The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-01
Hon. VIM. n. morri.on.

4Dl6 BDcGCu IlC AAOAA
we extract the following:
With what sincerity can 1t be said
that the manufacturing industries of
the country will be either destroyed
or injuriously affected if the present
tariff is not maintained, and espe-
cially if it is reduced to a revenue
basis. To pay the war debt, in
GLIDING pensions, will require
81, 600, 0OO, 900, and the ordinary ex-
are and will continue to
be greater IN proportion to popula-
ton than in the revenue taritfperiod.
Looking to the opportunity these
vast sums afford for gathering taxes
if for revenue only, why should pro-
tectionists refuse TO be comforted!
They admit in this debate for the
first time that in all else but the cost
of labor we can manufacture and
compete with all the world, but
still insist that we must protect to
for the difference in the
wages oflabor.
Under the revenue tariff of 1876
the duty on iron was 80 per cent.
The tariff of 1857, for which Stephen
A. Douglas, Charles Sumner and
Henry Wilson voted, reduced it to
"a per cent. This tariff and the Nor
rill tariff of 1861 were approved by
Mr.. Buchanan, protectionist. and
1t is this "a per cent. tariff which Is
always produced as a witness that a
revenue tariff will destroy the iron
industry in Ohio and throughout
the country. Yet it appears in the
census statement a. that the total
wages paid for labor in iron and
steel mills and factories was less
than 10 per cent, or $40 for every
300 worth of iron and steel made /;
under a "a per cent. tariff the I'M
porter must pay $24 to import iron
valued at 800, or So more than all
the wages paid to produce the
home made iron. The total wa
ges paid in all our iron mines
and works in the census year
was $65,OO0,OO0; the product of
100000 tons. The freight on like
quantity from the works in Great
Britain to the sea, thence to the
United States, thence to the center
of population, is at least So per ton,
or SS2,OOO,O0O. Suppose rates of
wages in Great Britain are but half
the rates here, this cost IN freight
alone compensates for the difference.
The value of our whole iron and
steel product in the census year was
1926, 557 ,6S5. suppose "a per cent.
revenue tariff, as low as that of 1857,
when we had no war debt or pen
sion list. was adopted. The "a per
cent. duty to be paid to import what
we make would be 81, 100000. That
is to say, the importer under a "a
per cent. duty, before he comes into
competition with our iron and steel,
must pay $71,OOO,OOO, or $6,000,OO0
more than all the wages paid for the
whole iron and steel product in the
United States. The people who con-
sumed the iron and steel product of
1880 could have imported it, paid all
the wages paid in iron works and
mines, and saved $6,000,000, while
the workers would have been left
free to follow other pursuits.
Two years ago the manufacturers
appeared before the committee to
resist any reduction of the twenty
eight dollar duty on steel rails. One
of the ablest of them, MIR. Wharton,
who never UNDERSTANDS anything
which will help his interests, stated
that the difference in the cost OF
making steel rails in this country
and in England does not exceed
twenty-five per cent. When it was
proposed to fix the duty at $15 per
ton. which was at least fifty per cent.
on foreign cost, it was resisted by
Mr.. Wharton, by the American Iron
and Steel association, and by
the friends of protection here
and everywhere as an effort
to destroy our industries. The
bill introduced by me in the
forty-fourth congress reