impossible to compete with
the British iron masters in that business.
But in 1870 Congress laid a duty of $28 a
ton on steel rails and ingots, and the re-
sults have been even more wonderful than
in the wool industry! In 1870 only 30,-
000 tons of steel rails were made in this
country, but in 1888 we manufactured 1,-
386,277 tons of steel rails; and from 1877
to 1890, inclusive, we made 16,763,116 tons
of steel rails, enough to build or relay over
150,000 miles of railway; and over 5,500,-
000 tons of Bessemer steel ingots for other
industrial purposes.

The average cost of this 22,300,000 tons
of steel was about $50 per ton, amounting
to the enormous sum of $1,115,000,000.
Suppose we allow $220,000,000, or about
twenty per cent., as profits to the manu-
facturers, a profit probably much larger
than the actual profit, we shall have left a
balance of $895,000,000 to the credit of the
laboring men who converted that great
mountain of iron ore into first-class steel.
Who can say that protection has not been
a benefit to the labor^s of this country ?
Nearly nine hundred millions of dollars
divided among the laborers engaged in a
single industry in twelve years I Were
these workingmen growing poorer under
protection ? Again, suppose the American

Congress had followed the advice of o"»r
free trade friends and not put on that
duty of $28 per ton, nor any other pro-
tective duty. Of course we should have
been obliged to import from England all
that enormous quantity of steel. The free
trader asks: " What difference would this
have made with our workingmen, our
capitalists, and our country?"

This: The British workingmen would
have received nearly $900,000,000, or its
English equivalent, for that labor, instead
of the American; the British capitalists
would have pocketed that $220,000,000 of
profits, or its English equivalent, instead
of the American; and Great Britain would
be hugely enjoying that $1,115,000,000,
or its English equivalent, instead of the
United States. True, we would have had
our rails and our ingots; but the result-
ing benefits to our nation would have
been as follows: On the one hand, free
trade, plus the steel, but minus $220,000,-
000 of profits, and minus $895,000,000 of
wages; and, on the other, protection, plus
the steel, and plus $220,000,000 of prof-
its, and plus $895,000,000 of wages.

Other Benefits.—But this is not all the
benefits we have received through this
high tariff on steel. The New York Press
of May 4, 1891, stated a truth well known
to protectionists \n these words: "u 1870
the price of steel rails was $106.75 per
ton, but from that date, by means of com-
petition and improved machinery, the
price has gradually decreased till it has
reached $28 per ton, and even less; and
the duty has been reduced to $17 per ton;
while the average wages of the men em-
ployed have increased 10 per cent. As
stated above, we made in 1888, 1,386,277
tons of steel rails, and used them at home,
while of foreign steel rails we imported
and used but 63,000 tons; but in 1890 we
made, and our home market consumed,
1,867,837 tons, a gain of 481,560 tons in
two years, while our importation of foreign
rails fell off to 204 tons."

Who can estimate the value of the home44

market which this mighty industry has
created for our agricultural and manufac-
tured products to supply those laborers and
their families witli food and clothing and
the other necessaries and comforts of life ?

1873.—Financial Panic—Resump-
tion.—I have already asserted and shown
that all the hard times suffered by the
American people (since 1783) have been
preceded by heavy reductions of duties,
or by insufficient protection. In view of
the panic of 1873, and the financial depres-
sion that followed for several years during
:a period of high protective tariff, this
: statement may be somewhat sharply
'criticised. And such criticism would be
just and difficult to answer if it could not
be clearly and honestly shown that the
•country at large did not suffer from this
•depression, and that there was no possible
■connection between the tariff and the panic
of 1873. Reference has already been made
to the great rebellion of 1861, and it was
shown that it compelled us to withdraw
nearly 3,000,000 of citizens from industrial
and productive work, to engage in war
and destruction; that over half a million
zf these men were killed; that over a mil-
Lou more were so crippled and disabled
that instead of becoming productive citizens
after the war they were and are cared for
and supported largely by the country; that
during that dreadful period the value of
the property expended and destroyed, and
of the manufactures stopped and prevent-
ed, exceeded the sum of $9,000,000,000;
that besides all this almost inoomprehensi-
ble loss we were left with a public debt of
over $2,800,000,000, the interest on which
at first was over $150,000,000 a year. Of
course in such a frightful expenditure of
money and means the gold and silver of
the country were but as a drop in the
bucket.

The $55,000,000 of gold we were yearly
receiving from the gold mines of California
amounted to nothing in the matter of pay-
ments, except to help pay interest on our
bonds held in Europe, but it saved us from

becoming absolutely depleted of specie.
We had practically no coin, but depended
for money upon a paper currency, based
upon the credit or promise to pay of the
Government. Every time there was an
adverse movement or the loss of a battle
on the part of the North, the price of gold
went up, and at one time it went to 280 per
cent., and our currency and credits were in
like degree expanded. The temptation to
speculation was general, and became al-
most a mania. The real value in gold of
the nominal dollar was but fifty cents or
less. It was a terribly dangerous condition,
and one that could not be long maintained.

Specie Payments Demanded.—The

thinking men of the country, the great
party that had saved the nation from death
by rebellion, began to feel and to^say that
we must get back to specie payments, to
real money, though they knew that to do
this would involve great individual loss
and sacrifice. They admitted that it would
be a severe ordeal, but they said it was a
matter of simple honesty, as well as neces-
sity, and that the longer it was delayed the
greater would be the danger and the suffer-
ing. The speculators tried %to withstand
and postpone this movement; and then fol-
lowed Black Friday and th'e panic of 1873.
This was inevitable—such dangerous ex-
pansions of currency and of credits are
always followed by financial trouble. But
in this case the people were firm, and in
1879 we resumed specie payments. There
was, indeed, more or less of suffering, but
it was confined mostly to individuals, large-
ly to speculators. This suffering was
caused by the unavoidable shrinkage which
must occur whenever expanded currency
and credits return to a normal and honest
basis; and there was no possible connection
between this panic and the tariff. On the
contrary, the tariff greatly mitigated in-
dividual distress Ifnd assured successful
progress to the nation. The country as a
whole was never more properous. Our
grand protective tariff gave us a magnifi-
cent income; furnished the means to pay45

our current expenses; helped us to greatly
reduce our national debt; afforded en-
couragement to many valuable industries;
provided work at highly remunerative
wages to large numbers of our laborers,
and thus added hundreds of millions of
dollars to our national capital. Our nation-
al valuation increased from $30,000,000,000
in 1870 to $44,000,000,000 in 1880; a growth
which all our national experience has
proved never could have been attained
without protection.

In the words of Mr. Blaine: "And
strongest of all points, this financial dis-
tress was relieved and prosperity restored
under protection, whereas the ruinous
effects of panics under free trade have
never been removed except by a resort to
protection."

1876.—Democrats Against Protec-
tion Again.—In 1876 the Democratic
National Convention declared that " we
demand that all custom-house taxation
shall be only for revenue;" and in 1880
they resolved in favor of 4' a tariff for rev-
enue only."

1883.—Duty on Wool Reduced.-—The

marvelous increase in the number of sheep
and in the quantity of wool, under the
tariff amendment of 1867 up to 1883 and
1884, has been shown.

Had the tariff duty been allowed to re-
main as it was during that period, there is
no doubt that the same or a greater rate of
increase would have continued. In 1883
both houses of Congress and the President
were Republican, and it was thought best
to revise the tariff of 1861, when it could
be done by the friends of protection. But
by this time the old free trade Democracy
of the South, and of slavery, had again as-
serted itself and taken full possession of
all the Southern States. Those States had
become and still remain the " Solid
South." Then, as now, their leading men
were and are always united to fight for
free trade and against protection. In 1883,
backed by their servile followers from the
North, they demanded a reduction of duties

on many articles and especially on wool*
Their clamor was loud, brazen and unceas-
ing, and unfortunately Republicans were
found in both branches of Congress who
yielded to that clamor and voted for a con-
siderable reduction of the duty on wool.
The entire protective features of the act of
1867, relating to wool, were repealed, and
it was a sad day for the sheep and wool in-
dustry of the United States when the act
of 1883 became a law. The amended tariff
of 1883 was on the whole an improvement,
but there were a few exceedingly unfor-
tunate , amendments, and among these th«
worst were those relating to wool and
woolens.

Results from Reduced Duties.—The

unfailing and inevitable results began a\,
once; though the law was passed so late
in 1883 as not to affect greatly the results
of 1884, which were the greatest and best
under the act of 1867. But in the follow-
ing years the results were disastrous in the
extreme. In three years, including 1887,
our sheep had decreased over 5,800,000,
when on the rate of increase from 1867 to
1884 there should have been an increase of
6,000,000, equivalent to a, loss of about
12,000,000 sheep to the country, and worth
not less than $30,000,000. In 1888 the
number had declined from 54,500,000 in
1884 to 42,600,000, a loss of 12,000,000.
But in the election of 1888 the protection-
ists won a decisive victory, and in two
years' time, with a sure prospect of a
restoration of the higher tariff on wools,
the number of sheep increased from 42,800,-
000 in 1888 to 46,353,000 in 1890. In the
same period, 1884-1887, the quantity of
American wool decreased 79,300,000 pounds,
worth $23,790,000. The raising of wool
became unprofitable, as our people, with-
out protection, could not compete success-
fully with the cheaply raised wools of
South America and Australia. American
wools were neglected and declined in price;
American woolen mills had to shut down,
while English mills were running night
and day to supply us with woolen goods;46

and English manufacturers were piling up
their vast profits at our expense.

In 1884 the great and ruinous mistake of
so reducing tariff rates on wool, as had
been done in 1883, had become very clear;
and in April, 1884, a motion was made in
the House to restore the old rates of 1867.
Petitions had come in in great numbers
from all the wool-producing States for
such a restoration; and in Ohio the Demo-
cratic party adopted a plank demanding of
Congress the former protective rates. But
the House was strongly Democratic, and
after a vigorous effort on the part of the
Republicans, the Democrats, true to their
free trade proclivities, refused to restore
the rates of 1867; and the disastrous
results, already pointed out, speedily
followed.

1884.—The Morrison Bill.—In 1884
the Democrats had again obtained control
of the House, and under the lead of Mr.
Morrison, of Illinois, made a persistent and
determined effort to pass a bill making a
horizontal reduction, as it was called, of
about twenty per cent, on nearly all duties
alike. It failed to pass by four votes, and
great was the sorrow and lamentation
&mong free traders here and in England.
The Telegraph, a leading paper of London,
Tegretting the failure of the Morrison bill,
.said : "A bill to establish in America
what the English call free trade has just
been defeated by the narrow majority of
four. That measure was of enormous im-
portance for English manufacturers, as it
would have enabled them to export goods
to the United States without the crushing
duty now imposed. The fate of the bill was
watched with intense interest by English-
men. Had it passed it would Lave been
worth $500,000,000 per annum to British
manufacturers."

The Telegraph was frank and refreshing 1
Notice the amount, $500,000,000 per
annum ! Notice also the ones to receive
this vast yearly sum I Not American con-
sumers, but British manufacturers.

Of course they would watch the fate of

such a bill with intense interest, with
such a great Sum at stake; but how any
citizen of this country can consider himself
a real patriot, a true American, and sup-
port such a policy, is incomprehensible.

Ttfe Democrats Still Favor Free
Trade.—In 1884 the Democratic National
Convention, still adhering to its cherished
free trade convictions, declared as follows :
" We demand that Federal taxation shall
be exclusively for public purposes."

All Republican Presidents Protec-
tionists.—I have already shown that
every President from Washington to
Buchanan, except Polk, and possibly Van
Buren and Pierce, were in favor of protec-
tion to home industries, and their state-
ments have been quoted in proof thereof.
As protection has always been a cardinal
doctrine in Republican platforms and
policy, so all Republican Presidents have
been firm defenders of protection ; and
Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield,
Arthur and Harrison take equal rank as
protectionists with Washington and all our
earlier Presidents, and it is not necessary
to quote their remarks, as no one questions
their fealty to protection.

1887.—President Cleveland's Free
Trade Message.—But in 1884, by means
of a series of most unusual and remarkable
accidents, Grover Cleveland, Democrat,
secured the electoral vote [of New York
State by about 1,000 plurality, and was
thereby elected President—the first Demo-
cratic President in twenty-four years.
He had very little to say about the tariff in
that campaign, but his party insisted upon
a tariff " for public purposes exclusively;''
which was simply another phrase for
English free trade.

One of Mr. Cleveland's strongest workers
in 1884, Mr. George William Curtis, a
gentleman who said that he did not then
love Democracy, but who, before the cam-
paign had gone far, supported both it and
him because of their adhesion to free
trade, described that party in June, 1884,
thus; " The democratic party—very■47

* liungry, and, as you may well believe, very
thirsty—a party without a single definite
principle; a party without any distinct
national policy which it dares to present
to the country; a party which fell from
power as a conspiracy against human
rights, and now attempts to sneak back to
power as a conspiracy for plunder and for
spoils."

. But if the party was so utterly bankrupt
in principles and had no policy which it
"dared to present to the country," Mr.
Cleveland, after three years, had evolved
one, and announced himself to an as-
tonished world as a modern political
Columbus, who had discovered a new
world in political economy. Beyond ques-
tion, it ;was new to him. He named it
" Tariff Reform," but its real name was
"Free Trade." This marvelous discovery
was made the sole topic of his third an-
nual message, in December, 1887. It was
long and very elaborate, but can readily be
condensed into a few propositions, and
fairly stated and answered about as fol-
lows:

Cleveland's First Proposition.—That
our tariff laws in 1887 were "the vicious,
inequitable, and illogical source of un-
necessary taxation.'*

Answer.—Protectionists replied that this
proposition was clearly disproved and
shown to be an assumption, and census
statistics, which extended to 1890, have
already been quoted. By these statistics
are demonstrated a regular and steadily
increasing thrift and prosperity for thirty
years in succession, in all the material,
benevolent and educational affairs of the
nation, absolutely unknown in previous
history; that steady prosperity, such as we
have enjoyed for thirty years, was never
known in any nation under a system of
laws unvaryingly " vicious, inequitable and
illogical;" and that no nation, worthy to be
called a nation—least of all a nation so in-
telligent, so self-respecting, so sensitive of
its individual rights as our own—ever did
or would rest quietly for a third of a cen-

tury under a system of laws which could
be fairly and justly characterized as were
our tariff laws by President Cleveland in
188 7. In short, that this proposition was
disproved by all the previous experience of
mankind, as well as by all the material
and established facte of our own history.

Cleveland's Second Proposition.—

That the tariff is "a tax that raises the
price to consumers of all articles imported
by the amount of the duty."

Answer.—In 1870 the price of steel rails
in England was $107 per ton; and Congress
placed a duty of $28 a ton on imported
rails. Will any free trader kindly produce
a single instance, since 1871, in which the
consumer has paid $107 plus $28 ($185) for
a ton of steel rails ? This should be so if
his theory be true. On the contrary, un-
der protection, the price has declined to
$30 per ton, or even less.

Steel Wire Nails.—In 1882 our manu-
facture of steel nails was too - small to be
mentioned. At that time the duty was 1
cent a pound, and the price of steel nails
was 8J cents a pound. They were im-
ported, as our steel nail-makers could not
compete with English cheap labor with the
duty at 1 cent a pound. But in 1883 the
duty on steel nails was raised to 4 cents a
pound, and behold the results. According
to Mr. Cleveland, the price then should
have been 8} plus 3, the increase in duty,
equal to 11J cents a pound; but in 1885,
under two years of protective tariff, we
produced 200,000 kegs; of steel nails, and
in 1890, 3,900,000 kegs: and the prices have
declined from 8£ cents in 1882 to less than
2 cents (1.95) in 1891. In other words,
instead of inpreasing the price "by the
amount of the duty," to wit, 8 cents a
pound, the prices have declined about 6|
cents (6.88), or nearly Si cents a pound
more than the increase in duty. Which
will the reader accept—the free trade
theory, or this grand and helpful Ameri-
can fact ?

Soda Ash.—Prior to 1884 no sod§ ash48

was made in this country, though we used
175,000 tons a year. In 1883 Congress
placed on it a duty of $5 a ton. The price
prior to that time was $48 per ton. Has
the consumer been paying $53 a ton since
1883? If the free trade doctrine is true
this should be so, as that sum would be the
cost plus the duty.

But the fact is that instead of costing
more because of the duty the American
consumers have actually been paying but
$28 a ton for it, and thereby have saved
$3,500,000 a year by means of that duty.
Was that tariff duty a tax? Besides this
great saving, see how it has helped col-
lateral industries; for in making that soda
ash at home we consumed annually 70,-
000 tons of coal, 100,000 tons of limestone,
10,000 tons of coke, and 100,000 tons of
salt, where not a pound of either was
consumed before, and paid $800,000 a year
in wages and $152,000 a year in freights.
The protectionist asks again; 44 Has that
duty been a tax upon either the consumer
or the country ?"

Statements of English Manufac-
turers.—A leading manufacturer of Brad-
ford, England, said to Commissioner
Robert P. Porter not long since: "The
least possible reduction in the American
tariff will be a grand thing for Bradford.
We are selling our goods for the same
prices as we did before the higher tariff
was enacted; and, as I know, the Bradford
manufacturer is paying the duty, not the
American consumer."

And another added: " If the duties came
out of the American consumer the English
manufacturer would not care a button
about the American tariff laws."

American Statements.—The Com-
mercial Bulletin, a leading newspaper of
Boston, in February, 1891, remarked that
■'one of the heaviest importers of woolens
in Boston stated that as soon as his present
contract with foreign manufacturers ex-
pires he has been promised a reduction in
prices to meet the advanced rates of duty
now applicable to the merchandise of his

importation." And the New York Mail
and Express of March 2, 1891, said that
English manufacturers of tin-plate had
agreed to reduce the price of their tin-
plate by the amount of the McKinley act.
How can these things be if the tariff is a
tax and the added amount is paid by the
consumer ?

Lumber.—The United States produces
lumber sufficient to supply the home de-
mand, and we export it to the value of
$28,000,000. Under such circumstances
how can Canada get her lumber into our
market unless she sells it at our price?
Impossible. But to do this she will have
to pay duty thereon herself.

Sir John McDonald, late Prime Minister
of Canada, in October, 1889, said that the
Canadians know to their cost that this
second proposition of Mr. Cleveland is not
true, and that the only way they can get
their productions into our markets is to
pay the duty themselves.

This free trade theory may be beautiful,
but, as a rule, it is not in accordance with
the facts, for under a protective tariff it is
the rule for the importer to pay the fcduty,
though there are some exceptions.

How Protection is Applied.—Briefly
stated this is the rule : On all imported
articles which we do not and cannot pro-
duce here, such as tea, coffee, etc., and on
those things regarded simply as luxuries
and used only by the rich, the duty, if
any, is added to the cost, and of course
paid by the consumer. This is the English
or free trade tariff. But on imported
productions, the like of which we produce
here, the~ duties, after the business is
established, are paid principally by the
foreign producers who send them here and
not by the consumer. As Sir John Mc-
Donald said: 44 It is the only way they
can get their productions into our markets."
This last class of foreign productions con-
stitutes the great bulk of our importations.
It should be added that except luxuries,
nearly all?*articles embraced in the first
class, such as tea, coffee, sugar, etc., arg49

admitted free of duty. So that the only
instance in which the tariff is a tax and is
paid by the consumer is under a Demo-
cratic free trade tariff or one for revenue
only.

Cleveland's Third Proposition.—That
on account of this tariff tax the prices of
aJl similar articles produced in this country
show " nearly or quite the same enhanced
price which the duty adds to the imported
articles."

Answer.—The tariff duty on imported
calico is 100 per cent., the English price is
from 5 to 7 cents per yard. If the free
trade theory is correct the price of Ameri-
can calico of same quality should be from
10 to 14 cents per yard; but as a matter of
fact it is only 5 to 7 cents per yard> some-
times less.

American Steel Bails.—In 1883 Mr.
Randall, of Pennsylvania, in Congress
showed that the actual cost of a ton of
American steel rails manufactured in this
country was $30.03. The tariff at that
time was $17 per ton. If Mr. Cleveland's
doctrine is true, American steel rails should
then have cost the consumer $47, which
was the cost plus the duty. As a matter
of fact American steel rails were then
selling for $35 per ton in our markets, and
even less, if sold in large quantities.
Facts ar? dreadfully disagreeable things to
the free trader.

Blankets.—About the date of Mr.
Cleveland's message the cost of certain
five-pound English blankets was $4.45.
The duty and custom house fees were
$4.90, making their cost in the American
market $9.35. According to Mr. Cleve-
land's theory American blankets should
have been of the same price; but as a
matter of fact, American blankets of pre-
cisely the same weight and quality cost in
pur market $5.20. The difference be-
tween theory and fact on a single pair of
blankets was $3.85 in favor of aii Ameri-
can fact.	-

JJnseed Oil,—In October, 1890, and for

several months prior theret^^tfst^d oil
was quoted at 62 cents per gallon. On
October 6, 1890, the McKinley tariff in-
creased the duty on linseed oil from 25 to
32 cents per gallon, or 7 cents per gallon.
The free trader insists that'' the tariff is a
tax which is added to the price;" and
according to this theory, the price then
should have gone to 62 plus 7, equal 69
cents per gallon.

But as a matter of fact, nine months
after the passage of the McKinley bill,
linseed oil had not increased in price to 69
cents (the old price plus the increase of
duty) but was selling in open market at 47
cents a gallon, a decrease in price of 15
cents per gallon. The difference between
theory (69 cents) and fact (47 cents) is 22
cents per gallon.

The Free Trader Will Not Be Con-
vinced.—Hours might be occupied with
other illustrations; but. those already
stated completely disprove Mr. Cleveland's
theory; but as shown by his letters and
speeches in 1889 and 1891, like all genuine
free traders he still clings to it, notwith-
standing the facts are all against him;
apparently believing that if this be so,
then "it is so much the worse for the
facts."

In this he and other free traders differ
from Professor Agassiz. Senator Frye, of
Maine, who is a great trout fisher, says:
" I once called on Professor Agassiz, who
was a great authority on fish, and asked
him to go with me to Rangely Lakes to
fish for trout. As an inducement I told
him of the splendid speckled trout there,
weighing from ten to fourteen pounds each.
When I said this the professor gave me a
pitiful smile and said: *1 have just
completed a treatise in which I have dem-
onstrated that it is impossible for a
speckled trout to weigh over four pounds.'
I knew better, but knew that I could not
convince him by argument. So I went on
to Rangely, and next day caught two
speckled beauties, one of which weighed
ten and the other twelve pounds. I packedthem in ice and sent them by express to
Professor Agassiz. By return mail I re-
ceived from him a letter saying : ' My
dear Senator, the theory of a lifetime has
been kicked to death by a single fact.' "

Would that free traders could be con-
vinced by facts, and that they would as
readily admit their error when convinced.

Cleveland's Fourth Proposition.—

That the tariff rates on wool should be
still further reduced.

Answer.—The all-sufficient refutation
of this proposition has already been given,
under the headings " 1867.—Higher Tariff
on Wool—Results," and " 188B.—Duty on
Wool Reduied," to which reference is
made.

Cleveland's Fifth Proposition.-—That
"tariff reform" (meaning really free
trade) is the grand panacea for all present
and prospective financial troubles.

Answer.—This last proposition is not
stated in the message in the exact terms
stated, but it is there, and, by reading be-
tween the lines, can be seen plainly.

The absolute and overwhelming answer
to it are the historical facts, which prove
conclusively the invariable rule that pro-
tection means prosperity while free trade
means adversity.

Effect of Cleveland's Message.—With-
in thirty-six hours after these propositions
were promulgated by Mr. Cleveland in that
message they were clearly shown by Mr.
Blaine, then in Paris, and by others, to be
a series of assumptions based mostly upon
fallacies, and unsupported by any material
or tangible facts. Those who were familiar
with our tariff history, especially tinder
free trade, found in this message a new
and splendid illustration of Mr. Kelly's def-
inition, to wit: " Free trade is the science
of assumption;" while tfie intelligent but
irreverent, after reading it, declared with
Josh Billings: "It is a great deal better
not to know so many things than to know
so many things that ain't so." The nation-
al election of 1888 showed that the Ameri-

can people applied the definition of Mr*
Kelly and the remark of Josh Billings to
Mr. Cleveland and his famous free trade
message, and that they preferred a Con-
gress and a President who cared more for
the well-known and solid facts of protec-
tion than for the pleasing but fanciful
theories of free trade.

This message was a great surprise to the
^business centers; and followed as it was
by the Mills bill—a bill admitted to be ia
the interest of free trade—it caused great
anxiety among mill-owners, merchants
and manufacturers, and led to a great de-
pression in many kinds of business.
<32sp«eially was this true of the wool,
woolen and lumber industries; and of
course prices fell off discouragingly. It
thus appears that not only low tariff, but
even a threat of low tariff, will produce
disastrous results in the business world,
precisely as the threat of low tariff is ,do-
ing to-day.

Effect of the Message on Wool Illus-
trated.—A single fact stated in September,
1888, by a Mr. Libby, a prominent dealer
in wool, sheep and cattle in the State of
Maine, will illustrate the evil effects of
that message and the Mills bill. Said he:
"On the first of December, 1887, my firm
had $60,000 worth of wool stored in Boston.
We were then negotiating with a woolen
manufacturing company there for the
purchase of our wool, and had co&e with-
in one-half a cent a pound of an agree-
ment, but neither of us would yield the
half cent and I returned to Maine. On
my way I bought- an evening paper and
found therein President Cleveland's free
trade message. I read it with great in-
terest, but when I reached his demand that
wool duties should be so greatly reduced I
knew who would have to yield the half
cent. At the next station I telegraphed
the Boston company as follows: '■ Gentle-
men, I have been considering the matter
of our negotiations and have decided to
yield the half cent. I accept your offer.
Please answer.' When I reached mysr

home station I found their answering tele-
gram: 'Mr. Libby, we, too, have read
the President's message/ That was all—
a single line, but it was volumes to me. I
soon returned to Boston and saw my
parties; but their first offer was $1,000 less
than the day before Mr. Cleveland's mes-
sage appeared. The offer I refused; but
after sounding the market I went back
next morning to accept their last offer. I
was then told that they had decided to
make their offer $2,000 less than that of the
day before. This I unwisely refused
and went home to await results. But
when the Mills bill was reported I went
again to Boston determined to accept the
first offer I could get; and, to make a short
story of it, I sold the wool for just $6,000
in hard cash less than the offer of De-
cember 1. And this, too, when the bill was
only reported. So much for me. Now
see how it came home to our farmers.
We had been paying 27 to 30 cents a
pound for our wool, and there was no rea-
son except this free trade policy why prices
should not have been the same in 1888;
but as a legitimate result of that policy the
price of wool in 1888 has been but 20
cents a pound; a net loss to all wool grow-
ers of $7 to $10 on every hundred
pounds of wool they had to sell."

1888.—-Mills' Free Trade Bill.—Im-
mediately after the delivery of Mr. Cleve-
land's celebrated message the House of
Representatives, heavily Democratic, or-
ganized with Mr. Carlisle as Speaker, and
he in due time appointed his Committee on
Ways and Means. Mr. Mills, of Texas,
was made chairman, and the majority of
the committee were from States that have
comparatively little interest in manu-
factures.

In discussing the tariff in a previous
Congress Mr. Mills had said: '4 Our policy
should be to take the smallest amount of
taxes that we can by customs; and we
should gradually decrease the amount
until our customs taxes come alone from
non-competing articles entering our cus-

toms houses." That is precisely the Eng-
lish free trade system, and Mr. Mills was a
proper person to lead in formulating a free
trade bill.

The meetings of the committee were
held in secret session mostly, and they
came to be known as " The Dark Lantern
Committee." The suggestions and motions
of the minority (Republican) members were
wholly ignored, as were those of all other
persons who favored protection.

On April 2, 1888, Mr. Mills reported his
bill "in response to the recommendations of
Mr. Cleveland," as he says. It was a long
step in the direction of free trade. It was
so intended by the committee, and was so
understood by the people of the country.

Especially was this true of the Dem-
ocratic party in 1888, which, in its National
Convention held in June, unanimously
44 indorsed the views expressed by Presi-
dent Cleveland in his last annual message
[1887] as the correct interpretation of the
platform upon the question of tariff reduc-
tion. . . . That this convention here-
by indorses and recommends the early pas-
sage of the bill for the reduction of the
revenue now pending in the House of Rep-
resentatives"—the Mills bill.

The Mills Bill Passed by the House.—

The discussion upon the Mills bill was long
and earnest; every st*p on the part of the
free traders was ho<||y disputed by Re-
publicans; and every -free trade argument
was fearlessly met ant answered by them.

However, the bill passed the House, 162
ay^s to 149 noes, and was sent to the
Senate; but as the Senate was Republican
the bill soon slept the sleep of death, and
in November the nation set the seal of its
approval upon this action of the Senate by
electing a majority of Republican protec-
tionists to the succeeding House of Rep-
resentatives, and also a Republican Presi-
dent.

And thus it came to pass that the Re-
publicans and protectionists held both
House of Congress and the Presidency, and
were in a position to revise and amend the52

tariff in the interests of protection and by
its true and tried friends.

[At this point the honorable Senator
yielded the floor.]

Saturday, May 10, 1894.

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, when
I yielded the floor on Thursday I had
reached the period of enactment of the
McKinley tariff law, which law the Demo-
cratic party in its last national convention
denounced as unconstitutional, declaring
that it was " the culminating atrocity of
class legislation." I now propose to com-
plete the historical analysis of tariff legis-
lation in this country. It is my convic-
tion that the pending bill, in whatever
form it may assume, should be defeated,
and I shall certainly cast my vote against
it, as will every Republican Senator. The
best interests of the country require that
the existing tariff law shall remain undis-
turbed, certainly so until such time as the
Republican party (the friend of protection)
shall again be in power in all branches of
the national Government.

1890.—The McKinley Tariff.—In the

election of 1888 nothing was more definite-
ly settled than this; that the protective
policy, as inaugurated and maintained by
Republicans since 1861, should be further
Secured and perpetuated by proper revision
and legislation, and that such tariff revision
should be strictly in line with the prin-
ciples and purposes of protection.

Accordingly when the Fifty-first Congress
met in December, 1889, it quickly organized
with Thomas B. Reed as Speaker; and in
due time a splendid Ways and Means
Committee was appointed, with William
McKinley, of Ohio, as chairman.

The committee met with open doors, and
invited the proprietors of industrial and
mercantile interests in all parts of the
country to appear before the committee;
and all interests were given a respectful
hearing. In due time a bill was reported
to the House which sought to give ad-
equate protection to manufacturer and

laborer alike. It met with the fiercest op-
position from the free traders, Mugwumps,
and Democrats; but after full discussion it
passed by a handsome majority, and was
sent to the Senate. Here the Democrats
attempted to talk it to death, and it was not
Ntill October that the bill finally passed both
houses, was signed by the President, and
became the law of the land. Let me call
this fact to the attention of Democratic
Senators who are now clamoring for tlfe
immediate passage of the Wilson bill; they
did not allow the McKinley bill to pass un-
til October, but now they are hysterically
demanding that the Wilson bill be passed
in May. Great is Democratic consistency.

Democratic and Mugwump Lying.—

The McKinley law is, without doubt, the
best and most complete law ever enacted,
but it is also true that there never has been
a law so maliciously and wantonly ma-
ligned and misinterpreted, and about which
there has been such deliberate, persistent
and systematic lying as about this one.
From the time of the passage of the bill
till the day of the November elections fol-
lowing nearly every Democratic and Mug-
wump newspaper and speaker declared
from day to day, and from week to week,
that the price of every article of food,
every article of clothing, and every article
used in our domestic economy, in short, the
price of everything, whether imported or
domestic, had been raised by the McKinley
act; and they gave forged figures and
statistics to prove it. These alleged statis-
tics were absolutely false, and the news-
papers and orators who uttered them knew
it; but so trifling a matter as that did not
deter them from deliberately repeating
those falsehoods.

In a historical discussion these remarks
may at first thought appear harsh and un-
dignified, but it is the historian's duty to
state facts; and the statements made are
facts, and they are history as" well, and
therefore should be stated. An examina-
tion of the newspapers referred to will
afford ample proof that I have not over-53

Stated the facts. But these falsehoods
were not all. In various parts of the
country peddlers were furnished with carts
and packs, loaded with tinware and many
other articles. The peddlers were not ex-
pected to sell their wares, but were in-
structed to ask double and triple prices;
and when people objected to their prices
they were to say that all these prices had
been raised on account of the McKinley
tariff; and that they could not sell at lower
prices. The country folk did not know
that these men were lying, and of course
denounced the Republicans and voted
against them. Merchants and traders of
the same political faith all over the land
adopted the same tactics, and with like
results. Within three weeks after the
election the same men declared that those
stories were not true, and all admitted that
prices had not been raised. One of the
ablest newspaper defamers, the day after
the election, said: " It is probable that this
intentional deception about the rise of
prices under the McKinley bill has now
appeared for the last time, having served
the purpose of electing a Democratic
House in the next Congress."

Mr. Depew's Opinion.—On the 6th of
March, 1891, at a public dinner in the city
of New York, that genial, kindly-spirited
and conservative gentleman, Chauncey M.
Depew, referring to the election of 1890,
boldly said: "We had last fall our Bull
Run. It was the triumph of the liar in
American politics. The liar elected a Con-
gress of more than two-thirds, of some
honest Democrats and many phenomenal
cranks, and when that Congress shall have
adjourned the American people will under-
stand, in regard to the liar, that the deeds
of men live after them; and while the liar
will live as long as the race in its present
degraded condition survives, he never more
will be a factor in our politics."

A Woman's Spirited Reply.—But,
strange as it may seem, this perversion of
fact and of truth was continued for months
by free-trade organs. Six months after the

McKinley bill became a law the New York
Times said: " When a woman pays 50 cents
more a yard for stuff to make a dress of
than she would have paid if the McKinley
bill had not become a law, she should keep
it to herself. So doing, she will confer a
great favor on President Harrison, who
thinks he may get another term in the
White House if people will quit making
'malevolent' remarks about the tariff."
This false and bitter paragraph was copied
approvingly by a Chicago paper, and came
under notice of Mrs. Elizabeth Hunt, of
Bloomington, 111. She wrote an indignant
letter in reply, which deserves a place here,
because it is so spicy, so full of facts, and
so clearly proves that the women of the
land now know the truth about this mat-
ter. After saying that she "is a Demo-
crat's wife, but is sick of seeing such lies
in newspapers whose editors claim not to
be fools," she adds:

"Now don't this fool Democrat who edits
the Chicago Herald know, or can't his wife
tell him) that everything a woman wears
costs less than it did before the McKinley
bill passed ? Calico is 4-J- cents per yard; a
good summer silk costs from 25 to 35 cents
a yard. It used to cost $1. Black silk can
be bought for from 60 cents to $1 that used
to cost from $2 to $3.50. Sugar costs 5
cents that used to cost 8 cents. Ribbons are
half the old price, stockings the same, and
jerseys, since they are making them in this
country, cost half as much as the imported.
Ladies' things are down. We ladies know
that Democratic husbands can lie to each
other, but they can't lie to us. We women
are not fools. Let the Herald liar stick to
men's things when he lies, and not try to
lie about women's things. We won't
stand it. I'm a Democratic woman, but I
don't want any lying to keep the party
up."

Some Good Points of the McKinley
Act.—It proclaims and upholds the prin-
ciples of protection to American industries.

It affords ample protection equally to
American capital and American lab<?*\54

It forbids the United States Government
from importing articles for its own use
free of duty.

It forbids the importation of obscene
books, pictures and literature; and also
forbids tlie importation of any foreign
goods that bear an American trade-mark.

Tlic? importation of all foreign goods
made by convict labor is strictly prohibit-
ed.

The friends of free trade have persist-
ently declared that if we would only have
free raw materials from abroad for manu-
facturing purposes, we could increase our
exports many millions, and soon take the
markets of the world. The McKinley bill
provides that whenever any raw materials
shall be imported for manufacture and ex-
port, 99 per cent, of the duty shall be re-
funded when so exported; and free traders
now have full permission to take the
markets of the world.

It restores the protective features of the
law of 1867 on wool and its manufactures,
so that if left undisturbed by legislation
the sheep and wool industry will again
flourish.

It adds materially to the duties on
agricultural products, and so protects our
farmers from the cheap labor of Canada
and other countries.

It lays a duty on imported linen products
that will encourage the erection of many
large plants for the manufacture of linens
in our own country, and will, at the same
time, add a new and valuable product to
the farmers' list in the raising of flax.

How It Affects Tin Plates.—It puts a
duty on tin plate so high that it promises
to transfer the most of that great industry
to this country. Already many large
plants are in process of erection, or have
been completed, and we are producing a
superior tin plate at Brooklyn, Pittsburg,
Chicago, St. Louis, and other places, and
others will soon go up if the duty is not
changed. The largest mines of tin in the
world have been found in the Dakotas,
California, Texas and Virginia; so that it

Is morally certain that in the near future
we shall be able to produce at home the
full supply of tin and tin plate that we
need, and which now amounts to over
$30,000,000 in value annually.

When this is accomplished, it will afford
a new business that will annually pay to
American labor not less than $23,000,000;
it will require from iron ore miners not
less than 1,000,000 tons of iron ore more
than they now produce; from limestone
quarries 300,000 tons more of limestone;
from coal mines and coke ovens 2,000,000
tons more of coal and coke; from blast
furnaces 400,000 tons more of pig iron;
from lead mines and smelting furnaces
5,500,000 pounds more of lead; from
slaughter and packing houses 13,000,000
pounds more of tallow and oil; from
chemical factories 40,000,000 pounds more
of sulphuric acid; from lumber yards
12,000,000 feet more of lumber; and will
give constant work to at least 35,000
persons. Indeed, it is already in large
part fulfilled, and unless the tariff on tin
plate is greatly reduced the industry in
this country will be a phenomenal success.

Characteristic Action of British
Free Traders.—A glance at the history of
prices of tin plate for twenty years past
will make clear the necessity and propriety
of the McKinley -tariff, and at the same
time illustrate the characteristic policy of
British free trade manv*^cturers. "In
1873 British importers advanced the price
of tin plate to $12 a box in American
markets; and at once American tin-plate
factories commenced operations. British
importers within three years reduced the
price to $4.50 per box, and our mills had
to shut down. When this was done
British importers advanced prices to $9
and $10 per box, and under this stimulus,
in 1879, American mills again started up.
As soon as they were well at work British
importers again reduced the price to $4
per box; and then made a standing offer,
or more properly a threat, to sell their tin
plate 25 cents a box cheaper than the55

American product, no matter what the
price of the latter might be. Of course,
this action completely finished the Ameri-
can industry, and prices were at once ad-
vanced from $4 to $7 per box." (Rice.)

The McKinley tariff put an end to this
outrage and robbery, and this fact alone is
sufficient justification for its enactment.

The Free List and the Reason for It.

—The McKinley act also puts upon the
free list almost 50 per cent, of the whole
number of articles imported, including
sugar; while the Mills bill put only about
33 per cent, on the free list; and left a
duty on sugar amounting to nearly $60,000,-
000 a year, and a duty of 100 per cent, on
rice, two articles then produced in this
country only in the South.

The principle of protection is this: Any
articles (except luxuries which are used
only by the rich) which we do not and can-
not raise or produce with profit in this
country, but which are necessary in the
common household economy of the masses
of the people, such as tea, coffee, sugar,
etc., covering over 49 per cent, of all
articles we import, we let in free of duty, or
at mere nominal rates, but upon all articles
we do raise or produce here, and in the
production of which our workingmen are
obliged to compete with cheap foreign
labor, we place a duty large enough to
cover the difference between the low wages
of the foreign laborers and the much
higher wages of our American laborers, in
order that the wages of our own workmen
may not be reduced. We also lay a heavy
duty on luxuries, such as costly furs,
cloths, wines, etc., which only the wealthly
can afford; for the reason that if they
will indulge in such expensive foreign
productions they should contribute largely
toward paying the expenses of the Govern-
ment that grants them such exclusive
privileges.

McKinley's Opinions.—"This bill
gives freer, broader, wider trade than any
bill from Washington to Harrison. Nearly

50 per cent, of all we imported last year is
absolutely free under the law of 1890.

" Now do you know why we put them
on the free list ? We did it on the great
principle underlying protection—because
we do not manufacture them at home. For
the same reason in 1872 we put tea and
coffee there, and that is the exact reason
that we make sugar free—that we produce
but a small percentage of what we con-
sume." (Speech in New York, April 29,
1891.)

A Free Trade Tariff vs. a Protect-
ive Tariff.—To clearly illustrate- the
marked difference between these two sys-
tems in their application to the laboring
and middle classes of England and the
United States, and especially how they [af-
fect the earnings of the people, let us ex-
amine the English customs reports for the
year 1888:

Whole amount collected from customs
$97,897,880.

Amount collected from—

Tobacco.........................................$43,569,715

Tea.......................................................23,066,560

Dried fruit.....................................2,742,380

Coffee................................937,810

Cocoa................................ 414,717

Chicory..............................................355,060

Wines..............................................................5,428,230

Total............................. $76,514,463

Now none of these articles are raised or
produced in England, but with the excep-
tion of wines they are all necessaries of
life, and the toiling millions of England
must and will have them; and the greater
part of the articles enumerated above are
consumed by the laboring classes. In
other words, under a free trade tariff, these
few articles of necessity, consumed mostly
by the laboring classes of England, pay
$76,514,462 out of $97,897,380—more than
four-fifths of all the customs duties.

The American laborer pays no duty at
all on tea, coffee, cocoa, chicory, and dried
fruits; and none on tobacco and wines
produced at home. In other words, a pro-
tective tariff saves our workingmen the
greater part of $76,000,000 in customs
duties.56

In the United States under fifteen years
of the free trade tariff of 18^6 to 1861 our
imports exceeded our exports by $432,355,-
^721, and that amount of gold had to go
abroad to pay that balance; in fifteen years
of protection, from 1876 to 1890, our exports
exceeded our imports by $1,669,444,246,
and that amount of specie was sent to this
country to pay us that immense balance.
During the whole period from 1790 to 1861
—seventy-one years—we exported 80,869,-
000 bushels of wheat; but in 1883, after
twenty-two years of protective tariff, we
exported 150,000,000 bushels in a single
year.

In 1861, after fifteen years of tariff for
revenue, Government had to borrow
money for current expenses at ten and
twelve per cent. In 1891, after thirty
years of protection, Government could
borrow all it wanted at two per cent.

Gladstone ys. Facts*—Mr. Gladstone,
the eminent leader of the free traders in
England, admits the marvelous increase of
wealth acquired by the United States under
a protective tariff, but insists that the
results would have been even larger under
free trade. He produces no facts to sus-
tain his views, and therefore it is simply
an expression of opinion.

Prince Bismarck holds the opposite view,
and it may be said that his view is also a
matter of opinion. But undisputed facts
are infinitely stronger and more decisive
than opinions or arguments, no matter
how great or how able are their authors,
and therefore the facts shall decide this
question.

Mr. Blaine marshaled these facts clearly
and forcibly from the very best authorities
as follows:

"In 1860 the population of the United
States was in round pumbers 31,000,000.
At the same time the population of the
United Kingdom was in round numbers
29,000,000. The wealth of the United
States at that time was $14,000,000,000; the
wealth of the United Kingdom was $29,-
000,000,000. The United Kingdom had

therefore nearly the same population, but
more than double the wealth of the United
States, with machinery for manufacturing
four-fold greater than that of the United
States. At the end of twenty years (1880)
it appeared that the United States had
added nearly $30,000,000,000 to her wealth,
while the United Kingdom had added
nearly $15,000,000,000, or about one-half.

"During this period of twenty years
the United States had incurred the enor-
mous loss of $9,000,000,000 by internal
war, while the United Kingdom was at
peace, enjoyed exceptional prosperity, and
made a far greater gain than in any other
twenty years of her history—a gain which
during four years was in a large part due
to the calamity that had fallen upon the
United States. The United Kingdom had
added 6,000,000 to her population during
the period of twenty years, while the ad-
dition to the United States exceeded 18,-
000,000.

'' By the compound ratio of population
and wealth in each country, even without
making allowance for the great loss in-
curred by the civil war, it is plainly
shown by the statistics here presented that
the degree of progress in the United States
under protection far exceeded that of the
United Kingdom under free trade for the
period named. In 1860 the average wealth,
per capita, of the United Kingdom was
$1,000, while in the United States it was
but $450. In 1880 the United Kingdom
had increased her per capita wealth to $1,-
230, while the United States had increased
her per capita wealth to $879. The United
Kingdom had in twenty years increased her
per capita wealth twenty-three per cent.,
while the United States had increased her
per capita wealth more than ninety-three
per cent. If allowance should be made for
war losses the ratio of gain in the United
States would far exceed one hundred per
cent. Upon these results what ground has
Mr. Gladstone for his assertion ?" (Blaine's
answer to Gladstone.)

Restricted Reciprocity.—Another ofhr

the iiighly "beneficent provisions of the
SfcKinley act is the section on restricted
reciprocity. This (third) section " providfes
that with a view to secure reciprocal trkde
with countries producing the following
articles, aiid for this purpose, on and after
the 1st day of July, 1892, whenever and so
often as the President shall be satisfied that
the government of any country producing
and exporting sugars, mplasses, coffee, tea
and hides, raw and cured, or any of such
articles, imposes duties or other exactions
upon the agricultural or other products of
the United States, which in view of the
free introduction of suc>- sugars, molasses,
coffee, tea and hides into the United States
he may deem reciprocally unequal and un-
reasonable, he shall have the power and it
shall be his duty to suspend by proclama-
tion to that effect the provisions of this act
relative to the free introduction of such
sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the
production of such country, for such time
as he shall deem just; and in such case and
during such suspension duties shall be
levied, collected and paid thereon as fol-
lows: Sugars from one to two cents per
pound, according to quality; molasses, four
cents per gallon; coffee, three cents; tea, ten
cents, and hides, one and one-half cents
per pound."

A careful reading of this section will
show that it is strictly in line with the doc-
trine of a protective tariff.

The articles named are such as cannot be
produced economically in this country:
but they are universally regarded as neces-
saries by our people, and are therefore
placed upon the free list. Our production
of wheat and corn has become enormous*
and is rapidly increasing; and hitherto we
have found a ready market in Europe for
our surplus of these cereals.

But India and other eastern countries are
increasing their production of these articles
much more rapidly than we are, and as the
wages paid to Indian and Oriental laborers
are but a small fraction of the wages paid
to American laborers, they can and will

undersell us in the European markets, and
so, to a large extent, cut off our markets
there.

We are also producing agricultural and
other machinery in unlimited quantities
and of the highest quality, and we have, or
easily can have, a surplus of these things.

Now it so happens that the countries
that produce sugar, molasses, coffee, tea,
hides, etc., do not produce their own wheat,
corn, flour, meal, beef, pork, lard, etc., in
the quantities required by their people;
neither do they make their own machinery
to any great extent; but, strange as it may
seem, those countries that need, and must
have, but do not produce, these agricul-
tural, mechanical and food productions
which we make, have, up to January 1,
1891, levied and collected on these articles
a heavy tariff duty whenever we have ex-
ported them to those countries, such duties,
in some cases, being almost prohibitory.
It should be added here that we were just
as unwise as to sugar, collecting therefrom
duties amounting to nearly $60,000,000 a
year, though we admitted tea, coffee and
hides free from duty.

Under the wise leadership of Mr. Blaine,
our eminent Secretary of State, supported
cordially by President Harrison's Adminis-
tration, and by a Republican Congress, this
section on restricted reciprocity was inserted
in the McKinley act. The reason for it
was substantially this:

These southern countries produce sugar,
coffee, hides, etc., cheaply and in great
abundance; they want a steady and in-
creasing market for their surplus; but do
not and cannot produce the cereals and
other foods, and the machinery they want.

We produce a large surplus of cereals
and other foods, and machinery, for which
we want a steady and increasing market,
and we cannot produce profitably, if at all,
the sugar, coffee, etc., that w« need.

Mr. Blaine suggested: Why not establish
reciprocity with these countries, relative to
the above-named productions of each
country; and admit such distinctive pro-§8

ductions above iiamed, free of duty, pro-
vided they will do the same by ours ?

When thus stated it became a matter of
the simplest common sense. It was most
heartily approved by the country, with
some partisan exceptions, and everybody
wondered why so simple and desirable an
arrangement had not been thought of
before.

In justice to fact and history it should be
stated that nearly or quite every Democrat
in Congress voted against it; but thanks to
the good sense of a Republican Congress
and President, it was passed.

Brazil, the British West Indies, British
Guiana, Spanish West Indies, San Do-
mingo, Germany, Hawaii, Gautemala,
Nicaragua, Honduras, Austria-Hungary,
Costa Kica and Salvador, have completed
reciprocal treaties with us on the lines
proposed in the McKinley act; and it is not
only probable but morally certain that un-
less the policy of the Government is re-
versed, Mexico, the other Central Ameri-
can States, and the other South American
States will join in similar reciprocal
treaties.

In ten years ending June 30, 1889, we
imported from these southern nations mer-
chandise to the value of $1,529,791,797;
and during the same period we .exported to
them goods to the value of only $527,282,-
776; leaving against us the enormous
balance of $1,002,509,021, or over $100,-
000,000 a year, which had to be paid by us
in gold or its equivalent.

It must be apparent to the dullest intel-
lect, the protectionists argue, that it is
vastly better for us to retain that gold here,
and pay that great balance, or the most of
it, with our flour, meats, lumber, ma-
chinery, etc., and thereby increase our
home productions, maintain the wages of
our workingmen, give them steady employ-
ment, augment our wealth, multiply our
comforts, and add to our happiness and
contentment. In order to save our market
for her beet sugar, Germany has removed
all restrictions which for years have kept

our pork products out of tliat coutitrjr, and
another market worth many millions ati-
nually has been given us by reciprocity.

Net Gain Under Reciprocity from
Sugar.—Claims under the McKinley act
for sugar bounties filed up to June 80,
1891, the last day on which they could be
filed for that year, amounted to about $9,-
000,000, and the# bounties for the years
since have not been largely in excess of
that amount.

The advantage which the McKinley
tariff act gives to the country in the matter
of sugar for one year can be seen at a
glance.

Amount of duty taken off............. $60,000,000

Amount paid for bounties............. 9,000,000

Amount saved to the people by the

new reciprocity tariff on sugar alone $51,000,000

The New York Democratic platform
(1891) characterized this matter as "the
Blaine reciprocity humbug." What are
the facts? In June, 1890, under the old
tariff we sold to Brazil breadstuffs, car-
riages, cars, cotton, clothing, tools, hard-
ware, sewing machines, engines, ma-
chinery, resin, tar, pitch, bacon, lard, lum-
ber, manufactures of wood, etc., to the
value of $506,000. On these things by the
reciprocity act the duties were either
abolished or reduced 25 per cent., and in
June, 1891, we sold to Brazil of these ar-
ticles to the value of $1,000,000. Increase
the first year about 98 per cent. And such
results we are told are " humbug!"

What Reciprocity Means.—The New

York Sun, notwithstanding the position of
its party relative to the McKinley tariff,
has the courage to express its own opinion,
as follows: " The full purpose and ultimate
significance of the reciprocity programme
conceived by Mr. Blaine did not at first
reveal themselves to the public mind.
Even the commercial and industrial advan-
tages derivable from such a policy were
not instantly and clearly appreciated. Still
less was the political significance of a
scheme, the most capacious ever formed by59

an American statesman since Thomas Jef-
ferson planned tlie purchase of Louisiana,
at once distinctly recognized. Yet a little
reflection must convince us that under the
guidance of Secretary Blaine we have
entered on a course whose fixed and by no
means distant goal is the acquirement for
the United States of not only commercial,
but political ascendency throughout the
western hemisphere."

Upon what honorable principle can any
man or any party oppose such a beneficent
statute ?

Daniel Webster on Reciprocity.—

Most free traders take great delight in
sneering at Mr. Blaine and this reciprocity
doctrine, bat he is in good company, as will
be seen by the following extract from a
speech by Daniel Webster in Congress
April 2, 1824:

" Commerce is not a gambling among na-
tions for a stake, to be won by some and
lost by others. It has not the tendency
necessarily to impoverish one of the parties
to it, while it enriches the other; all parties
gain, all parties make profits, all parties
grow rich by the operation of just and
liberal commerce. If the world had but
one clime and but one soil, if all men had
the same wants and the same means, on
the spot of their existence, to gratify their
wants, then, indeed, what one obtained
from the other by exchange would injure
one party in the same degree that it bene-
fited the other; then, indeed, there would
be some foundation for the balance of
trade. But Providence has disposed our
lot much more kindly. We inhabit a
various earth. We have reciprocal wants
and reciprocal means of gratifying one
another's wants. This is the true origin
of commerce, which is nothing more than
an exchange of equivalents, and, from the
rude barter of its primitive state to the re-
fined and complex condition in which we
see it, its principle is uniformly the same,
its only object being in every stage to pro-
duce that exchange of commodities between
individuals and between nations which

shall conduce to the advantage and happi-
ness of both."

Not an Abandonment of Protection,

—The following extract from a speech in
Congress by Hon. J. C. Burrows, of
Michigan, is both eloquent and convincing:
" Reciprocity is fair trade, not free trade.
We admit free of duty into the American
market the things we do not or cannot
produce, like tea and coffee, or things
which, like sugar, cannot be produced in
sufficient quantities to supply the whole,
and in return therefor secure reciprocal
advantages in the markets of the countries
supplying these articles.

" Reciprocity strikes down no American
industry, cripples no American enterprise.
Reciprocity antagonistic to protection!
Protection guards the home market;
reciprocity reaches out to the foreign
markets. Protection establishes, builds up
and maintains American industries; reci-
procity opens a new outlet for the surplus
products of our farms and factories. Pro-
tection gives employment to American
labor; reciprocity enlarges the demand for
the fruits of that labor, thereby insuring
uninterrupted employment. In a word,
protection is defense, reciprocity is con-
quest.

"There is, ^therefore, no abandonment
of the doctrine of protection, but rather an
increased demand for its maintenance."

Great Prosperity Assured.—These

are a few of the salient points of the Mc-
Kinley act, and there are many others
equally helpful and beneficent, but I have
not time to consider them now.

That the act steadily grew in popular
favor, and that many industries were re-
vived and strengthened, and many others
started and developed, is undeniable. This
has been our invariable experience under
protection, and no good reason is apparent
why it should not continue as long as high
tariff is the recognized principle of our
Government. Under the operations of the
McKinley law as early as January, 1892,
some twenty or more large plants for them

manufacture of tin plate were already in
active operation or in process of construc-
tion and nearly completed; several large
plants for manufacturing linen were also
being erected; many factories for the
manufacture of pearl and other dress but-
tons had been revived and started; one or
two large thread works were doubling
their capacity; hundreds of new enterprises
had been established; large numbers of
articles used by mechanics and farmers,
manufactured of iron or steel, were already
from 10 to 25 per cent, cheaper than they
were before the bill was enacted; increased
wages were paid to many workmen; our
commercial relations with Central and
South American Republics were greatly
enlarged and gave us increased business
and profits; so that there was even then
great and increasing prosperity in all lines
of business under a tariff expressly drawn
to give just and ample protection to Ameri-
can industries, American labor, and Amsri-
can capital.	*

The New York Press, under date of
October 14, 1891, said:

" For the benefit of the whole host of
free traders, we oresent in a nutshell some
facts about the operation of the new tariff
which they will have to meet squarely or
confess themselves beaten. The Mc-
Kinley bill has—

Increased the duties on about..........115 articles

Reduced the duties on about.......... .190 articles

And left it unchanged on...............849 articles

Increased our foreign commerce in

eleven months........................ $74,768,639

Increased our free imports............$112,013,081

Made the percentage of free imports,

of all our imports.................... 55.75

Increased free imports over the last

tariff, per cent....................... 22.48

Reduced the duties per capita from $3.80 to $3.07
Reduced the total revenue ("tariff

taxes in twelve months............ $41,396,425

Increased the cost of no necessity of life and re-
duce*l the cost of many; stimulated business,
and thereby tended to make people busier and
earnings surer, if not larger.

" The figures here given for foreign
commerce and free imports are for eleven
months ending September 1, the latest at
hand, and the percentages of free imports,
which are now larger than ever before in
the history of our Government, are for six

months, beginning April i, when sugat tie-
came free.

" Such is the early fruit of genuine
'tariff reform' by the Republican party."

Amazing Political Blindness.—Not-
withstanding the marvelous results in the
Southern States, as will be shown later on,
we are confronted with a condition of
political affairs in those States so amazing
as to be incomprehensible. With such
tremendous results, accomplished as they
have been, not by their own efforts and
capital, but chiefly by the business men
and capital of the Northern States, one
would naturally think that the political
South would be grateful to those Northern
men, and favorable to a protective system
that permits and encourages such a mag-
nificent development of their great natural
resources.

But what are the facts ?

These Southern States constitute the
" Solid South;" and with here and there an
exception, they are absolutely " solid" for
free trade Democracy.

They were practically '' solid" for the
Mills bill, which was avowedly drawn -in
the interests of free trade, and which, had
it become a law, would have depressed or
destroyed most of the splendid industries
in their own section. Not only were they
actually '4 solid" against the McKinley act,
but they fought it with such fury and per-
sistence as to show that they were animat-
ed by the intensest hate against protection
and protective tariffs.

And yet if the beneficent provisions of
that protective tariff are allowed full ex-
ercise during the next decade, the industrial
development of the South in the same
period will be vastly greater and more en-
riching than it has been during the last dec-
ade.

What is the explanation of this singular
action on the part of the South ?

The facts are stated, and Senators must
furnish the explanation if they can.

What Protection Has Done for the
South.—The summary of the facts con-61

tained in tlie subjoined table shows the
wonderful growth of the Southern States
under protection, in population, wealth,
capital, railroads, manufactories, agricul-
ture and education since the census of 1880
was taken. The totals are as follows for
the year ending June 30, 1890:

but a small part of the materials at hand
having been used; but I believe that
enough has been utilized to make clear to
all the great difference between these two
economic systems, and the great superiori-
ty of protection over free trade for our
country. I have tried to be careful and

Total population......................

Whites................................

Colored...............................

Actual wealth.........................

State debts (net)......................

Total public indebtedness.............

Total State revenues..................

Banking capital......................

Capital invested during decade.......

Railroad mileage.....................

Men employed.......................

Cost of railroad equipment, etc.......

Number of manufactories............

Capital...............................

Value of product.....................

Cotton mills...........................

"Value of products................. —

Cotton seed products, value..........

Pig iron produced, tons...............

Steel produced, tons..................

Coal produced, tons...................

Precious metals, value................

Total minerals, value.................

Value of lumber output..............

Value of forest products.............

Lands under crops, acres.............

Value of agricultural machinery, etc.

Cotton produced, bales...............

Value..................................

Fruit, value...........................

Total value of farm products.........

Value, live stock......................

Schools................................

Teachers.............................

Pupils enrolled ......................

Attendance...........................

School revenues.......................

1890.

17,556,920
11,861,996
6,194,924
$9,751,815,635
$96,460,186
$183,772,353
$26,538,260
$171,690,670
$2,339,170,000
41,118
188,731
$1,301,096,740
56,714
$551,483,900
$742,865,200
334

$54,191,600
$27,310,836
1,684,663
183,625
17,536,456
$712,789
$35,608,615
$102,122*100
$123,998,800
75,551,439
$120,750,000
7,776,215
$340,268,005
$24,620,500
$984,707,000
$555,905,108
66,647
74,055
3,359,173
2,181,109
$14,767,396

1880.

14,638,936
9,007,187
5,631,749
$6,098,000,000
$118,195,252
$189,345,464
$13,249,866
$92,575,000

.......19,572

86,250
$612,000,000
34,563
$179,366,230
$315,924,704
161

$16,353,182
$7,690,921
290,772
4,380
3,820,550
$225,176
$3,643,020
$35,680,151
$46,979,062
54,679,145
$67,372,500
5,733,675
$258,524,911
$9,084,173
$611,679,145
$360,066,883
44,260
49.182
2,018;640
1,393,743
$5,607,081

Per Cent.

*19.9
*26.2
*10.0
*62.5
+18.4
+3.0
*100.0
*86.1

"♦iio'.i
*118.8
*110.9
*64.2
*207.0
*135.2
*107.4
*231.4
*267.1
*480.9
*4,121.0
*362.9
*218.0
*877.5
*183.4
*163.8
*38.1
*79.2
*36.0
*82.6
*171.0
*60.9
*54.1
*50.1
*50.5
*67.0
*56.9
*163.6

* Increase.

As said with singular pertinency to the
South by Ellis H. Roberts, in his work on
Government Revenue; 44 The protective
clauses of a tariff serve to recruit the
armies of labor out of the listless and care-
less, and to make the streams which have
been lazily humming the melodies of
drowsiness, vocal with the glad choruses
of iron and steel and woolen and cotton
and silk. The idle Naiads are changed
into ministers of progress and the creators
of every blessing of civilization."

Important Difference.—I have now
brought our American Tariff History down
to J89& Much more might have been said,

+ Decrease.

candid in all statements of fact; and to
present them with strict accuracy, honestly
believing that there is not a single state-
ment that cannot be fully and historically
established. Such being the case, these
facts should be carefully and thoughtfully
examined and considered by every patriotic
American.

If free trade, under whatever name, in-s
variably produces the result set forth, then
we have no further use for free trade in
our nation.

That it does invariably produce the evil
results stated is a fact that cannot be truths
fully denied nor disproved. It is only bysophistical and fallacious reasoning, by
bold assumption, or by utterly ignoring all
facts, that tlie free traders are able to
make converts.

If protectionists will be as earnest and
aggressive as are their opponents, and keep
the real facts before the American people,
they need have no fear of the final result.

Opinions of Yalue.—It seems proper
and profitable to quote the weighty opinions
of the two ablest statesmen produced by
the nineteenth century, one in America, the
other in Europe, relative to the value and
importance of a protective tariff.

James G. Blaine's Opinion.—" The
country is now in the enjoyment of an in-
dustrial system which in a quarter of a
century has assured a larger national
growth, a more rapid accumulation and a
broader distribution of wealth than were
ever before known to history. The Ameri-
can people will now be openly and formal-
ly asked to decide whether this system
shall be recklessly abandoned and a new
trial be made of an old experiment which
has uniformly led to national embarrass-
ment and widespread individual distress.
On the result of such an issue fairly pre-
sented to the popular judgment there is no
room for doubt." (Letter from Florence,
January 25, 1888.) On another occasion
Mr. Blaine said: "The benefit of protec-
tion goes first and last to the men who earn
their bread in the sweat of their faces.
The auspicious and momentous result is
that never before in the history of the
world has comfort been enjoyed, educa-
tions acquired and independence secured
by so large a proportion of the total popu-
lation as in the United States of America."

Prince Bismarck's Opinion.—■" The
success [under protection] of the United
States in material development is the most
illustrious of modern times. The Ameri-
can nation has not only successfully borne
and suppressed the most gigantic and ex-
pensive war of all history, but immediate-
ly afterward disbanded its army, found
wo?k for all its soldiers and marines, paid

off most of its debt, given labor and homes
to all the unemployed of Europe as fast as
they could arrive within its territory, and
has done all this by a system of taxation so
indirect as not to be perceived, much less
felt.

"Because it is my deliberate judgment
that the prosperity of America is mainly
due to its system of protective laws, I urge
that Germany has now reached the point
where it is necessary to imitate the tariff
system of the United States."

It is fair and pertinent to add that
Germany has followed this advice in a
limited degree, and has found it very prof-
itable and advantageous to her people and
to her material interests.

Horace Greeley's Opinion.—Having
given, briefly, the opinions of these two
distinguished statesmen relative to the
benefits of a protective tariff, it seems prop-
er to quote another gentleman no less
able, distinguished or clear-headed relative
to the terrible financial disturbances in our
country which have already been examined
and described, and which in every instance
occurred under free trade or free trade
tariffs. In 1869 Horace Greeley, the great
editor, the profound philosopher, the in-
telligent political economist, wrote as fol-
lows:

"Our years of signal disaster and depres-
sion have been those in which our ports
were more easily flooded with foreign
goods—those which intervened between
the recognition of our independence and
the enactment of the tariff of 1789; those
which followed the close of our last war
with Great Britain and were signalized by
immense importations of her fabrics—those
of 1837-42, when the compromise of 1883
began to be seriously felt in the reduction of
duties on imports: and those of 1854-57
when the Polk-Walker tariff of 1846 had
had time to take full effect."

It will be observed that these dates cor-
respond exactly with the four free trade
periods already described. It is also his-
torically true that no such financial re-63

vulsions have ever occurred under eitlier
of the four protective periods of our history.
Intelligent Americans will draw their own
conclusions as to the desirability of these
respective economic systems.

An Englishman's Opinion.—Mr. James
Bryce, M.P., the author of "The Ameri-
can Commonwealth," a work of rare candor
and of great merit, after traveling over the
•most of our country, and making a careful
study of the people, the institutions, the
industries and the marvelous progress of
the United States, thus expressed himself:

"With one interval of trade depression
it [the United States] has for twenty years
been developing its amazing natural re-
sources so fast as to produce an amount of
wealth which is not only greater, but more
widely diffused through the populations
than in any other part of the world, and
the people allow themselves luxuries such
as the masses enjoy in no other country."

This is an involuntary but invaluable
tribute to protection, which has prevailed
here during the period mentioned by Mr.
Bryce.

A British Yiew of the American

Tariff.—The Sheffield (England) Telegraph
said: ''The promoters of the McKinley
tariff meant it to push forward the policy
of America for the Americans. One method
of realizing it was to keep all work within
their own dominions. The country was to
be made self-supplying: what could be
produced at home was not to be bought
abroad. That was the keynote of the
McKinley scheme, and it is working out
the idea of its designers with the preci-
sion and effectiveness of a machine."

A Significant Parallel.—Let me, in a
single paragraph condensed from Henry C.
Carey, once more place in vivid contrast
the actual unvarying results of the two
systems, in order that we may be able,
safely and intelligently, to decide between
them—the one based entirely upon unsup-
ported theory; the other founded upon
impregnable facts,

We have had protection in 1789, 1812,
1824, 1828, 1842, and from 1861 to date.

We have had free trade or very low
tariff in 1783, 1816, 1832, 1846,1857.
Now for the results.

UNDER PROTECTION WE HAVE HAD I

1.—Great	demand for labor.

2.—Wages	high and money cheap.

3.—Public	and private revenues large.

4.—Public	and private prosperity great beyond ail
previous precedent.

5.—Growing	national independence.

UNDER FREE TRADE WE HAVE HAD :

1.—Labor everywhere seeking employment.
2 —Wages low and money high.

3.—Public	and private revenues small and steadily
decreasing.

4.—Public	and private bankruptcy nearly uni-
versal.

5.—Growing	national dependence.

Can any one doubt which system is the
better for this country ? Will any one say
these uniform results are mere accidents or
coincidences? With just as much reason
one might say that the rising and setting
of the sun, or the recurrence of the tides,
are accidents or coincidences.

McKinley's Testimony.—Because he
has expressed my own thought more tersely
and strongly than I could, I will insert
here the words of William McKinley :
" With me protection is a conviction, not a
theory : I believe in it, and warmly advo-
cate it, because enveloped in it are
my country's highest development and
greatest prosperity; out of it comes the
greatest gains to the people, the greatest
comforts to the masses, the widest en-
couragement for manly aspirations, the
best and largest reward for honest efforts ;
and a dignifying and elevating citizenship,
upon which the safety and purity and per-
manency of our political system depend,"
I will only add, in brief,
Why Everybody Should Be a Pro-
tectionist.—First—Because, having tried
free trade, or a free trade tariff, four times
since 1783, it (free trade) has never once
failed to cause excessive imports and de<
creased exports; heavy loss of specie, suspen-64

sion of our manufactories, low wages and en-
forced idleness of our laborers, general
inability to pay our debts, widespread
bankruptcies, universal distress and finan-
cial ruin.

Second.—Because, having tried protec-
tion five times since 1783, it has never once
failed to cause increasing demand for labor,
high wages for our workmen, and lower
prices for their family and household neces-
sities, general and growing agricultural
prosperity, varied and multiplied industries,
strong development of our educational and
benevolent institutions, and an increase of
national wealth unprecedented in the his.
tory of any other nation.

Third.—Because, the foregoing results
in each case having been uniform, unfailing
and invariable, I am compelled to believe
that the said evil results are inherent in
the free trade system; and that the said
good results are no less inherent in the
protective system.

Fourth.—Because, these things being
so, I must prefer that system that brings
universal prosperity, rather than the one
that causes general and unavoidable adver-
sity.

Tariff History Continued from Jan-
uary, 1892.—The History of American
Tariffs, brought down to January, 1892,
showed the good results even then secured
by the new law. The McKinley Tariff
Act, passed October, 1890, had then been in
operation for fifteen months? and had
proved itself the friend and benefactor
of all Americans, of all American in-
dustries, and especially of all American
wage-earners; it had not shown itself the
enemy or destroyer of any American, of
any American industries, and especially of
any American wage-earner.

Mugwump Lying Continued.—And
yet, so infuriated were its enemies, that,
lost to all sense of honor and of shame, the
persistent, malignant and atrocious mis-
representations heretofore mentioned and
4escribe4 were continued by every free

tradb advocate and by every mugwump
newspaper. And these villainous false-
hoods were multiplied, varied and repro-
duced with such fiendish art and devilish
ingenuity that many of the elect were de-
ceived, and were persuaded to vote for
Congressmen who were opposed to the Mc-
Kinley Tariff Act. And by these means
it happened that, when the act had been in
force but a month, a House of Representa-
tives pledged to its repeal was elected.
Fortunately the Senate was still Repub-
lican and Mr. Harrison was President, and
all the new House could do was to fire off
"pop-gun bills," aimed at some single
protected industry; but with a Republican
Senate and President, these bills proved
utterly harmless.

Free Trade Campaign of Education.
—A careful observer did not have to go far
to find the explanation of this unusual and
anomalous state of affairs. The leaven of
the Pharisees (free traders), which is hypoc-
risy (deception and lying), had been at
work at the great mass of our working"
men, quietly and yet dangerously, and had,
almost unconsciously to them, fomented
in them a spirit of unrest which did not
cease till the evil cause had spent itself.
For years free traders had maintained a
literary bureau that had sent out many
millions of pages of tariff-reform leaflets,
so called, filled with false, specious state"
ments about the wickedness and oppression
of protection. They spent upward of $50,'
"CO annually in this way, and in sending
artful and unscrupulous speakers to the
workingmen in their shops, in small hallsr
or school-houses, or wherever they could
find one to listen to them. British mer-
chants and manufacturers, represented by
the Cobden Club, could well afford to sup^
ply the funds, as it is believed they did
with which to pay for such literature and
speakers; for if they could once more break
down our protective tariff and gain posses*
sion and control of our markets, they
would speedily recover all they had thus
spent, an4 many millions jnoje. A few65

protectionists, who saw the great danger
that would follow this 4 * campaign of
education" on the part of free traders,
urged similar work and action on the part
of the protectionists, but they were told
that there was not, and could not be any
serious danger when the whole nation was
so prosperous; when all our laborers were
getting such large and increasing wages,
and the wealth of the country was grow-
ing so great; and so the free traders, un-
disturbed and unexposed, were permitted
to hide their leaven of falsehood, and sow
their seeds of fallacy and assumption,
until, on the morning of November 8, 1892,
the protectionists were astounded when
they learned how dangerously that leaven
had worked, and saw the tremendous crop
of ignorant voters which had sprung from
those evil-producing seeds. Deceived pro-
tectionists, foolishly and inexcusably, had
persuaded themselves that the unspeakable
falsehood and calumny of the campaign of
1890 could not be repeated. Events have
shown the protectionists how imperfectly
they had comprehended the activity, the
cunning, the mendacity and the utter un-
scrupulousness of their enemies; for the
campaign of 1892, in all that was false and
dishonorable, as far exceeded the campaign
of 1890 as the small-pox or typhus fever
exceeds the measles. Where they had
prevaricated in 1890, in 1892 they uttered
the lie direct.

Increase of Wages.—With a bold front
free traders declared that not a man in the
United States had had his wages raised
since the McKinley act was passed, and
brazenly challenged the protectionists to
produce one. The latter referred to the
official report of Mr. Peck, a Democrat,
Labor Commissioner of New York, which
demonstrated that the wages of 285,000
laborers had been raised on an average
$23.11 for each person; and the whole in-
crease of wages for the 285,000 laborers in
that State alone amounted to $6,377,925 in
the single year of 1891 over that of 1890.
Protectionists also produced the official re-

port of the Labor Commissioner of Mass-
achusetts to show that the increase in. the
wages of her laborers in 4,865 establish-
ments amounted to $3,336,000; also
similar reports from several other States;
but the free traders defiantly answered:
" We care nothing for your figures; those
reports are false, and their authors are
liars."

Increase in Production.—-Free traders
also denied that we had had any increase
of production under the McKinley bill.
The protectionists again produced the
official report of Commissioner Peck and
proved that the same establishments that
showed the great increase of laborers'
wages also showed that there was an
actual increase of production, amounting
to over $31,315,000. In September, 1892,
the number of our working spindles in the
United States had increased 660,000 over
those of 1891; and the increase in the
amount of cotton used in our factories
amounted to 188,000 bales. Who or which
should be believed, the assumptions and
falsehoods of the free traders or the in-
disputable official facts just recited ?

The Growth of tlie Tin-Plate Indus-
try.—Free traders took the ground in
Congress and in their newspapers, when
the McKinley bill was under discussion,
that tin plate could not be made in this
country; but a duty of 2.2 cents a pound
was levied on imported tin plate, and at
once American capitalists invested many
millions in plants for turning out tin plate;
and soon demonstrated that better tin could
be made here than the imported. There
is no protected article in the McKinley act
about which the free traders lied so per-
sistently as about tin plate. Prior to Sep-
tember 1, 1892, there were 42 tin-plate
plants either completed or in process of
erection. Twenty-six of them were in
actual operation and were turning out first-
class tin plate by the millions of pounds;
and yet, from Mr. Cleveland to the meanest
" windjammer " there was not a Democrat,66

a free trader, or a" mugwump orator or
newspaper during the whole campaign of
1892 that did not most vociferously de-
clare that there was not a tin-plat© factory
in the country, and that not a pound of tin
plate had ever been made, or could be
made here.

More About Reciprocity.—" The
Blaine Reciprocity Humbug" was the
courteous name by which the New York
Democratic State platform, in 1891,
characterized our new system of reciprocal
relations under the McKinley Tariff Act.

Prior to September, 1892, the Harrison
Administration had concluded about twenty
reciprocal treaties, and they had been
proved of great advantage to our country
as well as to the foreign countries. We
were obtaining sugar, molasses, tea, coffee
and hides free of duty; and found new,
Valuable and growing markets in those
countries for our pork, flour and other
breadstuffs, clothing, tools, hardware, en-
gines, machinery and many other things;
but, because under the McKinley law such
treaties could not be concluded with Great
Britain, for the reason that she had noth-
ing, according to Lord Salisbury, with
which to reciprocate, the reciprocity clause
was denounced by free traders in un-
measured terms, in their platforms and
newspapers, and by all their speakers. For
21 months before the reciprocity treaties
went into effect our export trade with
those countries amounted to $25,283,464.
In 21 months after these conventions were
concluded our exports to those countries
were $42,866,547, an increase of $17,583,-
083, or about 70 per cent. This increase
was composed largely of flour, meats and
other food products, and manufactures of
cotton, leather, iron, glass; machinery, etc.
It was in vain that protectionists held up
these twenty treaties and this great en-
largement thereby of the foreign markets,
calling for our productions; and the great
advantage to our working people in getting
sugar and so many other necessaries of
life, free of duty—" reciprocity," said the

free trader, " was grossly unfair to Great
Britain, and was unconstitutional, a fraud
and a humbug." This was iterated and
reiterated, day by day, for many months,
with what results let November, 1892, and
the consequent present Democratic Con-
gress, make known.

Another False Charge.—"Protection
makes the rich richer, and the poor poor-
er," was another charge that was made to
do constant service in the campaign of 1892,
by the free trade party. They pointed to
the long list of millionaires in the nation,
and charged this fearful wrong-doing, as
they called it, to protection. They con-
veniently forgot the telling fact that most
of those rich men had gained their for-
tunes in enterprises in no way connebted
with the tariff; and they also forgot to say
that the labor of the United States was
paid from two to ten times as much wages
as is paid for the same service in free-
trade countries.

Protectionists produced official figures
which utterly refuted this false and ridic-
ulous statement. They showed from the
official reports that in New York and
Kings counties, N. Y., in 1860, the sav-
ings banks deposits, nearly all of which
belong to wage-earners, were $49,000,000,
while in 1890, after thirty years of protec-
tion, they were $421,927,000, a gain of
761 per cent.; that in New York State, in
1860, the savings banks deposits were $58,-
187,000, while in 1890- they were $582,-
207,000, a gain of $524,029,000, or 900 per
cent.; and that in the United States such
deposits in 1860 were $253,200,000, while
in 1890 they were $1,629,000,000, a gain of
$1,376,000,000, or 640 per cent. But these
statements all fell on deaf ears, as did the
other fact that the entire gain in savings
banks deposits in England, Scotland,
Wales, Ireland and the Channel islands
from 1860 to 1886, under the benign sway
of free trade, was only $436,000,000, or
$33,628,000 less than the gain in the single
State of New York under protection.

Ignorance of Tariff History.—The67

workingmen of tlie country knew in 1892
that their wages had been greatly increased
after the passage of the McKinley act;
they knew that the increase in production
in the same period had been marvelous;
they knew that there had been a great in-
crease in the number of mills and factories
of the country; they knew that many tin-
plate works had been erected and a new
industry thereby established; they knew
that reciprocity was not a humbug, but a
great and splendid success; they knew
that it was false that the rich were grow-
ing richer and the poor poorer, under pro?
tectiop, and that the truth was that the
rich and the poor were both growing rich-
er, and that this last statement was dem-
onstrated by the report of the savings
banks of the country; they knew that it
was false that the workingman paid an ex-
tra 25 cents for his family dinner, because
they knew that he did not have a mouth-
ful of food on his table that paid one cent
of duty; but they did not know that a free-
trade tariff, or even the threat of it, had,
without exception, been death to all active
industries, and the destruction of every
business except those of the sheriff, the
uudertaker, and the charity soup houses—
and so they were given over to believe the
free-trade lies, that they might be in-
dustrially damned. They believed the
free-trade promises, they voted for and
elected their ticket, and now they know—a
ffood deal more than they did in November,
1892.

The Campaign of 1892.—The Demo-
cratic National Convention of 1892 said:

^We denounce the Republican policy of
protection as a fraud on the labor of the
great majority of the American people for
the benefit of the few. We declare it to
be a fundamental principle of the Demo-
cratic party that the Federal Government
has no constitutional power to impose and
collect tariff duties, except for the purposes
of revenue only. . . . We denounce
the McKinley tariff law as the culminat-
ing atrocity of class legislation ? . .

and we promise its repeal as one of the be-*
neflcent results that will follow the action
of the people in intrusting power to the
Democratic party."

The Republican party met this issue
fairly and squarely; and by mutual consent
the tariff question became the leading issu*
in the campaign. Benjamin Harrison for
the second time was the candidate of the
Republicans and protectionists; and Grover
Cleveland for the third time was the can-
didate of the Democrats, free traders and
mugwumps. The character of the cam*
paign has already been indicated. One
party rested upon official facts and dem-
onstrated results; the other upon baseless
assumptions and downright misrepresenta-
tions. One party trusted in the intel-
ligence of the American people, the other
in misrepresentation and falsehoods; and it
is a discouraging, but now a demonstrated
fact that the latter were successful by a
very large majority. Mr. Cleveland and a
Democratic Congress were elected; the de-
sire for a change resulted, in several States
theretofore Republican, in electing Demo-
cratic or Populist Legislatures, which in
turn elected Democratic or Populist United
States Senators; and when the final count
was completed it was found that the
Democrats had secured the President and
both Houses of Congress, and were in a
position to fulfill all the promises of their
platform.

The results of free trade success
in 1892 have been truly astounding; the
present generation of Americans has never
seen or imagined anything like them. I
have already pictured them, and can only
add the statement that in some respects the
present evils are more terrible than in the
former free-trade periods. A few men
who had studied the tariff history of our
country from 1783 to 1892, prophesied the
evils that would follow Democratic success,
and described 'minutely the impending
disasters. As in 1846, when the Demo-
crats were in full control of the Govern-
ment, Horace Greeley and others foretold68

*the consequences that would follow the
enactment of a free trade tariff, all of
which came to pass literally, so in 1892 it
was possible to predict the consequences of
Democratic success.

One of the ablest and most far-seeing
statesmen that America has ever produced
was the late James GK Blaine. He thus
wrote of a change that he saw must come:

Blaine's Prophetic Words.—"I love
my country and my countiymen; I am an
American, and I rejoice every day that I
am. I enjoy the general prosperity of my
country, and I know that the workingmen
of this country are the best paid, the best
fed, and the best clothed of any laborers
on the face of the earth. Many of them
have homes of their own. They are sur-
rounded by all the comforts and many of
the luxuries of life. I shudder, however,
at the thought that the time must come
when all this will be changed, when the
general prosperity of the country will be
destroyed; when the great body of work-
ingmen in this land who are now so pros-
perous will hear their wives and children
cry for bread; that the day must come
when the great factories and manufactories
of this land will shut down, and where is
now life and activity there will be the
silence of the tomb. And the reason why
this must be so is this: The great Southern
wing of the Democratic party are de-
termined to establish' the doctrine of free
trade in this land. They will be assisted
by the Northern allies. There is a great
body of visionary, but educated men, who
are employed day by day in writing free
trade essays and arguments in favor of
the doctrine, which find their way to every
newspaper in the land. The great body of
our people have never experienced them-
selves the sufferings which always result
when protective principles are laid aside.
Poisoned and excited by the wild* state-
ments of these writers, and the demagogic
appeals of the Democratic speakers, the
result will be that in the very near future

those forces which are now working, will
be strong enough to defeat at the polls the
party advocating the doctrine of protection.
It must inevitably follow that uncertainty
and doubt will ensue. The business men
of the country, fearing the destruction of
the principles of protection, will decline to
engage in business; consequently mills will
shut down, and the workingman will be
thrown out of employment. The people
will then see as they have never seen be-
fore that they cannot be prosperous and
have work while the principle is threat-
ened. In the midst of their sufferings
they will learn that the only way they can
be prosperous and happy is to vote for the
party that has built up the industries by
which they have gained a livelihood; be-
cause they will then see clearly that when
the manufactory is shut down there is no
demand for the only thing which they have
to sell, and that is their labor."

In the light of the events that have oc-
curred since November, 1892, we can see
that every word of that remarkable state-
ment has been literally fulfilled; and many
will think that Mr. Blaine must have been
inspired to foresee so correctly what would
so speedily come to pass; but it was not
inspiration at all. He simply applied to
conditions which he knew would arise a
principle which the history of our country
for over a hundred years had proved to be
as invariable as the law of gravitation, and
as inexorable. That principle has already
been stated, but can properly be repeated:
Whenever free trade, or a tariff for rev-
enue only, has prevailed, or ther^ has
been a threat of either, with a probability
that that threat would be executed—we
have had widespread business depression,
lack of confidence, lack of credit, stoppage
of business, lack of employment, bank-
ruptcy, disorder and ruin, with all their
attendant evil consequences. This rule is
not a matter of opinion, nor of argument,
but of stern, impartial and unimpeachable
history. A few facts pertaining to the
condition of some of oyj industries willP,9

feadily show whether the rule just stated
is still in operation.

Striking Contrasts.—Some contrasts
may properly be made between 1892, when
the McKinley tariff was in unimpeded and
happy operation, and 1893, when by the
election of a free trade President and a
Congress with nearly a hundred Democratic
majority—and all elected upon a platform
which denounced the Republican policy of
protection as a fraud upon labor, that the
Federal Government has no constitutional
power to impose and collect tariff duties
exeept for the purpose of revenue only;
that denounced the McKinley tariff law as
a culminating atrocity, and that promised
its repeal in case of success, and denied
that there had been any increase of pros-
perity to the country under that law. Up
to this time the McKinley tariff has not
been repealed by enactment of Congress;
but has been 'practically repealed since
election day in November, 1892. Succeed-
ing so overwhelmingly and upon such a
platform, the country had a right to expect
that they would live up to their promises
and declarations. The business men of
the nation in all industries prepared them-
selves for the change by curtailing manu-
factures; by reducing wages and discharg-
ing laborers; by buying smaller stocks of
goods, and only what was needed for the
time; and by stopping all proposed new in-
dustries.

The decrease in savings bank de-
posits in 1893 shows the terrible distress
that afflicted our laborers in that year more
vividly than anything else. Savings bank
deposits are held sacred by their owners,
and nothing but dire necessity will tempt
them to withdraw such money. On Jan-
uary 1, 1890, the year the McKinley act
was passed, the deposits held in the savings
banks of New York State were $550,066,-
657; on January 1, 1891, they amounted to
:$574,666,972—a gain of $24,603,315 over
1890; on January 1, 1892, they amounted
to $588,425,420—a gain of $13,755,448 over
1891; on January 1, 1893, they amounted

to $625,358,274, a gain of $40,932,854 ove$
1892. But on January 1, 1894, fourteen
months after the great free trade landslide,
what do we find? For the first time in
many years a loss, and a decided loss. The
deposits were $617,089,448, a decrease of
$12,268,824 from January 1, 1893, and
makes the startling difference of $53,201,-
678 less of the savings of laborers in 1898
than in 1892. In 1893 the large sum of
$187,347,239 was deposited in the savings
banks of New York State, but the prodi-
gious sum of $221,865,830 was withdrawn;
showing that the sum of $34,518,091 was
withdrawn over and above the sum de-
posited—another telling " object lesson.'*
These figures are for New York only, but
there is. no reason why the situation in
New York should differ from that of other
States.	*

The decrease in trade in the United
States for the year ending March 81, 1394,
with the threat of free trade hanging over
us, and with a party in full power, able
and anxious to enforce that threat, as com-
pared with the year ending March 31,1898,
with the McKinley tariff in prosperous
operation, is an unspeakably terrible " ob-
ject lesson."

The following figures collected by Brad-
streefs, that most careful and reliable
authority, tell a story that carries its own
moral, and need no elaboration.

Let us look at the figures during the
year when folly ruled, and during the pre-
vious year when industry ruled. It ap-
pears that in fifty-five American cities the
volume of business was as follows during
the two periods :

Month.	1893.	1892.
August...........  September........  October..........  November........  December........  January..........  February........  Totals...........	$4,918,819,872 5,244,502,329 4,524,609,767 4,137,669,864 3,346,213,938 3,311,635,037 3,983,596,863 4,051,057.546 4,022,103,857  1894. 4,029,847,098 3,188,430,434 3,728,682,741	$5,066,67^409 5,014,080,1®? 4,915,768,898 4,627,501,778 4,513,168,512 4,779,284,710 5,470,807,348 5,443,285,918 5,069,609,520  1893. 5,920,159,034 5.056,076,852 5,891,187,900
	$48,487,169,816	$62,167,984,476By subtracting the figures of i893-94
from those of 1893-98, we shall find a total
loss in business transactions, during the
first year of 4< Cleveland and Tariff Re-
form," to the amount of $18,680,814,660;
and if the losses of the other parts of the
country had been added, it is estimated
that the frightful total would not be less
than $16,000,000,000, a sum equal to the
entire national wealth of the United States
in 1860; or to put it in another way, the
losses to our national business during the
first year of real, unimpeded " reform,"
were equal to the entire savings and accu-
mulations of all our people, in every State
and Territory, from the landing of the
Pilgrims in 1620 to 1860, a period of 240
years*

Let us go a little further with our com-
parisons^ and we shall find that the losses
for the year ending March 31, 1894,
averaged a billion and one-third of dollars
($1,833,000,000) for each and every month
of that time, which fact means about $250
less money^Jistributed in that year to every
man, woman and child in the United States
than was distributed in the preceding
fear.

The failures in business in 1893
were 15,560, or about 52 per cent, more
than in 1892; and the liabilities of 1893
were $460,000,000 against liabilities of
$108,000,000 in 1892.

The shrinkage in value of stocks
just nine months after the election of a
free trade President and Congress amounted
to $949,459,114. If even free trade capital-
ists enjoyed this shrinkage they have
wisely kept that fact to themselves.

the decrease in the value of farm
products, wheat, corn, oats and cotton,
was $363,500,000 in 1893; and the farmers
are not happy over this fact. They were
promised that if they would vote for the
free trade ticket and elect it, the price of
wheat should be from $1.25 to $1.50 per
bushel. The farmers, many of them,
carried out their part of that agreement,
but the price of wheat is not $1.50 a

bushel, but has been selling from 25 to 40
cents instead.

The Decrease in Sheep and Wool*—

The report of the Commissioner of Agri-
culture, January, 1894, shows that during
1893 several millions of sheep have been
slaughtered, and that the value of Ameri-
can sheep fell in 1893 from $125,000,000
to less than $90,000,000, a dead loss of
over $35,000,000. Add to this the decline
in the value of wool and of farms and
ranches heretofore devoted to sheep and
wool-raising, which is not less than the loss
of the value of sheep, and the farmers are
permitted to " enjoy " for the benefit of
the great principle of free trade an addi-
tional loss of $70,000,000. All the loss
under this head has been caused by the
threat (now incorporated in the Wilson
bill) to put wool on the free list; which
will place the farmers in competition with
Australia and South America, and render
sheep and wool-raising an impossibility
here on account of the great difference be-
tween the cost of raising them in those
countries and in the United States. By
means of protection our sheep-raising and
wool growing industries have been estab-
lished, our one million flock masters have
invested therein $200,000,000, and they
pay out in wages every year the sum of
$24,000,000; our manufacturers of woolens
have invested over .$300,000,000 in three
thousand factories, and paid their employees
annually $76,000,000 in wages. Let wool
now be put on the free list, and these
splendid and helpful industries will go to
the wall, their owners will be ruined, and
their employees will lose their annual
wages of $100,000,000 and be thrown into
the street with nothing to do.

The decrease in railroad values in

1893 is something really astonishing. In
1892 most of the railroads of the country
had all the business they could attend to,
and were thoroughly prosperous, the gross
earnings being 5 per cent, larger than ever
before; but the unexampled falling off in71

business and freights in 1893 caused 73
companies to fail and go into tlie hands of
receivers. These roads had a mileage of
about 32,000 miles, and represented in their
stocks and bonds the mighty sum of $1,-
611,284,000. This is a disagreeable show-
ing for the unfortunate bond and stock-
holders, but it is only another of the in-
teresting 44 object lessons " which are so
valuable in " educating " our people to see
the beauties and blessings of tariff reform
for revenue only, i.e., free trade.

How the Threat of Free Trade Af-
fects Wages and Wage-Earners.—As
we have already seen,"during 1892 every
artisan or laborer who wanted work had as
much as he could do at the very highest
wages; thereby he was enabled to obtain*
for himself and his family without diffi-
culty all the necessaries of life, and many
added comforts and luxuries. At the close
of 1893, according to Mr. Gompers, the
labor leader, fully 3,000,000 of laborers in
the United States who were willing to
work, and who had work in 1892, were
idle, or working only half time or less; the
wages of those who had work, with very
few exceptions, were reduced from 10 to
50 per cent. Statistics collected by Brad-
street's in December, 1893, showed that in
119 cities that reported there were 801,000
persons in enforced idleness, and that there
were dependent upon these idle employees
1,953,000 persons. As the greater propor-
tion of these laborers were dependent upon
their daily or weekly wages, when their
wages disappeared they had to be fed by
public charity.

During the winter of 1893-94 the suffer-
ing among the unemployed and their
families in the cities of New York and
Brooklyn was beyond the power of pen or
tongue to describe. Indeed there has been
nothing like or approaching it since the
memorable winter of 1857, near the close
of the Walker tariff period. That oc-
curred during the '1 blessed era" of the free
trade tariff of 1846; this under the threat
of the free trade bill of 1893. Then it was

difficult to get work, and wages were at
the lowest. Now carefully selected sta-
tistics show that since November 8, 1392,
labor has decreased 61 per cent., and in
the same period the wages of labor have
decreased 69 1-2 per cent. The gimilarity
between these two winters and periods is
very striking, and proves that both belong
to the same free trade system. A careful
census in January, 1894, disclosed the
startling fact that there were in New York
City and Brooklyn at least 140,000 unem-
ployed persons who neither had nor could
get work or wages; upon whom over 400,-
000 persons were dependent for their sup-
port and maintenance. To supply these
persons with only two meals required over
800,000 meals a day from the hands of
charity; and besides these were thousands
who would not report themselves until the
last pangs of hunger drove them to ask for
relief. Soup-houses and relief stores were
opened in many places in the two cities,
and the stories of want, hunger, distress
and acute suffering were heartrending—all
the more so because they were true. One
of the best-known citizens of these two
cities, a gentleman who has devoted much
time and given much money in assisting
the poor and needy for over twenty years,
stated publicly that it required $100,000 in
cash every day in private contributions to
feed, clothe and provide for this great
crowd of the unemployed and their families
in these two cities. In 1892, before the
complete success of free trade in electing
both Houses of Congress and the President,
the greater part of this mighty army had
work and could and did support them-
selves; but now with only the threat of
free trade over us, New York and Brook-
lyn, in addition to the vast sums spent by
the public authorities, are contributing
$100,000 a day, or $3,000,000 a month, to
keep these unfortunate victims of a British
free trade policy from death by cold and
starvation. What then must be the
tremendous aggregate required to provide
for the 3,000,000 unemployed laborers andtlieir families! At thirty cents a day for
each person, it would amount to $27,000,-
000 every montli, or over $300,000,000 a
year. Many of tliose now out of work vot-
ed for the free trade candidates, but doubt-
less it was through ignorance and decep-
tion that they did it; and the elections of
1893 and 1894 to date seem to prove that
through Mr. Cleveland's school of " object
lessons" they have become sufficiently
" educated" to know that their interests
are not improved by a system that destroys
our industries and turns our laborers into
the streets to beg or starve.

The Wilson bill, which has passed the
House and is now before the Senate, is an
elaborate attempt to. carry out the prin-
ciples, on the subject of a tariff, that were
incorporated into the Democratic platform
at Chicago in 1892. Its author, Mr.
Wilson, and its supporters, claim that it is
closely modeled after the Walker tariff act
of 1846, which has been fully described
and the evil results of which have been
pointed out. The Wilson bill as reported
and as it passed the House was a thor-
ough free trade bill in effect, whatever may
have been the intention of its author. It
struck down at a blow all the leading in-
dustries of the country by putting iron ore,
coal, wool, lumber, and many other leading
articles upon the free list. It was fought
earnestly and well by Republicans, but
was made a party measure and pushed
through the House without answering or
honestly attempting to answer the facts
and arguments against it. As it came to
the Senate it was inimical and dangerous
to the business interests of several States
which were represented in the Senate by
Democrats. These Democratic Senators
from those States have declared that they
would not vote to strike down the business
interests of their respective States by sup-
porting the bill in that shape. And, there-
fore, without any regard to their professed-
ly " sacred principles" it has been amend-
ed so as not to interfere with certain in-
terests; apparently not because they

8/ •

thought it right or honest §6 to do, tut
merely to secure the votes of a sufficient
number of Democratic Senators to carry
the bill through the Senate. It is certain
that the discussion on the bill will be a
very long one, and there is a doubt in
many minds whether it will ever become a
law. Its professed objects are to increase
our home industries and enable us 14 to
capture the markets of the world;" but
should it become a law either as it passed
the House or in its amended form, its
effects will be, not to increase but to de-
stroy our home industries, and instead of
capturing the markets of the world we
shall tamely give to the world our own
home markets, the grandest and best ever
yet created.

, Another Contrast: 1892 ys. 1893.—

Mr. Cleveland in the summer of 1893 in-
timated that the American people needed,
and might get, certain " object lessons," to
teach them their political duties. Whether
or not they needed them, it is quite certain
that they have had them, and have had all
they want of that kind. Look on the two
pictures as presented by the years 1892
and 1893.

1892.—In the twelve months ending
December 31, 1892, we had produced and
consumed more than in any other former
year of our history, and this country was
enjoying the highest degree of prosperity
it had ever attained, economically, in-
dustrially, and financially. Every mill
and every factory was running at its full-
est capacity; every vehicle of transpor-
tation, whether by rail or water, had all
and more than it could carry; our output
of pig iron was 1,000,000 tons more than
in 1891, and 2,000,000 tons greater than
that of Great Britain in 1892; every blast
furnace and every mine was running day
and night, and could not then fill its
orders; we produced 200,000 tons of steel
rails in 1892 more than in 1891; every
manufacturer and builder had all and
more than he could do; every working-
man, whether the ordinary laborer or then

skilled artisan, who wanted work, had all
and more than he could do, and received
therefor the highest wages ever paid for
labor since the creation of man; our foreign
commerce amounted to almost $2,000,000,-
000, a sum unprecedented and never be-
fore approached in our history; our
domestic commerce reached the astounding
aggregate of $50,000,000,000; our exports
were over $202,000,000 greater than our
imports, while our imports were many
millions of dollars larger than ever before;
our national wealth increased very nearly
$8,000,000,000 in 1892; our national re-
ceipts were hundreds of millions of dollars
more than our expenditures; our credit
was good and we had the confidence of the
whole world; in short, there never was a
nation or a people that realized such
wonderful prosperity and advancement as
we realized and enjoyed in 1892.

1893.—Now look on this picture: How
was it at the end of 1893 ? Between No-
vember, 1892, when Mr. Cleveland was
elected, and his inauguration in March,
1893, our industrial and financial skies had
become very dark and gloomy; our
magnificent confidence had disappeared,
our credit was becoming doubtful, and
within a few weeks the storm burst in
terrible and devastating fury all over our
land.

Taking it in all respects, 1893 was the
most awful and depressing since we be-
came a nation. More than one-half of our
mills and factories either had closed down
or were running on part time; freights,
both by land and water, had fallen off
tremendously, and a large proportion of
our railroads in the United States were
bankrupt and in the hands of receivers,
because they had not enough business to
pay the expenses of operating them; our
blast furnaces were mostly blown out, and
our mines closed; our manufacturers and
builders found but very little to do; our
merchants were all buying only for the day
or week; all business men were afraid of
to-morrow; more than two miJlions (Gom-

pers says three -millions) of workers were
idle, because there was no work; and as
many more were working from one to three
days per week. The two cities of New
York and Brooklyn were dealing out chari-
ty to between two hundred thousand and
three hundred thousand per day, and
taxing themselves over $100,000 a day
in cash to house, feed and clothe the
needy, in addition to the amount given
the public authorities, because those
needy ones had neither work nor money;
our foreign commerce had fallen off over
$35,000,000, and our domestic commerce
a much larger sum; our national wealth
had decreased in value nearly $9,000,000,-
000, almost as much as the late rebellion
cost the country. Up to the present time,
there has been no visible improvement.
In March, 1894, our public debt increased
over $13,000,000, and the Secretary of the
Treasury informs us that the fiscal year
that will close June 30, 1894, will show
that our expenditures will exceed our
receipts by $78,000,000; in short, there
never was a nation or people in all history
that ever realized in one year such appall-
ing adversity and disaster, such material
and industrial paralysis and destruction, as
we suffered in 1893, and still suffer.

A Question and an Answer.—Let me

ask why the magnificent prosperity in
1892, and why the unspeakable losses, dis-
tress and destruction of 1893 ? There is,
there can be, but one answer to this ques-
tion, if we regard the striking contrast be-
tween 1892 and 1893 in the light of the na-
tional experiences we have passed through
sinee 1783. The main cause, then, the real
reason for this terrible change, these
frightful losses in wealth and in business,
this utter lack of confidence which every-
body has in everybody else, is the fact that
in November, 1892, a majority of both
Houses of Congress and an Executive were
elected upon a platform that declared pro-
tection "a fraud, a robbery and uncon-
stitutional," the McKinley bill a "cul-
minating atrocity," and who were pledgedto remove and overthrow protection, and
substitute therefor either free trade or a
tariff for revenue only, which is practically
the same thing.

An Odious Law.—That threat of such
a great economic change has been strongly
intensified by the Wilson bill, which is a
• crude and vain attempt to materialize a
theory. It was conceived in economic
ignorance, and brought forth in selfish
sectionalism. Its provisions are so ob-
noxious and repugnant that even so in-
tense and partisan a Democrat as Senator
Hill of New York spoke of it in the Senate
on April 9, 1894, as follows:

An extreme reduction of tariff duties at a time
when the Treasury was swollen with a surplus of
a hundred millions of dollars, when the country
was really prosperous, when all our industries
were in motion, and all our workingmen employed,
assumed a different aspect and presents a differ-
ent question, when proposed now with a large and
growing treasury deficit instead of a surplus star-
ing us in the face, with our industries paralyzed,
our manufactories closed, our workingmen idle,
and following upon the heels of the most disas-
trous financial p^nic in our history. . . . It is
a novelty in American politics to make its conclu-
sions and procedures deliberately offensive. It is
like making religion immoral and urbanity noisy
in order to command and propagate them. . . .
To double the deficit of $78,000,000 by way of end-
ing it; to discard $76,000,000 of annual revenue in
order to collect twice as much in other ways; to
embody tariff reform, as the President imagines
himself to be doing in his scheme to substitute di-
rect taxes for the tariff taxes which were to be
reformed; to reconstruct all the schedules instead
of amending or discarding one group at a time,
the worst first, and each upon its own demerits; to
disturb and distress as many business men as
possible, and all at once, instead of a few at a time
—is not a programme perfectly matured and
suited to conduct the policy and principle of tariff
reform unimpaired through a period of general
business prostration, public deficit and private
bankruptcy. ... This bill proposes a suicidal
policy when it seeks by its extreme provisions to
discard numerous reasonable tariff duties, and
thereby imperil many industries.

If this is the best that can be said in be-
half of the Wilson bill by an intense
Democrat and an earnest advocate of a
tariff for revenue only, is it any wonder
that protectionists and all business men are

terrified ? And is it not fair that all tlie
frightful losses and calamities of 1893
should be charged directly to that Demo-
cratic threat of free trade ?

Not Alone Opposed by Republicans.

—Mr. President, this bill is not alone op-
posed by Republicans, but is bitterly de-
nounced by leading Democrats and Demo-
cratic newspapers in all pairts of the
country. Why, sir, words have been
spoken against it in this Chamber by dis-
tinguished Democrats which ought to as-
sure its defeat. Never before did a
measure of this kind encounter the bitter
hostility of a portion of the party respon-
sible for it that this bill has, while such
leading Democrat and mugwump news-
papers as the New York Sun, the Louis-
ville Courier-Journal, the New York
Herald, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the New
York World,' the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
the Philadelphia Record, the Chicago
Times, the Springfield Republican, the
Providence Journal and the Manchester
Union have denounced it unsparingly.

Conclusion.—Mr. President, as I said in
a speech on this bill delivered "on the 20th
day of April last, the country has had over
a year of Democratic rule, and wherever
the electors have spoken they have re-
pudiated that party with a unanimity
almost unparalleled in American history.
The laboring masses of the industrial
North have set their seal of condemnation
on the Wilson bill, and it is equally op-
posed in sections of the South where the
industry of manufacturing has gained a
foot-hold. The mandate has been issued
to Republican Senators to fight the measure
unceasingly and unsparingly. The great
North is united to-day as it has not been
united since the flag was fired on at Sumter.
Now, as in that supreme crisis, mechanic,
farmer, merchant, and manufacturer are
standing shoulder to shoulder in defense
of the welfare and the progress of the
nation. For months factories have been
idle, homes comfortless, and wives and
children suffering for the necessaries of75

life. As a result the wage-earners of the
North have decreed the death of the Wil-
son bill or the death of the party which
enacts it into law, and woe be to the
Northern Senator who turns a deaf ear to
their demands. When men stand face to
face with the loss of employment, or with
wages reduced to a point barely sufficient
to give them food and shelter; when they
have been compelled to eat the bread and
wear the clothes of charity because of the
proposed hostile legislation of a political
party, they do not stop to ask what ticket
they voted last year, but ally themselves
with the party that stands for protection,
good wages, and happy and comfortable
homes. In this contest I speak but for
myself when I say that no effort will be
too great, no sacrifice too severe for me to
make to help defeat this bill. I believe
that every consideration of patriotism, of
justice, of respect for the popular will, and
of regard for the nation's welfare, demands
that it shall be opposed, resisted, and
obstructed at every point.

The people demand this: That we shall
defend their farms, their workshops, and
their homes from the blight of this
measure. For one, I am ready to do any-
thing and everything in my power to beat
back this assault upon the industries and
the labor of the country, and I am hopeful
that the Senate of the United States, mind-
ful of its obligations to the people, will
refuse to enact into law this wicked and
atrocious bill.

We have a great duty to perform to the
country, and let us here and now settle it
that in the United States protection and

not free trade is to be the established
policy of the nation—and then shall busi-
ness speedily and permanently revive; then
shall the hum of happy industry and the
music of the anvil, the spindle and the
loom, be heard in every town and hamlet
over all our broad land; then the manu-
facturer shall no longer mourn over idle
machinery, nor the farmer over valueless
crops; then the laborer, whether on the
farm or in the shop, whether in the mine
or the factory, shall find abundance of
work and the highest wages of the world;
then shall want and hunger no longer
stalk through our streets and terrify our
people; but prosperity and contentment
shall scatter plenty and" happiness over
every home and in every heart. May God
speed that day. But if on the other hand
this bill shall be enacted into law, bring-
ing upon the country the same distress and
ruin that have followed in the wake of
every other low tariff measure, then will
the duty of the American people be equally
plain, and that will be to rise in their
might, irrespective of former political
affiliations, and reenact laws that will
restore to our statute books the kind of
legislation that, throughout our entire his-
tory, has brought employment, prosperity
and happiness to all classes of our citi-
zens.

Mr. President, my task is done, and I
commend its lessons to the intelligence
and the consciences of Senators on both
sides of the Chamber, as well as to the
people of this great country, whose highest
interests are at stake in the legislation
which we are now considering.PROPOSED TA

MAY 2

The Senate having under consideration the bill
(S. 1341) to prohibit the further issuance of inter-
est-bearing bonds without the consent of Con-
gress-

Mr. GALLINGER said:

Mr. President: On tlie 15tli day of the
present montli I introduced in the Senate
a resolution as follows:

That the widespread business depression and
rapid increase of the public debt demonstrates
that the existing tariff does not produce sufficient
revenue, and that a revision of the law is impera-
tively demanded in the interests of the people of
the United States.

It was my purpose to make this resolu-
tion a text for some remarks on the ques-
tion of the tariff, but as a subject is now
before the Senate upon which I can proper-
ly speak, I propose to avail myself of the
opportunity at this time.

Mr. President, there is, as I believe, one
way, and one way only, to secure a return
of prosperity to the people of this country,
and that is by the repeal of the existing
tariff law and the enactment of a law that
will compel the manufacturers and import-
ers of foreign goods to liberally contribute
toward the support of our Government,
which will be in the interests of all classes
of the American people. Believing this, I
propose to occupy a little time in discuss-
ing the tariff question, holding, as I do,
that when a proper revenue bill is passed
the necessity for the sale of interest-bear-
.ing bonds will no longer exist.

Mr. President, two years ago, in the
month of May, 1894, the Senate, as in
Committee of the Whole, had under con-
sideration the bill (H. R. 4864) to reduce
taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov-
ernment, and for other purposes; which
bill, as finally enacted, is'now the law of
the land. In opposing that measure I
then felt it my duty to lay before the
Senate an accurate historical analysis of

RIFF REVISION.

r, 1896.

American tariff legislation from the day the
Pilgrims placed their feet on Plymouth
Rock down to that time, in order that the
people of the country might be acquainted
with the great fact that impartial history
teaches that protective tariffs have always
brought prosperity to the people of the
United States, while low tariffs have in-
variably disturbed business, prostrated
industries, and brought suffering and
want to the laboring masses of our people.
I endeavored to show that the history of
our country for more than a hundred
years had established a principle that had
proved to be as invariable as the law of
gravitation and as inexorable. That prin-
ciple is that whenever free trade, or a
tariff for revenue only, has prevailed, or
there has been a threat of either, with a
probability that that threat would be ex-
ecuted, we have had widespread business
depression, lack of confidence, lack of
credit, stoppage of business, lack of em-
ployment, bankruptcy, disorder, and ruin,
with all their attendant evil consequences.
This rule is not a matter of ©pinion nor of
argument, but of stern, impartial, and un-
impeachable history.

Having completed the historical analysis
of tariff legislation in this country, I
availed myself of the kind indulgence of
the Senate to conclude with two contrast-
ing pictures, the first depicting the pros-
perity that would immediately follow the
assurance that protection was to be the
established policy of the nation, the second
a suggestion of the distress and ruin that
would inevitably come upon the country
should the measure then pending be adopt-
ed. I also ventured the prophecy that if
the Wilson-Gorman bill should be enacted
into law the American people would rise in
their migl4, irrespective of former political
affiliations, and elect a Congress thatwould reSnact laws that would restore to
our statute books the kind of legislation
that throughout our entire history had
brought employment, prosperity, and hap-
piness to all classes of our citizens.

Mr. President, the Democratic majority
gave no heed to the historical record nor
to the signs of distress everywhere ap-
parent in consequence of the unjypsral
doubt and uncertainty that followed close
upon the defeat at the polls in November,
1892, of the party that had established and
maintained protection for more than thirty
years. They had even then seen^the
literal fulfillment of the notable prophecy
of Mr. Blaine, made in these words:

The business men of the country, fearing' the
destruction of the principles of protection, will de-
cline to engage in business; consequently mills
will shut down, and the workingmen will be thrown
out of employment. The people will then see, as
. they have never seen before, that they cannot ba
prosperous and have work while the principle is
threatened. In the midst of their sufferings they
will learn that the only way they can be prosper-
ous and happy is to vote for the party that has
built up the industries by which they have gained
a livelihood; because they will then see clearly
that when the manufactory is shut down there is
no demand for the only thing which they have to
sell, and that is their labor.

But neither the history of the past nor
the fulfillment of Mr. Blaine's prediction
had the slightest influence upon the lead-
ers who controlled the legislation of that
session. They were as blind to the real
meaning of what was going on in the
country as was President Cleveland when,
in August, 1893, he wrote:

With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of
remunerative production and manufacture, with
unusual invitation to safe investment, and with
satisfactory assurance to business enterprise,
suddenly financial distrust and fear have sprung
up on every side.

Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended
because abundant assets were not immediately
available to meet the demands of frightened de-
positors. Surviving corporations and individuals
are content to keep in hand the money they are
usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in
legitimate business are surprised to find that se-
curities they offer for loans, though heretofore
satisfactory, are no longer accepted,

Values suppos©4 to be fixed are fast becoming
conjectural, and loss and failure have involved
every branch of business.

Those leaders knew that the great
Southern wing of the Democratic party had
determined to establish the doctrine of free
trade in this land and that they would be as-
sisted by their Northern allies, as Mr. Blaine
had foreseen they would be. The passage
of the Wilson-Gorman bill was therefore a
foregone conclusion. It was not all that
the Democratic House of Representatives
had intended it should be, for it was
materially amended in the Senate, which
led President Cleveland to say in his letter
to Mr. Catchings—in which he gave his
reasons for allowing the bill to become a
law without his signature—that there were
Senators who—

had stolen and worn the livery of Democratic
tariff reform in the service of Republican protec-
tion.

And therefore, said he—

Trusts and combinations—the communism of
pelf—whose machinations have prevented us from
reaching the success we deserved, should not be
forgotten nor forgiven.

But although the President refused to
sign the bill because it was too protective,
and refused to accept its results as the
close of the war for tariff reform, in that
same letter to Mr. CatchisTgs he said of it:

And yet, notwithstanding all its vicissitudes
and all the bad treatment it received at the hands
of pretended friends, it presents a vast improve-
ment to existing conditions. It will certainly
lighten many tariff burdens that now rest heavily
upon the people. It is not only a barrier against
the return of mad protection, but it furnishes a
vantage ground from which must be waged further
aggressive operations against protected monopoly
and governmental favoritism.

Mr. President, with the indulgence of
the Senate, I propose to show what fl vast
improvement to then existing conditions "
has been made since the President permit-
ted this bill to beeome a law; what tariff
burdens have been lightened that, he
claimed, then rested heavily upon the
people; what a " barrier against the return
of mad protection " it has proved to he, andwhat a splendid " vantage ground " it has
furnished to free-trade Democracy from
which to wage " further aggressive opera-
tions against protected monopoly and
governmental favoritism."

Effects Upon Agriculture.—-Now, Mr.
President, agriculture has been fittingly
termed "the mother of all industries."
Because of it the civilized world " lives,
and moves, and has its being." In notic-
ing some of the " vast improvements " that
President Cleveland said would follow the
operations of the present tariff law let us
begin with agriculture. The census of
1890 gave the number of farms in the Unit-
ed States as 4,564,641, comprising a total
acreage of 623,218,619, of which 357,616,-
755 were improved and 42.6 per cent, un-
improved. The average size of these farms
was 137 acres. The total area in farms of
the 5 great States of Illinois, Ohio, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Iowa was 124,-
668,158 acres; the total value of the land,
buildings, and fences was $5,057,557,375,
and their average value per acre was
$40.57. These 5 States contain about 20
per cent, of all the farms of the country.
The farmers of these, as of their sister
States, have acquired some new ideas as to
what the President considers " a vast im-
provement," but they call it by another
name. For instance, they do not think
ther* has been any improvement in sheep
husbandry; but they have known ever since
they read the President's third annual
message of December 6, 1883, that he had
no accurate knowledge on that subject.
Then he said:

I think it may be fairly assumed that a large
proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers
throughout the country are found in small flocks
numbering from twenty-five to fifty. . . .
When the number of farmers engaged in wool
raising is compared with all the farmers in the
country, and the small proportion they bear to our
population is considered; when it is made appar-
ent that in the case of a large part of those who
own sheep the benefit of the present tariff on wool
is illusory, etc.

They forgave that ignorance at the time.
They have had good reason since then to
regret that they were so merciful. Here
are some of the reasons for their sorrow: I
will give in parallel columns the free-wool
valjie on the farm in June, 1894, and the
lowest value of the same kind of wool on
the farm prior to March 4, 1893, when a
Democratic President and a Democratic
Congress assumed control of the Adminis-
tration of the country and immediately
announced that wool must be placed on
the free list. The farmers of this country
do not consider a falling off from 25£ cents
to 10 cents a pound, or from 11 cents to 2|
cents, an improvement. Certainly the old
tariff on wool was anything but " illusory."
The farmers know that protection did pro-
tect wool. The following table shows that
there is nothing "illusory "in their belief
on that point. It shows that American
wool, under ten years of protection,
averaged 9£ cents per pound higher than
wool of the same kind and qualify in the
free-trade markets of the world, and that
after wool was put on the free list Ameri-
can wool was 5£ cents per pound lower
than similar wool in the markets of the
world:

A comparison of the course of the American and London wool markets during the ten years from
1885 to 1894, showing that domestic wool under ten years of protection averaged 9^ cents per
„ pound higher than foreign of the same kind and quality, and under free trade was 5£§ cents per
"pound lower.

	Average price, 1885 to 1894.	Under pro- tection American higher than foreign.	Price at the close of 1895, as compared with average of ten years.	Price March 1, 1896.	Under free  trade American lower than foreign.
Australian, Port Philip, unwashed superior.	$0.3123 .2170	$0.09^	40.74 per cent less.  5.99 per cent mrfre.	$0.18*6 .24	torn

A comparison of the course of the American and London wool markets during the ten years from
1885 to 1894, showing that domestic wool under ten years of protection averaged 9^ cents per
„ pound higher than foreign of the same kind and quality, and under free trade was 5£§ cents per
"pound lower.79

There is no industry more sensitive to
the effect of favorable or unfavorable tariff
legislation than sheep husbandry, as is
illustrated by the history of four succeed-
ing periods. The first was under the tariff
law of 1867, when the duties upon im-
ported wool were about 12£ cents a pound,
which rates furnished adequate protection.
During the last four years of that period,
from 1880 to 1884, the flocks increased 25
per cent.

The second period began when the tariff
law of 1888 went into operation, which
decreased the wool duties from 12% to 10
cents a pound. A blunder in the wording
of that law also removed the compensatory
duties from manufactures of wool. Cloth
made of Australian combed wool was
admitted, under the commercial name of
worsteds, at lower duties than were im-
posed upon all other cloths. The result
was that American manufacturers were
crippled, and while there was a nominal
duty of 10 cents per pound upon wool,
American woolen mills were so injured by
the importation of so-called worsteds as to
injure the market Jor wool, and the 10
cents per pound nominal duty on wool
failed to prevent a decrease in the flocks.
Scoured wools, under the name of waste,
were also then admitted at only the duty
of unwashed. An attempt was also made,
aided by the Administration then in power,
to remove wool duties. Under these com-
bined discouragements the flocks decreased
18 per cent, in four years, and the destruc-
tion of sheep was only arrested by the elec-
tion in 1888 of a President and Congress
favorable to protection upon wool.

The third period showed an increase in
the flocks from General Harrison's election
in 1888 until President Cleveland was
inaugurated in 1893. The prospect of in-
creased protection to wool, with suitable
compensatory duties upon manufactures of
wool, which were afterward embodied in
Schedule K of the law of 1890 (the Mc-
Rinley law), gave a new stimulus to sheep
industry, and during this period the flocks
increased 13 per cent,

The fourth division covers the free-wool
period of the existing tariff law. The
policy of this Administration toward wool,
announced by President Cleveland in his
inaugural message, was enacted into law
in the Wilson-Gorman tariff passed in 1894.
The certainty of the removal of wool duties
and the actual accomplishment of that fact
was discounted in the low free-trade price
of wool, and the flocks have continued to
be slaughtered in countless numbers until
the number of sheep estimated on hand
January 1, 1896, shows a decrease of 19
per cent, since 1893. There were no more
sheep in the United States on January 1,
1896, than there were in 1880. Comment-
ing on the effect of the wool schedules of
the McKinley tariff on sheep husbandry,
the American Economist, that earnest, ably
conducted, and most reliable advocate of
protection, to which I am indebted for most
of the foregoing statements, recently said:

The rate of increase of American wool under
protection was greater than in any other nation of
the world.

During the last twelve years of the tariff law of
1867, including the year 1884, one year after that
law had been repealed, but before the effect of the
repeal was visible, the wool clip of the United
States doubled. The clip of 1873 was 170,000,000
pounds, which had increased to 340,000,000 pounds
in 1884—an increase of 100 per cent. The greatest
increase in any other nation of the world in this
period was Australia, where the increase was only
64 per cent. At the Cape of Good Hope the in-
crease was 60 per cent., and in the Argentine Re-
public 35 per cent. In Great Britain, the only
country "where the climatic conditions were at all
similar to those in the United States, and the only
country named in this comparison where sheep
have to be fed crops during the winter months, the
wool clip decreased 19 per cent, under free trade,
while in the United States, during the same years,
the wool clip increased 100 per cent., although our
winters are much more severe than those of Great
Britain. The difference clearly illustrates the
effect of protection and free trade upon the sheep,
and wool industry in the north temperate zone.

The Chief of the Bureau of Statistics
has furnished some valuable information
as to the imports of wool into the United
States, and it shows the countries whose
farmers are gathering the golden harvest
that should have been reaped by our own,80

The following figures, compiled from liis
returns, tell their own story. There is
nothing " illusory " about this table:

WHERE THE WOOL CAME FROM.

From—	1894.	1895.
United Kingdom..........  France....................	Pounds.  38,576,307 5,294,040 730,620 13,905,422 17,389,350 2,669,507 19,634,427 13,764,742 3,872,405	Pounds. 109,583,124 13,006,048 882,770 20,279,259 37,164,467 7,366,571 23,711,306 20,140,146 16,855,528
Germany.................  Other European countries  South Ameiica...........  British North America... China.....................		
Asia and Oceanica........  Other countries..........  Totals..............		
	115,836,820	248,989,217
Mr. Gray. May I ask the Senator.a		

WHERE THE WOOL CAME FROM.

question ?

Mr. Gallinger. Certainly.

Mr. Gray. By whom were those im-
portations made ?

Mr. Gallinger. I presume largely by
the manufacturers of the country.

Mr. Gray. To be worked up, into
fabrics in this country ?

Mr. Gallinger. Unquestionably so,
sooner or later.

Mr. Gray. And employ American labor
to do it ?

Mr. Gallinger. Mr. President-

Mr. Morrill. Will the Senator from
New Hampshire allow me ?

Mr. Gallinger. With pleasure.

Mr. Morrill. I understand that at the
present time there are something like be-
tween two and three hundred million
pounds of wool unsold in this country.

Mr. Gallinger. There is unquestion-
ably an enormous amount of wool in the
warehouses of this country and no call for
it at the present time.

Mr. Morrill. And the statement of
the manufacturers is that 64 per cent, only
p'f the manufactories are now employed.

Mr. Gallinger. A little later in this
discussion I shall endeavor to show to the
Senator from Delaware that under the
operation of the free-wool doctrine of the
Democratic party American woolen mills
are largely idle at the present time, and

To-	1894.	1895.
United Kingdom..........  France...................	$5,531,409 736,914 70,582 1,443,532 1,444,960 480,446 1,342,985 1,682,682 529,002	$17,301,043 2,131,842 95,484 1,861,213 3,717,574 1,353,785 1,510,572 2,788,576 2,261,070
Other Europe............  South America...........  British North America...		
Other Asia and Oceanica. Other countries..........  Totals..............		
	$13,262,512	$33,016,159

THE MONEY THAT IT COST US.

that in such as are not idle the hands
employed aggregate but a small portion of
those employed under the policy of the
Republican party.

Mr. President, the wool that was im-
ported into this country in 1894 and 1895
cost comparatively as follows:

THE MONEY THAT IT COST US.

In other words, the American people in
1894 paid for imported wool $13,262,512,
while in 1895, under free wool, they paid
$33 616,159. And yet it was contended by
the Democratic party that free wool would
stimulate sbeep husbandry in this country.

Here are some additional statistics that
show that there was an increase of wool
imports in 1895 of 115,341,405 pounds over
the average importations of the preceding
four years, and that this cost us in gold an
increase of $16,818,883 over the average of
any one of the four protection years:

IMPORTS OF WOOL.

Calendar Year.	Pounds.	Value.
1891.......................	139,317,571 167,784,490 111,752,368 115,736,820	$18,798,402 21,191,639 13,958.549 13,862,512
1892.......................		
1893.......................		
1894.......................		
Protection average. 1895.......................		
	138,647,812 248,989,217	• 1«,961,276 88,770,159
Free trade, increase		
	115,341,405	16,818,883

IMPORTS OF WOOL.

That the protective tariff en wool was
not * 'illusory " is evident from the follow-
ing facts. The total number of sheep in
the several sections of the Union and their
value in the years 1892 and 1896 are give&
in the following table :81

	Number.		Average Price.		Total Values.	
	1892.	1896.	1892.	1896.	1892.	1896.
New England......a..................  Middle States..........................  Southern States.......................  Western States........................  Pacific States..........................  Rocky Mountain States and Territories  Totals for the United States.....	1,241,805 2,802,656 9,152,562 14,027,755 7,730,849 9,982,738	621,691 1,994,882 7,153,615 9,983,336 6,893,498 11,652,461	$3.58 3.89 2.07 2.99 2.47 2.37	$2.18 2.34 1.45 1.98 1.65 1.52	$3,943,035 10,726,950 17,548,081 43.635,724 18,491,047 21,776,453	$1,360,542 4,661,919 10,861,282 19,731,972 11,323,601 17,728,859
	44,938,365	38,299,483	$2.58	$1.70	$116,121,290	$65,167,675

Evidently the "illusory" feature came
in when the farmers of this country voted
for a change that caused a decrease of
6,638,882 in their llocks, a loss of 88 cents
per head in the average value of the sheep
that remained, and a total loss in the value
of their flocks of $51,012,615. This is one
of the "vast improvements" that the

DEPRECIATION IN FARM VALUES.

Wilson-Gorman tariff bill is responsible
for.

Depreciation in farm values and in live-
stock values are briefly summarized in the
following tables. These show how absurd
the claim was that "vast improvements M
would result from the Democratic tariff :

	Value.		Total Values.	
	1891.	1895.	1891.	1895.
	$0,406 .839 .548 .315 .086 8.39 .673 .17 54 .534 .084	$0,264 .509 .44 .199 .076 8.35 .266 .09 .337 .452 .072	$836,439,228 513,472,711 *25,542,000 232,312,267 297,377,014 411,110,000 83,475,000 52,258,258 40,500,000 6*848,000 +40,000,000	$567,509,106 237,938,998 . 11,964,826 163,655,068 • 659,164,640 393,185,615 78,984,901 26,486,705 29,312,413 6,936,825 85,574,000
Wool.......................per pound............  Barley......................per bushel............  Buckwheat................ do ............  Totals.......................................				
			$2,539,434,476	$1,310,712,597
				
* Cincinnati Price Current. + Clapp's. DEPRECIATION IN LIVE-STOCK VALUES.				
	Value per Head.		Total Values.	
	Jan. 1, 1892.	Jan. 1, 1896.	Jan. 1, 1892.	Jan. 1, 1896.
iSheep.............................................	$2.50 4.60 •81.40 15.16 65.01 75.55	$1.70 4.35 22.55 , 15.86 33.07 45.29	$116,121,270 #41,031,415 351,378,132 570,749,155 1,007,593,636 147,882,070	$65,167,735 465,529,745 863,955,745 508,958,41G , 500,140,1C6 108,204,457
Swine..............................................				
Milch cows ........................................				
Other cattle.......................................				
Horses........................................*....				
Mules..............................................				
tfotal values................................				
			$2,434,755,678	$1,677,926,284
				

DEPRECIATION IN FARM VALUES.

These tables show the alarming fact that
the—

Annual loss on crops in four years

has been.....:..................... $728,721,879

Annual loss on live stock in four
years has been..................... 756,829,394

Being a total annual loss to farmers $1,485,551,773
Mr. Pbffik. For what length of
tfme f

Mr. Gallingek. There has been an
annual loss for each of the last four years
on live stock and farm values of $1,485,-
551,773.

Now, Mr. President, if the farmers of
the country continue to lose money at the
rate of nearly one and a half billion dollars82

a year, how long will they remain solvent
and independent? This startling exhibit
of the losses in the value of live stock on
our farms is an illustration of the " vast
improvement" that was promised by Presi-
dent Cleveland. Live stock that was worth
nearly $2,500,000,000 on January 1, 1892,
in the good times of McKinley protection,
was worth $756,829,394 less money to the
farmers exactly four years later, and after
three years' experience with a Democratic
Administration. Can we wonder that
farmers in every section of the country,
while studying the low value of their live
stock, should determine to restore the
policy of protection and prosperity by
voting for Republican candidates for Con-
gress an<! for the Republican candidate for
the office of President ?

A Matter of History.—Before leaving
the field of agriculture it is interest-
ing to note the fact that in the earlier
days of the Republic there were Demo-
cratic statesmen who thought that the
interests of American agriculture would
be advanced by increasing the duties on
articles of foreign growth or manufacture
to a protective point. The annals of the
Eighteenth Congress, first session, bear
record that when the debate on the tariff
bill was pending the House Committee on
Agriculture, pursuant to instructions, in-
vestigated this subject, and through its
chairman, Mr. Van Rensselaer, of New
York, handed in a short report, which con-
tained the following salient points:

1.	Whatever increases the consumption of its
products, whether home or abroad, necessarily ad*
vances the interests of agriculture.

2.	He who cultivates the soil looks to a market
for his surplus products, the home market being
at all times preferred to the foreign when the re-
ward is equal, the home market being [less preca-
rious, more permanent and certain, and beyond the
reach of foreign hostility.

3.	It favored an increase of duties on many for-
eign articles to promote agricultural prosperity.
Manufacturers would open up a new market and a
new demand would be created for domestic raw
material.

4.	If the manufactured articles then consumed
by our people could all be made at home from the

raw material furnished by ourselves, th$ value of
our lands would be increased and agricultural
profits augmented.

5.	The extension of domestic manufactures, de-
pending on the production of such raw materials
as can be found in this country must increase the"
demand for those materials and of course secure a
new and ready market.

6.	As to the articles of foreign growth to which
an increase of duty should apply in order to pro-
mote the prosperity of our agriculture, the duty
should embrace every "raw material" found or
procured with ease, cheapness, and in abundance
in the United States.

7.	An increase of duty would not decrease the
•sale of our surplus products abroad, because those
nations purchase from motives of self-interest or
necessity and not from favor.

8.	As to the amount of duty which should be im-
posed, it should be sufficient to secure the exclu-
sive and constant demand for our raw material,
competent to build up and protect those manu-
facturing establishments at present in the country,
and which, with a reasonable encouragement, will
present a constant demand for those raw materials.

James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, then
a member of the House, favored this fea-
ture of the bill, and said:

If I understand the principle of this bill, it is that
a moderate additional protection shall be afforded
to those manufactures the raw material of which
either is or may be made abundant in this coun-
try. When this raw material is a product of agri-
culture it has a peculiar claim to our favor, because
by that means the agricultural interest will be
promoted.—Annals Congress, 18th, volume 2,
page 1890.

It will be seen that in those good old
Democratic days protection on raw mate-
rials was advocated; and the wisdom of the
Democratic Congressmen of that era is in
striking contrast with the folly or prej-
udices of those who passed the existing
tariff law.

Manufacturers and Employees.—Mr.

President, when mills and factories are
running to their full capacity and finding a
ready market for all that they can produce,
there is a demand and steady employment
for labor, from the lowest to the highest
grades, at good wages, and every line of
business in the entire country is benefited.
There is a home market for the products
of field, garden, and orchard, for the wares
of the merchant, and for all the necessaries83

and the (luxuries of life. The fishermen
along our coasts and on the Great Lakes are
rewarded for their toil, as are also the
farmers and market gardeners, and all whfc
provide sustenance for man or beast. The
statistics of the growth of manufacturing
in this country from 1860, which was the
last of fourteen years of free trade, to
1894, when the Democratic party gave pro-
tection what was intended to be its death-
blow, present a remarkable array of figures,
and inasmuch as men who are employed at
good wages consume much more than
when they are idle or working for small
pay the figures are of interest to farmers
as well as others.

In 1860 there were 1,812,000 wage earn-
ers employed in our diversified manufac-
turing industries. In 1870 the number
had increased to 2,054,000, a gain of 74,000
a year. In 1880 they numbered 2,740,000,
an increase of 59,000 a year. In 1890
there were 4,712,000 employees, an increase
of 196,000 a year, and in 1892 there were
over 5,300,000 hands at work, a further
increase of more than 300,000 a year under
protection. In 1860 these workers received
$380,000,000 in wages, or $289 per hand. In
1890 the pay roll amounted to $2,282,000,-
000, equal to $485 for every man, woman,
and child so employed. In 1890 the wage
earners of the country, under protection,
had $196 per capita more money to spend
than in 1860 under free trade. During
that time, aided by and as the legitimate
and almost invariable result of protection,
labor steadily gained on capital in the
division of the earnings. In 1860 labor
received $44.50 and in 1890 $54.50 out of
each hundred dollars' worth of net prod-
ucts, while capital had $55.50 in 1860 and
$45.50 in 1890. Labor advanced from
$289 to $485, or 70 per cent., while capital
went from $361 to $408, an advance of
only 40 per cent. This shows a difference in
favor of labor of 30 per cent. In 1860,
under the free-trade policy, $785 of capital
and $790 worth of raw material gave em-
ployment to one hand who produced

$1,438 in finished goods. The value of prod*
ucts over cost of material was $650. Of
this sttm labor received $289, or about 44J
per cent., while capital had $360, or about
55-£ per cent., for expenses and profits. In
1890, under the protective policy, it re-
quired $1,385 of capital and $1,095 in raw
material for each hand employed. The
finished product amounted to $1,988, or
$893 above cost of material. Of this
amount labor received $485, or about
54£ per cent., while capital had $408, or
about 45£ per cent., reversing in the in-
terest of labor the division of net products.
While the capital required to keep one hand
employed had to be increased 76 per cent,
from 1860 under a free-trade policy to 1890
under protection, and the needed raw
material was over one-third greater, the
product of labor was only increased 38 per
cent. The increase in earnings over the
cost of material was $243 per hand. Of
this increase labor received, in enhanced
wages $196 while capital only received
$47 as its share of this gain.

The Triumph of Protection.—To

understand the significance of these
figures we must remember that from 1861
to 1865 the country was engaged in waging
the greatest civil war of history; that it
was a period of terrible waste and destruc-
tion, and that when it ended one extensive
area of our country was ruined and its
labor system completely destroyed. It
lacked both money and credit, and had, be*
sides its lands, only the brave hearts and
the strong hands of its men on which to
depend for its rehabilitation. Then, too,
many of the great industries that had
grown up in the North and West to supply
the army and navy with war supplies of
every kind had to be converted to other
uses, while at the same time there were
restored to civil life and to the ranks of in-
dustry many hundred thousand men who
had followed the flag. The nation was
staggering under the burden of an im-
mense debt and a depreciated currency. It
had also to deal with the vast question ofreconstruction, and to bring about harmony
and brotherly love between the people of
the South and those of the loyal States. It
was protection that enabled the country to
overcome all these difficulties, to restore
the credit of the Government, to meet cur-
rent expenses and carry forward great
national improvements, to pension the
wounded and the bereaved, to bring the
vast amount of paper currency to a par-
with gold, to reduce by large annual pay-
ments the national debt and the heavy in-
terest charges it carried, and to do all this
with so little friction and with such
steadily increasing prosperity that all
civilized nations, who had watched with
wonder the sublime struggle, were still
more amazed at the splendid statesman-
ship that carried the country through its
myriad perplexities and made it stronger
in all that constitutes national power and
national prosperity.

The years 1892 and 1893 saw the
culmination of this grand period of national
progress. Then influences that had been
long and insidiously at work to cause a re-
action finally succeeded, and in the election
of 1892 administrative and legislative con-
trol was wrested from the party that for
more than thirty years had carried -the
country onward and upward. Since then
the people have been realizing more and
more with each passing day how grossly
they were deceived, and what a fearful
blunder they were led to commit.

If it be true—and all our experience
proves that it is—that national prosperity
stimulates industry and creates a demand
for labor that must increase the wages of
workingmen, it is equally true tfiat cheaper
imported competitive commodities must
destroy national prosperity, and the demand
for labor must decrease in proportion to
the importation, because all competitive
importation supplants home production,
thereby reducing the rate of wages. It
has been well said that—

It does not lie within the brain of mortal man to
frame any law that can determine for the whole

people a fixed rate of wages without destroying
personal liberty. The prosperity of every nation
is measured by the prosperity of the masses,
which is determined by the rate of wag&s they re-
ceive. Freedom, personal liberty, and national
prosperity cannot continue when the wage earner
is poor and dependent.

But before the passage of the Wilson-
Gorman bill, during all our thirty years of
prosperous progress, each wage earner had
in the long run secured his fair remunera-
tion for his services and had been as inde-
pendent and free and as self-respecting as
any other citizen.

Labor Strikes.—A recent report of the
United States Commissioner of Labor on
labor strikes and lockouts during the period
from 1881 to June 30, 1894, gives some
statistics4 that throw a strong side light on
this subject. Summarizing briefly the
result of the years 1891 to 1894, we have
the following results:

	No. of Strikes.	Employees Made Idle.
1891-93, 24 months..........	3,016 2,201	505,735 747,980
1893-94, 18 months..........		
		

LOSS TO EMPLOYEES.

	Strikes.	Lockouts	Totals.
'91-92,24 mo'ths '93-94, 18 mo'ths	$25,574,336 38,176,519	$3,739,722 7,116,632	$29,314,058 45,293,151
LOSS TO EMPLOYERS.			
	Strikes.	Lockouts	Totalis.
'91-92,24 mo'ths '93-94,18mo'ths	$11,322,979 * 18,963,361	'$8,811,968 1,630,904	$13,634,947 20,594,265

LOSS TO EMPLOYEES.

During the years 1891 and 1892 the
country was under an Administration
favorable to protection. During the later
period, to June 30, 1894, we were afflicted
with a free-trade Administration for sixteen
months, and the certainty of it during the
other two months

During the free-trade ^ear and a half
there were 242,245 more employees made
idle by strikes than in the two full years of
protection. During the free-trade year and
a half the loss qf^wages tp employees wits185

$15, §79,093 more than in the two full years
of protection. During the free-trade year
and a half the loss to employers of labor
was $6,959,318 more than in the two full
years of protection. Bringing the facts
down to an average monthly basis, we
have the following:

MONTHLY AVERAGES.

	Protec- tion, 1891-92.	Free Trade, 1893-94.	Free Trade Increase.
Employees made  Wage loss of em- ployees...........  Loss to employers.	21,072  $1,221,419 569,123	41,554  $2,516,286 1,144,126	20,482  $1,294,867 576,003

MONTHLY AVERAGES.

During the present free-trade Adminis-
tration there were 20,482 mor® employees
idle every month, through strikes or lock-
outs, than during the prdfection period.
The loss of wages td employees was $1,-
294,867 a month more under Mr. Cleve-
land's regime, and the loss to employers
was $575,003 a month more. Both em-
ployers and employees have common
ground and good reason to oppose anything
that will ever help to restore to power an
Administration favorable to free trade.

The Balance of Trade.—The Demo-
cratic argument in favor of free trade has
been condensed into* two phrases: First,
"If we do not btiy, we cannot sell;"
second, " Give our manufacturers free raw
materials, and we can command the world's
markets." The statistics of the United
States Treasury fully refute these specious
arguments. The statement of our exports
and imports for 1895 may be thus sum-
marized:

	Twelve months ended December 31—	
	1894.	1895.
Domestic exports____  Foreign imports......	$807,312,116 676,312,941	$807,775,849 801,626,638
Favorable balance..	$130,999,175	$6,149,211

In 1894, with four months of the free-
trade tariff bill, we still had a balance of
trade in our favor amounting to $130,999,-
175. But with a full year of the " perfidy-

In 1894, with four months of the free-
trade tariff bill, we still had a balance of
trade in our favor amounting to $130,999,-
175. But with a full year of the " perfidy-

and-dishoiior n tariff law the ^hole of thte
favorable trade balance was wiped out with
the exception of a paltry $6,000,000. Note
that our exports were practically the same*
in each year, but the wiping out was done
by an increase of $125,000,000 in our im-
ports for 1895. The following are the
official free-trade and protection records of
imports and exports for the periods speci-
fied:

PROTECTION AND FREE-TRADE IMPORTS.

Value for year ended—

Frorc-j.	June 30,1894 (last McKin- ley year).	December 31, 1895 (first Gorman year).
North America.......  South America.......  Oceanica..............  Africa................  All other countries...  Totals..............  Free-trade increase in imports.............	$295,077,865 166,962,559 100,148,107 66,186,397 21,457,923 3,479,338 1,683,433	$431,514,024 139,012,043 117,306,44? 87,049,876 18,253,341 6,786,323 1,741,836
	$654,994,622	$801,663,490 146,668,868
		
PROTECTION AND FREE-TRADE EXPORTS.		
To-	Value for year ended—	
	June 30,1894 (last McKin- ley year).	December 31, 1895 (first Gorman year).
North America.......  South America.......  Oceanica..............  Africa................  All other countries...  Totals...............  Free-trade decrease in exports............	$700,870,822 119,693,212 33,212,310 20,872,761 11,914,182 4,923,859 653,426	$634,503,492 114,174,471 84,131,572 19,221,535 13,846,401 8,519,116 465,888
	$892,140,572	$824,862,475 67,878,097
		

PROTECTION AND FREE-TRADE IMPORTS.

Value for year ended—

Thus we had as a result of one year of a
free-trade tariff an increase in imports of
$146,668,868 and a decrease in exports of
$67,278,097, being a total loss in one year
of $213,946,965.

The free-trade orators must find better
arguments than the two I have quoted if
they wish to convince people that they are
right. Facts are against them. But the
United States Treasury has an abundance86

of telling statistics that show how un
reasonable and fallacious are these argu-
ments. From the following table it will
be seen that during the four years 1890-
1893 England bought a little over two and
one-half times as much from us as she
sold to us, and for 1892, a year in which
the McKinley bill was fully operative, she
bought over twice as much as she sold us.
An inspection of the table also proves that
in general the less we have bought of
England the more she has bought of us.
From 1893 to 1895 the excess of exports
was $65,000,000 less than from 1890 to
1892, proving clearly that under a policy
savoring of free trade the Britisher sells us
more and buys less from us. In 1895 the
excess of exports was nearly $100,000,000
below the excess in 1894. So much for
tariff reform.

Table showing (in millions of dollars) exports to
the United Kingdom, imports from the United
Kingdom, and the excess of exports over im-
ports fo» the years 1888 to 1895, inclusive.

Year.	Exports to the United Kingdom.	Imports from the United Kingdom.	Excess of , Exports over Imports.
1888..........	358.24	177.90	180.34
1889..........	379.99	178.27	201.72
1890..........	447.90	186.49	261.41
1891..........	445.41	194.72	250.72
1892..........	499.32	156.30	343.02
1893..........	421.13	182.86	238.27
1894..........	431.06	107.37	323.69
1895..........	387.16	159.11	228.05

One more quotation from the Treasury
records before I pass to other subjects.

The following is the summary of Eu-
rope's tariff account with the United States
for the year ended December 31, 1895:

k ......	Value for year ended—	
	June 30,1894 (last McKin- ley year).	December 31,1895 (first Gorman year).
Purchases............	$700,870,822 • 295,077,865	$634,503,492 431,514,024
Sales..................		
Balance........		
	$405,792,957	$202,989,468
		

Europe's increased sales	 $136,436,159

Europe's decreased purchases	 66,367,330

Europe's increased sales............. $136,436,159

Europe's decreased purchases....... 66,367,330

Europe's total gain in one year $202,803,489

Free Raw Material.—Mr. President,

no one feature of this free-trade tariff sub-
ject is more interesting or instructive than
the gratification that the Wilson-Gorman
measure has afforded to our British cousins.
The passage of that act was a godsend to
all the textile mills of Yorkshire, to the
cutlers, the potters, and various other
British manufacturers who have been
drawing more gold from us of late than
they have handled before in many years.
At the annual meeting last February of
the A. S. Henry Company, Limited, of
Bradford, one of the largest of the Anglo-
American shipping houses of that city, Sir
Henry Mitchell, chairman of that company,
said:

When the shamholders assembled twelvemonths
ago it was at the close of a very faying and very
difficult year, and the directors had to put before
them business results which were considerably less
than the average for a number of years past, and
even less than in any year since the company was
formed. He was very glad to meet the share-
holders with a very much more satisfactory report
and very much better results. [Hear! hear!] As
they 'would see from the balance sheet, the net
divisible profits were about £46,000 more than
they were last year, and nearly £20,000 more than
the highest amount realized since the company
was formed. He hoped that the results would be
considered - satisfactory. Then, speaking of the
general prospects of trade, he said those share-
holders who were at the last annual meeting
would remember that he held out some hope of
improved trade, and stated that the company had
orders on their books of upward of £500,000 to
commence the business of the year. He was now
very glad to be able to say that at the present
time the orders amounted to nearly £1,000,000.
[Applause.] So that their prospects, at any rate,
were somewhat encouraging for the new year.

It will be observed that the first year of
our Democratic tariff with fr$e wool en-
abled a British woolen manufacturing con*
cern to reoord profits of " the highest
amount realized since the company was
formed." It also began the second year of
our free-trade experiment with orders on
hand that amounted to nearly $5,000,000.
No wonder the British stockholders greeted
these remarks of Sir Henry with " ap-
plause " as they compared the annual re-w •

ports of I8d4 and 1895, a digest of which
is given in the following parallels:

▲.ft 8. HENRY COMPANY, LIMITED, BRADFORD.

Annual Report, 1894.		Annual Report, 1895.	
profit...........	£63,910 5 p. c. £85,000 £910	Profit...........	£95,708 7 p. c. £100,000 £16,708
Dividend........  Reserve fund... Carried forward		Dividend.......	
		Reserve fund... Carried forward	

▲.ft 8. HENRY COMPANY, LIMITED, BRADFORD.

Although only a 7 per cent, dividend
was paid, yet the chairman explained that
the company had really earned 12 per cent.,
but that this was one of the years when it
was prudent to add a large sum to the re-
serve fund. Possibly he was anticipating
Republican success in this country next
November. This is not a manufacturing,
but a mercantile company, that handles
the various goods of that district, and does
an enormous trttde with the dry goods mer-
chants of the United States. But others,
equally capable of talking business, have
testified to how British manufacturers have
profited by American folly. At the thirty-
fifth annual meeting of the Chamber of
Commerce of the United Kingdom, held
March 12 to 14, inclusive, Sir Albert K.
Rollit, its president, said:

American tariff reform has (notwithstanding the
adverse influence of the resurrection of the silver
question) so far stimulated our exports of cotton
goods as to have doubled their value in February
as against January, to have increased the quantity
from eleven to eighteen million yards during 1895
as against the corresponding period of 1894, and to
have made this year's shipments exceed those of
two years ago in both quantity and value. Simi-
larly there have been larger linen shipments to the
States for both the last month and the two months
of the present year, while in woolens the advance
in values has been three times and in worsted four
times more than in 1894, and in quantity quite 400
per cent. So, too, the same beneficial influence
has made itself felt in great increases during both
the month and the year and in both quantity and
values of our consignments to America of cutlery,
rails, and iron and steel goods generally, and more
especially of tin plates, as Also in earthenware and
china, and to the extent of 600 per cent, in ship-
ments of raw wool.

Let me make a quotation to show how all
Yorkshire has felt the reviving influence

of that t^jrf measure, which has nearly
paralyzed the woolen industry of the
United States, but has revived and made
prosperous scores of mills in Bradford and
the great manufacturing district of which
it is the center. A recent issue of the New
York Tribune contained a long letter from
its very careful and critically observant
London correspondent, in which the great
revival of business in the Bradford district
is described at length. In part the corre-
spondent says:

After a long series of lean years the Bradford
district has been blessed with a fat one.

This correspondent goes on to say:

The American tariff was changed in 1890, and
the Bradford trade with the United States in men's
coatings, which had amounted to $6,500,000 in

1889,	dropped to $3,500,000 in 1891, and after a tem-
porary revival during the next two years fell again
to $1,300,000 in 1894. In like manner the exports
of stuff goods, which had averaged $6,000,000 in

1890,	sank to the low level of $2,200,000 in 1894.
The old and the new industries of Bradford suf-
fered alike from the McKinley tariff, which largely
increased the duties on stuff goods and coatings.
It was a period of profound gloom for the entire
district. The reaction came when the duties on
goods for the American market were reduced
about one-half in the Wilson tariff, and when also
bright mohair and similar lustrous fabrics were
again fashionable for women's wear. A well-in-
formed specialist, whose figures I take from an
exhaustive industrial review of the Bradford trade
published in the London Times, states that the ex-
ports of coatings to the United States rose from
$1,275,626 for the year ended September 30, 1894,
to $6,575",052 in 1895 at a corresponding date. This
increase of nearly 600 per cent, reveals the full
effect of the Wilson tariff during the first year
when it was in operation. The export of stuff
goods during the same period ran up from $2,200,-
000 to $8,375,000. It was virtually quadrupled, but
a portion of this increase in the export of bright
fabrics may fairly be accounted for by the change
of fashion. On the basis of the consular statistics
for the year ended December 30,1895, the results
of the repeal of the McKinley tariff may be en-
large<f considerably. The export of worsted coat-
ings to the United States was $8,561,228; that of
stuff goods, $9,748,527. The entire Bradford trade
with the United States during 1895 ran up from
$8,215,234 to $27,745,096.

Business improved with every portion of the
world, but the largest gain was in the trade with
the United States; and this was mainly due to thereduction of duties on woolen and worsted goods.
The point which I am now seeking to emphasize—

Continues this correspondent—

is the fact that whatever may have been the effect
of the new wool schedule upon competing Ameri-
can manufacturers, or the price of wool, or the
cost of clothing, the reduction of duties has
powerfully promoted the fortunes of the Brad-
ford district. This has been a year of unexampled
prosperity. In the worsted trade alone 130,000
operatives are employed in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, and they have had uninterrupted work
on full time. During the busiest portion of the
last year there was a Scarcity of labor, and hun-
dreds of young womenjwho had gone into domestic
service returned to the mills. Every worsted and

exactly reversed in those industries in this
country by the operation of the same law.
The most accurate information respecting
this is to be found in the annual reports of
the Massachusetts bureau of labor. As the
old Bay State does at least a fourth of the
woolen manufacturing of the country, the
statistics compiled there for the past five
years probably furnish the best obtainable
information of the condition of that in-
dustry in this country. The laxest compila-
tion covers a period of five years, from
1890 to 1894, inclusive. It gives the fol-
lowing statistics:

	1890.	1891.	1892.	1893.	1894.
Capital invested................  Stock used......................  Goods made....................  Number of establishments.....	$28,271,436 $19,4#1,068 $31,151,139 138	$27,835,204 $21,162,373 $33,989,359 138	$28,440,826 $21,390,933 $35,673,477 142	$25,554,880 $16,674,542 $28,061,654	$24,094,195 $13,019,911 $22,284,958 115

woolen mill in West Yorkshire has been running
on full time. Some of the old properties which
had been standing idle for many years started up
again under the impetus of the revival of the
popularity of lustrous fabrics. The entire woolen
district, with Leeds and Huddersfield, brought
within a radius of a dozen miles from Bradford,
contains a population exceeding 900,000, and its
prosperity during the last year has been shown by
unmistakable signs. There has been no lack of
employment; the savings of the working class
have largely increased, as is proved by the returns
of the savings banks; manufacturers and mer-
chants have had the best trade known for many
years, and, in the main, there has been a rising
market in prices, with fortunes to be rapidly made
in certain lines of goods.

Another exultant English correspondent

exclaims:

Under the Republican tariff Bradford exported
worsc^is wosrfch $2,200,000 to the United States.
Under the Wilson tariff last year Bradford ex-
ported $8,375,000 of worsteds to the United States.
Bradford has $6,175,000 in pocket that she would
not have had if Professor Wilson were not a states-
man. Hurrah for Bradford! Hurrah for Professor
Wilson 1 And damn the United States I

Now, what has happened in those Brit-
ish mills because of free wool and- the re-
duced duties on woolens and worsteds
under the Wilson-Gorman tariff has been

This exhibit reprepresents a substantial
growth of the woolen manufacturing in-
dustry from 1890 to 1892, the value "of the
product made increasing by $4,500,000 in
138 establishments within the two years.
A contrary condition, however, was ex-
perienced with startling results in the two
subsequent years, when the output of the
factories decreased by nearly $18,400,000,
and the factories decreased 17 in number.
Taking next the employment of labor, we
find it to have been as follows in the same
factories:

	Hands Employed.				
	1890.	1891.	1892.	1893.	1894.  14,261 10,163 16,703
Average number... Smallest number.. Greatest number..	16,816 15,054 18.420  1	17,479 16,007 18,821  1	18,199 16,289 19,545	15,857 11,240 18,581	

It naturally follows that more employ-
ment was given to labor in the woolen
mills of Massachusetts in 1892 than in either
of the two preceding or subsequent years,
the average number employed that year
being 1,833 more than in 1890, and nearly&

4,000 more than in 1804. Turning next to
the wages paid to labor in the woolen mills
of that State, we find the amount of the
average earnings to have been as follows:

Year.	Total Paid.	Average Yearly Earnings.
1890.......................	$5,607,885 6,616,442 7,061,211 5,&33,015 4,887,984	$369 379 388 371 343
1891.......................		
1892.......................		
1893.......................		
1894.......................		
		

Here again, not only was the aggregate
total the largest in 1892, but the average
earnings of each man were greatest in that
year. A circulation of $1,400,000 more
wage earnings in 1892 than in 1890 must
have meant greater general prosperity in
the manufacturing centers of Massachu-
setts, and the falling off of money circula-
tion by nearly $2,200,000 in 1894 must have
had a dampening effect on business pros-
perity. An increase in the average yearly
earnings of $20 per employee, followed by
a decrease of $45 a year, represents a very
startling condition in the value of labor.
'Taking the reports for the five years we are
enabled to make another interesting com-
parison of the value of the goods made in
101 different woolen establishments for
each year from 1890 to 1894, showing the
increase or decrease in the value and per
cent, as compared with the previous year.
jThese facts are here given:

GOODS MADE IN 101 DIFFERENT ESTABLISHMENTS.

Year.	Value of Goods.	Increase(-f )or Decrease (—) as Compared with Previous Year.	
1890..........	$27,378,680 30,170,615 31.035,734 26,063,436 20,903,019	Value.	Per Cent.
1891..........		+$2,791,935 4- 865,119  —	4,972.298  —	5,160,417	4-10.20 4- 2.87 —16.02 —19.80
1892..........			
1893..........			
1894..........			
			

GOODS MADE IN 101 DIFFERENT ESTABLISHMENTS.

It will thus be seen that in these 101
establishments the increase in the output
was $2,791,935 in 1891, a gain of 10.20 per
cent, over 1890. In 1892 the further in-
crease was $865,119, or 2.87 per cent. This

improvement did not last, for in 189S therfc
was a decrease of almost $>§,000,000, or
16.02 per cent., and again in 1894 a still
further decrease of $5,160,417, or 19.80 per
cent., in the output of the woolen mills.
The condition of the woolen industry of
Massachusetts is probably as good if not
better than of the remaining mills of the
country. Evidently the same law that
carried peace, plenty, and prosperity to the
woolen manufacturers of Great Britain has
depressed the same business on, this side of
the ocean and made it unprofitable.

In New Hampshire the woolen industry
is very seriously crippled. In Cheshire
County there are eight woolen mills, em-
ploying in good times about 1,200 opera-
tives. Recently the Keene Sentinel made
careful inquiry of the managers of these
mills, three of whom are Republicans and
three Democrats, and note the result. The
Sentinel of April 18, 1896, says editorially,
under the caption of " Silent Looms:"

No important business has been so disastrously-
affected by the Wilson-Gorman "tariff law as the
manufacture of woolens. All over the country the
experience seems to be the Same—inability to cope
with English competition and the consequent clos-
ing of the mills in whole or in part, or, if .the mills
keep up their production, the profits are miserably
small. Our mills in Cheshire County have suffered
with the rest. Mill owners have lost profits, labor-
ers have lost work, and storekeepers have lost
trade. Hinsdale and Ashuelot have been struck
the hardest blow. They were lively places a year
ago. Now their principal industrial establish-
ments are closed and the towns are quiet beyond
precedent. Everybody in the two villages feels
the hard times and almost everybody curses the
Wilson law.

The loss in labor and wages owing to the depres-
sion in the woolen business is astonishingly large.
In good times, say in the fall of 1892, the woolen
mills of the county were employing 1,200 hands
and paying out in wages about $36,000 a month.
At present the same mills are employing not quite
400 hands and are paying in wages between $11,000
and $12,000 a month. In other words, the number
of laborers employed and the aggregate amount
of wages have been reduced two-thirds. These
figures are compiled from statistics obtained from
the manufacturers and are most of them found in
the detailed statements given below.

Following is a comparison by mills of hands em-
ployed and aggregate monthly wages paid be-
fore the passage of the Wilson law and now:&0

ft	Hands Employed.		Wages Paid.	
	Good Times.	Now.	Good Times.	Now.
Baile & Frost.....  Thayer............  Dickinson.........  Faulkner & Colony  Cheshire Mills.....  Amidon...........  Gilsum Woolen Co. (Tolling.....r.......	375 300 80 65 115 100 75 70	30	$12,000 7,000 2,500  6,000  4,000 2,500 2,100	$1,200
		65 65) 115 f		1,800 6,000
		50 65		1,300 1,600
Totals...........				
	1,180	390	$36,100	$11,900
				

The proprietor of another large woolen
mill in New Hampshire wrote me a few
days ago: " Our business has been, and is
now, as poor as poor can be."

What a commentary that is upon the
Democratic contention that free wool and
low tariff, are of advantage to the manufac-
turer and the laborer. Free wool has
almost entirely destroyed the woolen in-
dustry of this country, and has thrown out
of employment thousands upon thousands
of honest and intelligent American work-
ingmen for the benefit of foreign mills and
foreign labor.

Recently the New York Press made some
inquiries among New England ^woolen
mills, with the idea of showing their con-
dition now as compared with a year ago.
Returns from 32 mills were received, and
the following is the result:

Mills shut down..........................

Mills on quarter time....................

Mills on eighth time......................

Mills on half time........................

Mills practically closed..................

Operators practically idle................

Estimated annual wages of these oper-
ators one year ago..................... $3,000,000

Estimated annual wages of operators

to-day.................................. 375,000

Loss to the country in wages............ 2,625,000

Loss to the country in native raw ma-
terial, say.............................. 6,000,000

Beyond a doubt these woolen mills have shut
down or reduced their force with much execra-
tion of free traders. None of the shoddy mills
have shut down. They are busy making the best
possible product they can that will compete with
the looms in the British ragshops. Free trade in
raw wool is closing American woolen mills, while
it promotes the industry of the European rag»
picker and of the British shoddy shops.

And what is true of the woolen industry
of the country is relatively true of almost
every other industry. On every hand
complaints are heard, and the army of the
unemployed is bitter in its denunciation of
so-called tariff reform. All kinds of busi-
ness is suffering. A few weeks ago I re-
ceived a letter from the senior member of
a business firm in New Hampshire which
has been engaged in manufacturing since

14
10
5
1
2

7,500

1813. He is a quiet, conservative man*
but he writes as follows:

I assure you the business situation is serious
with all of us, and unless the Congress wakes up
to the real situation there will certainly be some
demonstration similar to the one at Chicago. I
think I understand the position of the Senators*
but I am afraid they do not realize the actual situ-
ation of the business men all over the country,
who have been dragging along as best they could
for the past two years, not making a cent profit,
but shrinking their capital and plants in order to
keep doing something until the tide turns, if it
ever does, and if they can hold out.

That gentleman was making a plea for
the passage of the so-called Bingley bill,
which had passed the House of Representa-
tives, and the consideration of which was
voted against by every Democratic Senator.

A Summary of the Situation.—Mr.
President, manufacturing is fearfully de-
pressed, workmen are either out of employ-
ment or working for reduced wages, one-
half the railroad mileage of the United
States is in the hands of receivers, and the
Government is borrowing money to pay
its current expenses. In this connection a
comparison between the workings of the
first nineteen months of the McKinley and'
the Wilson-Gorman law will be instruc-
tive. During the first nineteen months of
the McKinley law the receipts of the
Government exceeded the expenditures
$24,988,221, while during the first nine*
teen months of the Wilson-Gorman law
the expenditures exceeded the receipts
$76,257,515.

It is estimated that when the heavy pay-
ments of June, July, and August come
along they will bring the total deficiency
up to nearly or quite a rdund $100,000,000
by the end of the second year of the new
law's work. There have been but three
months in the nineteen in which the law
has been in operation in which it did not
create a deficiency, and the prospect is not
cheering for anything better. It seems im-"
possible for the new law to reach more
than about $26,000,000 or $27,000,000 in
its monthly receipts, thus making the de-
ficiency from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 a
month on an average, running up some
months to $9,000,000 or $10,000,000.

The public debt was reduced as follows
during the four years of the Administra-
tion of President Harrison:

188	9....................................$180,668,600

189	0.................................... 104,540,790

189	1.................................... 114,783,990

189	2.................................... 25,499,790

Total reduction for the four years.. $365,498,170

Now note the effect of the Democratic*
triumph of 1892. Since then the public
debt has steadily increased, the increase
for 1893, 1894, and 1895 being as follows:1893'.........................................$7,770

1894.................................... 50,004,790

1895.................................... 81,160,170

y—^6eing a total increase of.........$131,172,730

for the years 1893, 1894, and 1895, and the
debt continues to pile up every month of
the present year.

Interest-bearing bonds have been sold by
the present Administration to the enormous
amount of $262,000,000, which when paid,
with interest added, will aggregate about
$500,000,000, every dollar of which the
taxpayers of the country will have to sac-
rifice on the altar of that miserable Demo-
cratic heresy called " tariff reform."

The* following is an accurate statement
of the Treasury account on May 1, 1896:

Cash in Treasury March 1, 1893........$124,128,087

Cash added by sale of bonds, premium
added........v....................... 293,454,272

Total.............................$417,582,359

Cash in Treasury May 1, 1896.......... 270,090,660

Expenditures in excess of receipts— $147,482,669

History has simply repeated itself. The
result of the present low tariff is precisely
the same as this country has experienced
from every other similar law that has been
passed since the Government was organized.
Under it, while our own mills are half idle
and our own laborers working on part time
with decreased pay, our British rivals are
waxing fat over profits lugged away from
this market. It i§ a curious condition of
things, and interesting just as a study of
the possibilities of human folly. We pass
a tariff act to prostrate our manufacturing
industries. We adopt a British system to
ruin our farming industries. Then we
borrow money with which to pay oar run-
ning expenses, and finally we try to keep
gold in the Treasury by making agree-
ments to pay out more than we take in.

The Republican party loudly proclaimed
what the result would be if the McKinley
law was repealed and a tariff-for-revenue
law substituted. Before that folly was
consummated the two eminent Republican
statesmen who are to-day more prominent-
ly before the American people than any
others sounded a note of alarm, which ought
to have been heeded by the American
Congress. Let me quote their utterances.

Major McKinley, of Ohio, the great
apostle of protection, declared as follows:
, A revenue tariff encourages *no home enterprise;
it supplies employment to no American working-
man: it takes employment from him because in
the encouragement of foreign importations it
diminishes the demand for American products.
It is an enemy to the American shop and the
American workingman, to American prosperity
and American industrial independence. It em-
braces not a single element of patriotism. It has
no national spirit or instinct. To supply the needs

of the Treasury is its chief and exclusive concetti i
it has no other. It is a sure precursor to national
poverty, national bankruptcy, and individual dis-
tress. It is the forerunner of hard times. It is
without a single worthy triumph. The years in
which it has been tried in the United States excite
neither our respect nor pride. It has furnished no
inspiring page in our history. Its record has been
one of deficient revenues, gathered bonded in-
debtedness, and universal want among the people.

Mr. President, in the light of events
those words sound like prophecy, and I
commend them to the careful attention of
the American people. And the great
Speakei*of the National House of Repre-
sentatives, Mr. Reed, in talking to the
Democratic majority in the Fifty-third
Congress used this instructive language:

I confess to you that this question of wages is to
me the vital question. To insure our growth in
civilization and wealth we must not only have
wages as high as they are now but constantly and
stdfcdily increasing. [Loud applause on the Re-
publican side.] No applause for this sentiment, I
notice, on the Democratic side. This desire of
mine for constantly increasing wages does not
have its origin in love for the individual, but in
love for the whole nation in that enlightened self-
ishness which recognizes the great truth that
your fate and mine, Mr. Speaker, and the fate of
your descendants and mine are so wrapped up in
the fate of all others that whatever contributes to
their progress gives to us all a nobler future and a
higher hope.

Those two utterances embody the very
essence of the tariff question, and with
them this discussion may well be closed.

Mr. President, what I said in this Cham-
ber two years ago has been literally veri-
fied, and it will be emphasized in the elec-
tions to be held this year. The people
have decreed the "overthrow of the Demo-
cratic party and the election of a Republi-
can President. The blight of tariff reform
will in,due time pass away, and it will be
demonstrated that only through a return
to genuine American protection can pros-
perity be renewed and the country be
enabled to enter upon another period of
commercial and industrial success. That
change is inevitable, and when it comes
the gloom and distress of the present will
be exchanged for the joy and the* gladness
that the music of the loom and the spindle
brings to the heart of the American toiler.
Then American capital and American labor
will produce most of whatr we consume,
and a hgme market will be ready for the
products of the farm. Then the deficit in
our revenues will give way to a surplus,
and American homes will be cheered and
comforted, because American skill and
American genius will be employed at re-
munerative wages. Speed the day when
the doctrines and disasters of free trad©
will give way to the grand Republican
doctrine of protection to American capital,
American labor, and American agriculture.INDEX.

PAGE

Agriculture Bill Favored by James

Buchanan....................................................................82

A Matter of History......................................................82

Am&rican Economist on Sheep Industry............79

Mr. Van Rensselaer's Report................................82

A Tariff..............................................................................2

A Free-Trade Tariff........................................................2

Agricultural Report by Mr. Van Rensselaer of

NewYork..............................................................82

A Protective Tariff.......................................2

A Specific Duty....................................2

44 " Illustrated......................................2

An Ad valorem Duty....................................................2

44 14 Illustrated....................2

44 Invariable Rule..........................................................7

Adams, President John. Opinion of Protec-
tion.......................................16,22

All Republican Presidents Protectionists............46

American Trade Marks on foreign goods............54

Labor, protected by McKinley Act..................53

Agassiz, Prof. Anecdote of....................49

A woman's spirited opinion of political lying..	53

Another Contrast: 18v2 vs. 1893..............72, 78

A Term of Protection..................................................S3

Civil War Period, Waste and Destruction....	88

Culmination of Period of National Progress	84

Difficulties Overcome by Protection................84

Extensive Area of Country Ruin........................83

National Prosperity Stimulates Industries..	84

Nation Struggling Under an Immense Debt.	83

Protection Restores Credit of Government.	84
American Capital and Labor Will Produce

What We Consume................................................91

Balance of Trade......................................................85

In our Favor..................................................................85

Wiped Out......................................................................85

Democratic Argument tor Free Trade..............85

Exports Under Protection and Free Trade..	85

Give Our Manufacturers Free Raw Material.	85

If We do not Buy We Cannot Sell......................85

Imports Under Protection and Free Trade..	85

Increase of Imports....................................................85

Quotations from Treasury Record on Eng-
land's Tariff Account............................................86

Statement of Exports and Imports for 1895.	85

Protection and Free Trade Exports..................85

Protection and Free Trade Imports....................85

Exports from the United Kingdom....................86

Exports to the United Kingdom..................86

Table Showing Losd by Strikes............................85

British Companies' Annual Report........................88

British Correspondent on Change in Tariff....	88

British Industries, Statistics......................................88

British Manufactures Benefited by Wilson-

Gorman Measure....................................................86

British Manufacturers' Comments on Wilson-

Gorman Law............................................................88

British Profits Increased by Democratic Tariff	86

But One Way to Secure Return of Prosperity.	76

Blight of Tariff Reform Will Pass Away..............91

Bounties, Defined....................................................8

41 Illustrated....................................................8

Bright's, John. Opinion...........................ti

Burleigh's, Bennet..........................................................7

Benefits from the Tariff of 1789..........................17

" " u 1824 ..............................21

" " 44 1828..............................21

" u 44 1842..............................28

41 kl " 1861..............88,72

44 u " 1890.............52,56

41 44 Home Market..................87, 41

44 " Steel Rail Manufacture..................43

44 44 Nail 44 ..................47

" 44 High Duty on Wool............. 42

», -x i, .» Linaeed Q#...... 49

44 44 u 44 " Blankets......... 49

B lam ark's, Prince. Opinion of Protection... 62

Blaine, James G. Reply to Gladstone........ 56

44 44	OpialonB of Protection .. .56,62

RecinrocKyHumbug...... 66

" 44 Prophetio words....... ..; 68

Blaine, James G. Prophetic Words fulfilled..68, 77
Buchanan's,President. Opinion on tariff of 1846 83
Buchanan, James, Favors the Agriculture Bill 82
Bryce, Prof. Opinion of American Wealth and

its general distribution.................... 63

Chamberlain'*. Joseph. Opinion........ 7

Carlyle, Thomas. Opinion.................... 7

Conclusion...................................74, 91

Cobden Club. Contributions of............... 64

California Gold, effect upon Tariff of 1846..... 32

Congress under the Confederacy. Powers

limited..................................... 8

Constitution. Confederate States prohibited

protective tariff and bounties............. 35

Confederacy, 1783-1789. Free Trade, under

direful results............................8,15

Cost of living in England and United States.. 41

Citations. D. H. Mason................7,12,18,14

Citation from D. B. Hill...................... 74

A.Hamilton...... 8

Bancroft.......... 10

Lord Goderich.... 11

Minot............. 18

R. Choate......... 15

Benton..........19, 25

Burrows.......... 59

D. B. Hill......... 74

T. B. Reed........ 5

John Ruskin...... 6

John Bright...... 6

John Morley...... 7

Prof. Huxley..... 7

McDonald........ 48

Libby............. 50

Keene Sentinel... 89
Chicago Times.... 74
Springfield Repub-
lican............ 74

Manchester Union 74

Inter-Ocean...... 41

N. Y. Press, 89,43,60,90

Depew............ 53

SamuelfBowles... 29
D. Webster...10,14, 27

D. Syme.......... 11

Hildreth.......... 12

Hunt's Magazine. 29
Cleveland Plain

Dealer.......... 74

F. Ames.......... 15

Horace Greeley... 20

H. Clay.........20, 21

Carey............. 24

N. Y. Sun.....1, 58, 74

R. Johnson........ 28

74

74
74

Calhoun..H...... 25

R. J. Walker....80, 86

Dr. Franklin...... 38

Win. Windom.... 88
Boston Journal... 39

Blaine........46,56,62

Curtis............. 46

Cincinnati En-
quirer .......... 74

R Q.Mills........ 87

E. Atkinson....... 88

Prof. Perry....... 89

H. Tremaine—.. 41
London Telegraph 46
Providence Jour-
nal .

N. Y, Mail and

Express.........

Courier-Journal..
Philadelphia Rec-
ord}............. . _

J. G. Cannon..... 5

J. F. Lacy ........ 6

Bennet Burleigh.. 7
Jos. Chamberlain. 7
Thomas Carlyle.. 7

R. P. Porter...... 48

N. Y. Courier and
Enquirer....... 27

N. Y. ZVtfmne, 28,89,40
N. Y. Herata,.. .80,74

N. Y. World...... 74

N. Y. Evening

Post......20

McKinley... .21, 40,68

_________________ ... J. Randolph...... 21

CatchingsLetter..........................................77

Commissioner of Labor Reports on Strikes... 84
Credit of the Government Restored by Protec-
tion........................................ &4

Cleveland's Free Trade Message............... 46

Crimean War, effects of upon Tariff of 1846... 82

Duties........................................ 2

Duty, Specific.................................. 2

44 Ad valorem....................................2

Definitions. Tariff, what is a................. 2

14 Free Trade............... 2

44 Protective............»... 2

Distress. From Free Trade under Confeder-
acy, 1788-1789.............................11, .14

From Tariff of 1816.........................19, 20

1833.......................... 24

" *4 1846.........................27, 80

1887.......................... M

Depew, O. M. Opinion of the Liar in Politick. 68
Democrats opposed to Protection Bbctttti by
their vote in Congress and it) NitidnM ..

Platforms, 1888..........................gfc

1840.............. 23 1856................ 62

1844.............. 25 1860................ 88

1848.............. 80 1868................ «

1852.............. 82 1870........•....... 4698

PAOK

1880.............. 45 1888................................51

1884.............. 46 18W................................67

Democrats belJeve American Agriculture

should be advanced by increased duties....	83

Tariff Increases British profits........................86

Democratic Overthrow Decreed by People....	91

Depreciation in Farm values shown by Table.	81

Discussion of Tariff by Senator Gallinger............**

Diversified manufacturing industries employ

131,200 wage earners......... ..........................88

Decrease in Savings Banks Deposits. 1893—	68

41 Trade. 1898..............................................68

44 44 Value In Farm Products. 1893....

44 44 Sheep and Wool. 1893............

"Trade. 1893 ..............................................60

Democratic and Mugwump lying- 4®0......52, 53

44 Party described by G. W. Curtis..	46

National Convention in 1892....................................67

Tariff Plank. 1892......................................................67

Differenoe between McKinley Tariff and Eng-
lish Tariff. How they affect laborers..........56

Duty of Senators............................................................74

44 on Soda Ash......................................47

Drawback of 99 per cent, allowed by McKrn-

ley Tariff....................................................................M

Efleotf on agriculture, from census of 1890.	78
American people pay for imported wool

fia.sawaST...........*..................... so

Sheep Industry by American Economist.. .79,81

Wool when Democrats assume oontroi............78

Live-stock values shown by table..... ............81

Wool industry, by Senators Gallinger, Gray,

and BiorrilL................................................................80

Farm values by SenatorsPeffer and Gallinger	81

Farmers acquire new ideas............................78

Free wool value on the farm................................78

livestock worth.$8^500,000,000............................82

Sheep husbandry,......................................................79

President Cleveland on the cheep Industry. ♦	78

First, Secoad, Third, Fourth..............................79

Value of sheep shows a loss of S8cents..........81

A vast Improvement of Wilson-Gorman tariff	81

Embargo Act not a tariff measure........................IB

Employment for laborer............................................43

* helped byprotective Tariff..........27

44 D. Webster on....................................27

44 of hands before and after the

passage of Wilson law..........................................90

England's Tariff account under DlcKinley and

Gorman laws........................................................86

English teachings, influence of............................13

European revolutions 1848,1646.............................88

Excess of exports from 1883 to 1895..............86

in imports from 1893 to 1895......................86

Expenditures exceed receipts under Wilson*

Gorman law......................................90

Exports and imports for 1895...................................85

Exports of lumber..........................................48

Exports to United Kingdom......................................86

Famine in Ireland, effect upon tariff of 1846	82

Farmers determined to restore protection________82

Farm values depreciation shown by table..........81

Farm values, by Senators Peffer and Gallinger	81

Financial panic, 1873......................................................44

Fillmore, President. Opinion of tariff of 1846.	30

Fishermen and the tariff............................................83

Free Trade defined.......................................8

Free Trade under the Confederacy........................8

Cause of scarcity of specie....................................13

General distress........r.................1,13,17

No duty on Imports..................................................0

General distrust..........................................................12

Bevolts.....................................12,13

Rebellion.................................................18

No market'for real estate......................................13

Loss of markets.................................................12

8ommary of evils.........................................18

Free Trade campaign of education........................64

41 44 success In 1882. Results of.......67,71

Failures in business. 1893..........................................00

Free Trade, fifty years of, in Great Britain...	i

Free Trade, effects of under tariff of 1816... 18, 20

Why it failed................................................................19

Two reasons....................... ..................19

Terrible distress..........................................................19

Immense imports........................................................19

Sent to break down American industries...	19

Bankruptcy general..................................................li)

Greeley s statement..................................................20

Depression 50 per cent..............................................20

Repealed 1834..............................................................20

Free Trade, effects of under Tariff of 1833..........22

Its character................................................................22

Awful results................................................................22

No money......................................................................23

No prices for farmers' products..........................23

Money loss $1,000,000,000........................................23

No revenue....................................................................23

Terrible panic of 1S37................................................23

Repealed in 1842..........................................................28

Free Trade, effects of under Tariff of 1846..........28

Evil results from........................................................28

Webster's prophecy..................................................27

N. Y. Tribune a Prophecy......................................27

u	fulfilled..........28,29

President Fillmore's opinion of............................30

Walker's reason for this Free Trade policy.	31

Based on pure assumption....................................30

Walker's theory answered....................................31

Worst evils postponed by: (1) Mexican War,
(21 California Gold, (3) Famine in Ireland.

(4) European Revolutions, (5) Crimean War	30

Amended In 1857 and duties lowered..................33

Free Trade, effects of under Tariff of 1846.

Panic of 1857..................................................................33

Ruin and bankruptcy, general..............................33

President Buchananrs opinion..............................33

Revenue insufficient..................................................33

Loans, current, at 8 and 12 per cent................38

Repealed in 1861..........................................................42

Free Trade causes idleness of employees............84

Free Trade caused widespread depression..........70

Bankruptcy. Ruin....................................................7G

Democrats not influenced by Blaine............77

Fulfillment of prophecy of Mr. Blaine..............76

Lack of confidence......................................................76

Lack of credit:..............................................................76

Lack of employment..............................................76

Prophecy of new Tariff Laws...............76,	77

Stoppage of business................................................76

Free Traae Tariff, Democrats favor, 1833 ............23

1840.,
1844..
1848.,

23
25
, 30

1868.
3876.
1880.
18S4.
1888.,
1882.

1866...............

1860...............

Free Raw Material..

Annual report of British companies..................87

Blaine's prediction and history not heeded	77

British manufacturers profit by Wilson Law	88

Business poor in New Hampshire......................90

Comments by British correspondent..................88

Comments by British manufacturers................88

Hands employed before and after Wilson

Law.....T....................................................................90

Improvement of British Industries....................8(1

New Hampshire's manufacturers idle..............90

New Hampshire's woolen industries crip-
pled............................................................................89

Output of productions for five years..................89

Passage of Wilson Bill................................................77

President Cleveland refuses to sign it................77

President Cleveland^ letter to Catcbings....	77

Results to British mills of Wilson Tariff..........88

"Silent Looms" commented upon by Keene

Sentinel........................................89

Sir Henry Mitchell, business improvement..	86

Tables showing idle mills in New England...	90

Vast improvement to existing conditions—	77

What President Cleveland has said..................T7

Wilson b&vt a God-send to Yorkshire................8694

Free Raw Materials. What Free Traders say	36

What are raw materials?........................................36

They do not take the markets of the world..	30

Illustrated......................................................................37

Mr. Mills' brilliant answer......................................37

Free List Under McKinley Tariff............................55

Reason for its allowance ......................................55

Free Wool value on the farm shown by table..	70

Fraudulent Campaign of 1844....................................25

Col. Benton's statement..........................................25

Polk's two-faced Campaign..................................25

For Free Trade, South—for Protection,

North............................................................................25

Polk's fraud successful............................................26

Polk censured by his biographer........................2C

Senators Webster and Jonnson..............

Indorsed by Democratic Party............................26

Frye, Senator. Anecdote by....................................49

Franklin's, Dr. B. Opinion of Home Markets..	37

Galllnger's Remedy for Depression................76

41 Goods for goods " theory........................................38

Free Traders' strongest argument....................38

Facts show its fallacy..............................................39

Tables prove its fallacy............................................39

Prof. Perry's idea........................................................39

Answered by Boston Journal..............................39

Its fallacy illustrated................................................39

France and English trade........................................39

On R. R. Freights............................' 39

Goods Government pay duty..............................54

Goods made by foreign convict labor prohib-
ited by Mckinley Act............................................54

Good Points in the McKinley Tariff..........53, 54

Great Rebellion of 1861. Its cost..........................35

Great Bri tain's Policy towa rd America................8

u " greedy selfishness..........................11

" " policy, results of............................11

u " national capital less than our

gain since I860..........................................................34

Great Britain's fifty years of Free Trade in

Glasgow families (45,000)......................................4

Greeley, Horace. Opinion of Protection............G2

Growth of Tin Plato Industry..................................05

Hamilton, A. Duty of Congress....................8

Harrison, Presiden W. H. on Protection............28

Homo Markets vs. Markets of the World............36

How Free Traders would capture the latter.	36

How they have failed................................................86

Consumes 92 to 95 per cent, of products....	37

Dr. Franklin's opinion of........................................37

Benefit of..........................................38

Immensity of................................................................88

Home Trade. $50,000,000,000....................................88

Foreign Trade, 81,600,000,000..................................38

Tonnage of the Detroit River................................38

R. R. Freight of the United States......................38

And the farmer..........................................................40

Truck Farming............................................................40

Other benefits of........................................................41

Stimulates invention..................................................41

Encourages genius....................................................41

Incites to competition................................41

Illustrated.............................41

How Protection is applied..........................................48

Hill, D. B., on Wilson Bill............................................74

How Protection Protects............................................5

Huxley's, Prof. Opinion............................................7

Idle RHUs Reported Upon by N. Y Press...	90

Ignorance of tariff history..........................................66

Imports from United Kingdom..............................86

Imports greater than exix>rts in 1784................12

Imports under McKinley Tariff...............60, 72

And under free tariffs of 1816, 19. 1833, p.
22. 1846, p. 28. 1857, p. 38

Imports less than exports, '90 to '92......................72

" more than exports, 1893..............................72

1892—Prosperit	y.....................................73

1893—Depression,	terrible........................................73

Improvements in Massachusetts Woolen Mills.	89

Circulation of Wages in 1892 and 1890..............89

Five Years in Woolen Establishment*......	89

PAGE

Introduction...................................l; 7

Increase in wages, 1891-2....................,.	65

Invariable Rule, an...................................7

Increase in production..................................................65

Increase of Spindles, 1892............................................85

Increased use of cotton. 1892....................................65

Increased exports, under Reciprocity..................66

Increase and Decrease in Output of Produc-
tions for Five Years..........................89

Increase and Decrease of Wages for Labor....	88

Increased Wool Imports Shown by Table..........80

Industries Stimulated by National Prosperity.	84

Industries Used to Furnish War Supplies............83

Interest-bearing Bonds Sold......................................91

Jackson* President. Opinion of Protection	21

Jealousy or States..........................................8

Jefferson, Piesident, Opinion of Protection...	36

64 Kane Letter," Polk's....................................26

Labor Strikes. Report by Commisioner

of L................................................................................84

Effects of Strikes Shown by Table....................84

Employees Idle by Strikes....................................84

Free Trade Causes Idle Employees....................85

Loss to Employees Through Strikes..................84

Loss to Employers Through Strikes..................84

Loss Shown by Monthly Statements;................85

Land out of cultivation in England.................6

Leading question in first Constitutional Con-
vention—how to secure Protection................14

Linen, helped by McKinley Tariff.....................60

Linseed Oil. helped by McKinley Tariff................49

Live-stock Values, Depreciation............................81

Living, cost of, in England and U. S......................41

Wages greater in the United States....................42

Necessaries of life cost less in United States.	42

Comments of Inter-Ocean thereon....................41

Loss of trade in 1893......................................................71

London families (60,000)................................................6

Lumber exports..............................................................48

Lying of Mugwumps....................................................64

IVf acftlnery of Constitution started..................15

Madison, President. Opinion of Protection...	17

Manufactories, "accursed things11........................21

Massachusetts1 Labor Report....................................65

Mexican War, as affecting Tariff of 1846............82

Monroe, President. Opinion of Protection________17

Morley'8, John, opinion................................................7

Morrison Bill, The. 1884 ............................................46

Horizontal reduction of 20 per cent..................46

Defeated by four votes...................;.:	46

London Telegraph's comments on.................46

Mills1 Free Trade BUI, 1888.................... /	51

Mills1 views of Free Trade................*...	51

His bill in interest of........................	51

Recommended by Cleveland..................................51

Indorsed by Democratic Party, 1888.........	51

Passed by the House................................................51

Peaceful death in the Senate................................51

Mills, R. Q. His brilliant answers............. . 87

McKinley Bill, 1890. See Tariff of 1890................53

Mugwump lying. Continued......................................64

Manufacturers and Employers................................82

Cost of Products.Stimulated................................83

McKinley on Revenue Tariff..................................91

Manufacturing Fearfully Depressed...................90

Mass. Woolen wills Improvements....................89

Percentage of Cost Received by Labor......	88

Tariff and the Fishing Interest............................68

Thirteen Hundred Wage-Earner* Employed.	83

Wages Lowered and Raised........................83

Nails, Steel. Helped by Protective Tariff...	47

National Constitution. Demand for...............14

National Progress Culminates in 1892 and 1898	84
Navigation Laws, f British. How operated..9,10

New England's Idle Mills Shown by Tables....	90
Obscene books, pictures, etc., prohibited by

McKinley Act.................................54

Opinion of James G. Blaine, Wages........................5

" T. B. Reed, " ..........................5

" "J.G.Cannon, " ..........................6

w "J«F. Lacyt « .....................095

Opinion of John Ruskin, on England..........

" John Bright*

u 44 Bennett Burleigh, " ............

14 44 Joseph Chamberlain 44............

44 JohnMorley,

44 " Thomas Carly Ie, " ............

" 44 Prof. Huxley,

44 44 D. H. Mason on tariff rule..........

" 44 Senator D. B. Hill..................

Panics Of 1837, page 22,23. 1857 ........................33

Parliament, Acts of. Hostile to America..........9

Parliament, Acts of. Navigation Laws..............9

Parallel on Protection and Free Trade..................63

Petitions to Congress....................................................29

Periods:

First, Free Trade 7-15 First, Protection 15-18
Second, 44 18-20 Second, 44 a)-22
Third, " 22-23 Third, 44 JJ3-26

Fourth, 14 26-33 Fourth, 44	33

Polk's fraudulent campaign of 1844...........25-26

rprotective Tariff, A........................................................2

Protection defined............................................................2

Paupers of England........................................................6

| Protection. How to secure......................................14

[protection. Benefits of, as shown in 1789..........17

| Effect upon the county..........................................18

i Amended in 1812 and duties raised....................18

f Good results of............................................................18

Repealed in 1816..........................................................18

Protection, Benefits of, as shown in 18S4............20

Opposed by Free Traders........................................21

Supported by Andrew Jackson............................21

Great benefits from..............................................22

Amended in 1828..........................................................22

Great Prosperity under............................................22

Opinion of Henry Clay............................................22

^.Amended, 1832..............................................................22

Replied 1833......................................22

^Protection, Benefits of, as shown in 1842..............25

Protection, Benefits of, as shown in 1801..............85

Helps the Workingmen, with tables....................42

How wages have increased....................................42

^ How cost of living has decreased........................42

^E. Atkinson's tables..................................................42

presidents favorable to Protection:

. Geo. Washington.... 16 Millard Fillmore.	SO

James Madison......17 Andrew Jolinsou.	46

^Andrew Jackson... .21 James A. Garfield	40

Z&ch&ry Taylor.....30 Thomas Jefferson	16

Abraham Linclon.. .46 JolraQ. Adams ..	22

R. B. Hayes.........46 John Tyler............23

Benj. Harrison......46 James Buchanan 33

John Adams.........16 Ulysses S. Grant.	46

XJames Monroe.......17 Chester A. Arthur 46

IV. H. Harrison......23

^Presidents not favorable to Protection :

W James X. Polk... .25, 46 Franklin Pierce.	46

G. Cleveland.........46

People decreed .Democratic overthrow..................91

Proposed Tariff Revision............................................76

Protection and Free Trade Exports......................85

Protection Unable to Overcome Difficulties. .	84

Public Debt Decrease Shown by Table..............90

Public Debt Increased....................................................91

Presidents doubtful, Van Buren................................23

Peck's Report....................................................................G5

44 Protection makes rich richer, poor poorer"..	66

Raw Materials* What they aro....................36

Republican and Democratic policies contrasted	1

Republican Presidents all Protectionists..............46

41 Congress, passesMcKinlcy Tariff..	52

Reciprocity, what it is..............................................58

Strictly agrees with Protective ideas................58

The reasons for it...........................58, 59

Our gain thereby on sugar................................58

The N. Y. Sun on........................................................58

D.Webster on.........................;..........5S

Burrows on....................................................................58

Defined..............................................................................3

Illustrated......................................................................3

^ With whom impossible..............................................3

PAQK

Lord Salisbury's opinion of....................................4

Results of........................................................................65

Increased exports under..........................................66

Ruskin, John, opinion....................................................f>

Receipts exceed McKinlcy Law expenditure...	90

Reed on Wages................................................................91

Republicans predict result of McKinlov Law

repeal................................*............oi

Resolutions by Senator J. H. Gallingor..............76

M;zn!lU'tti»t Parallel. Protection vs. Free

Trade............................................................................53

Spirited reply of a woman................. .53

Soda Ash. duty on..........................................................47

Steel Rails, helped by Tariff....................43

44 Nails, 44 44 ......................................47

South, The. What Protect ion has done for it. GO, 61

Specie payments demanded......................................44

Shrinkage in value of Stocks, 1S93............................71

Subsidies..............................................................................3

Salisbury, Lord, on reciprocity................................4

Sheep, Loss of, iu England........................................6

Savings Bauks..................................................................70

Senators must defend interests................................74

Summary of the Situation..........................................90

Railroad mileage in the hauds of receivers..	90

Receipts of Government........................................yo

Sheep in the United States......................................81

Strikes, losses of.............................

Strikes under Free Trade Administration ...	85

Workmen out of employment..............................90

Tariff. What is a......................................................2

Free Trade defined........................................3

44 Protection 44 ........................................3

44 of 1789, for protection..................................15

Tariff of 1789. approved July 4, 1789........................15

First Act of first Congress......................................15

Supported by whom..................................................15

Benefits resulting from............................................17

Duties raised in 1S12..................................................18

Repealed in 1816............................................................18

Tariff of 1816. Wny it failed....................................19

Terrible distress.................................................19

Immense imports.....................f,..........19

Bankruptcy general..................................................19

Depression, fifty per cent......................................20

Amended in 1818..........................................................20

Repealed in 1824 ............................................................20

Tariff 01 1834, for Protection......................................20

Opposed l>3' Free Traders........................................20

Supported by A. Jackson........................................21

Great beuefi ts from....................................................21

Amended iu 1828..........................................................21

Great prosperity under ....................................21

Opinion of Henry Clay............................................21

Amended in 1832 ..........................................................22

Repealed iu 1833............................................................22

Tariff Of 1833, For Free Trade................................22

Its character..................................................................22

Awful results from....................................................22

No money........................................................................22

No price for farmers' productions......................22

Money loss, $1,000,000,000............................22

Loss of revenue........................................23

Panic of 1837..................................................................23

Tariff revision proposed by J. II. GuUiugcr....	76

Tariff of 1833. Unspeakable distress....................23

Repealed in 1812.........................................................24

Tariff of 1842. For Protection..................................24

Splendid results from..............................................24

Great and general prosperity..............................2-1

President Polk's opinion........................................24

Compared with Free Tmde Tariffs....................24

Hie South opposed to Protection........................24

44 44 seeks to overthrow Protection...	24

Fraudulent campaign of 1844................................25

Col. Benton's Statement..........................................25

Polk's two-faced campaign.;................................25

44 for Free Trade, South................................25

44 44 Protection, North................................25

41 Fraud successful.............................26

44 Censured by his biographer...................26PAGE

Polk's Censured by Senator WebBter......

M	44 44 " Johnson....... 20

41 Indorsed by Democratic Party....... 26

Tariff repealed In 1846......................... 27

" " by casting vote of Dallas..... 27

Tariff of 1848. For Free Trade............... 27

Evil results from...........................27, 82

McKinley says..............................

Petitions Congress.........................

Hunt*9 Maqazins comments...............

N. Y. Hercud comments..................... 30

Unemployed Workingmen appeal............ SO

President Fillmore's oolnion of.............. 30

Reason for this Free Trade policy........... 80

44 stated by Secretary R. J. Walker.., 81

Tariff of 1848. Agriculture its basis.......... 31

Agriculture to conquer markets of world... 81

Walker's theory answered.....'............. 81

Evil results postponed....................... 32

Depression and Disaster, general..........

Democrat® still for Free Trado, 1850........ 83

Amended and duties lowered, 1857 .......... 83

Tariff of 1857. For Free Trade................ 83

Panic. Ruin, and bankruptcy............... 83

President Buchanan's opinion of............ 83

Revenue insufficient..................... — 83

Loan for current expenses required......... 83

Rate of interest, 8 to 12 per cent..........

Government credit very low................. 83

Repealed in 1861............................. 33

Tariff of 1861. For Protection................ 88

Passed by Republicans...................... 88

Magnificent results of......................33,84

What we consume at home................. 84

Census fignres 1860 to 1890 marvelous....... 84

The great Rebellion, 1861-1805............... 35

Its character and object..................... 85

No Protection under Coufed. Constitution... 35

Action of its leaders......................... 85

What it cost the Nation..................... 85

Patriotism and Protection successful....... 35

Home Markets vs. Markets of the World... 86
Plans Free Traders to get markets World ... 86
Free Raw Materials to give us all markets.. 30
44 41 44 do not give us all markets 87

Illustrated................................... 37

What are Raw Materials.................... 37

Something for Free Traders to explain..... 87

Mr. Mills'orilliant answer................... 87

Our Home Market consumes 95 per cent... 87

Dr. Franklin's opinion....................... 87

Benefits of Home Market.................... 88

Tariff of 1861. Foreign Trade, 81,000.000,000.. 88

Tonnage of Detroit River, 1889 .............. 88

44 Loudon and Liverpool............ 88

Railroad freights in United States, 1889 ..... 88

44 Goods for Goods '• theory...................38

Prof. Perry'8 Free Trade Axiom............. 89

Boston Journal on.......................... 39

Illustrations of its fallacy.................... 39

French and English Trade................... 39

Our R. R. Fr^hts vs. Imports of the World 39

Marvelous figures............................ 40

The Home market and the fanner........... 40

Cost of living in United States and England. 41

Wages greater in the United States......... 41

Protection helps wages and workers........ 42

E. Atkinson's statistics...................... 42

Amended in 1867 ............................ 42

For increased Protection.................... 42

High Tariff on Wool......................... 42

Tariff on Steel RaUs in 1870.................. 43

Results almost incredible.................... 43

Financial panic of 1878 ....................... 44

Tariff of 1888. A revision of that of 1801...... 45

Duties on Wool reduced...................... 45

The Morrison Bill of 1884 .................... 40

Its defeat, and sorrow of Free Traders...... 40

President Cleveland's Free Trade Message,
1887, seta forth soveral propositions........ 47

PAGE

Mills4 Free Trade Bill, 1888, History of....... 51

Republican President elected 1888........... 61

Opposed desperately by the Democrats..... 52

Passed by both Houses of Congress......... 52

Approved by Pres. Harrison, Oct. 6,1890.. 62

Democratic and Mugwump lying............ 62

Depew's opinion.............................. 68

Some good points of McKinley Act stated..63,64

How it affects Tin Plate industry............ 54

How British Tin Plate Makers treated us... 64

The Free List in the McKinley Bill.......... 65

Total Deficiency under Wilson-Gorman Law .. 90

Opinion of Speaker Reed on Wages.......... 91

Result of the Repeal of McKinley Law...... 91

Revenue Tariff as viewed by McKinley...... 91

Sale of Interest-bearing Bonds.............. 91

Tables showing Decrease in Public Debt....... 90

44 Showing Increase of Public Debt......... 91

44 Shewing Strikes.......................... 84

44 Showing Treasuiy Account............... 91

Treasury Conditions........................... 91

Tariff of 1890. McKinley's opinion............ 65

How it differs from the English.............. 55

How our laborers are benefited by........... 65

Reciprocity, what it is......................56,67

Strictly in narmonv with Protection........ 67

Helps our trade with South America, etc... 68
What Protection has done for the South.... 68
Singular attitude of the South on Protection 58

Tariff and Wages. Blaine's opinion........... 5

T. B. Reed's opinion....... 5

J. G. Cannon's opinion.... 5

J. F. Lacy's opinion....... 6

Tin Plate. Helped by the McKinley Tariff. .64,65

Great results already accomplished......... 64

Action of British Tin Plate Makers.......... 64

Truck Farming. Its growth under Protection 40

Two undisputed facts.......................... 4

Tariff Hlstoiy continued from January, 1892.. C4

Threat of Free Trade, effects of............... 71

Two policies contrasted....................... 1

Vie w of Revenue Tariff byJMcKinley......... 91

Washes and Wage Earners...................4,71

Wage Earners in England..................... 6

Women and Girls as workers.................. 6

Washington, President. Opinion of.......... 16

Walker, R. J. Argument for Free Trade...... 81

Walker, R. J. Argument answered........... 81

Wool. Protective Tariff, on 1867.............. 42 ^

Why the Tariff of 1816 failed................... 10

Why I am a Protectionist....................68, 64

Workingmen appeal to Mayor of New York... 80

Workingmen, what they knew................. 67

Wilson Bill, what it Is.......................... 72

Wilson Bill: Not alone opposed by Republicans '

Comments by N.Y. Sun...........

44 Courier-Journal......

" N. Y. Herald..........

44 Cinn. Enquirer........

" N. Y. World..........

" Plaindealer...........

u Phila. Record..........

14 Chicago Times.........

44 Springfield Republican
44 Providence Journal...
44 Manchester Union....

Duty of Senators.................

Wools and woolens, bow affected..............

Wage Earners—1898-94......................... 71

44 44 Sufferings of,	.......... 71

Wage Earners Increase and Decreased...... 88

Wages Circulation Larger in 1892 than in 1890.- 89
Woolen Establishments Report for Five Years 89
Woolen Industries in New Hampshire Crippled 89
Bill not Signed by President Cleveland 77

Wilson L

Wool Imports Shown by Table................

Wool Iudustpy Discussed by Senators Morrill

and Gallinger..............................

Yorkshire Benefited by Wilson-Gorman

Law........................................

86This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2015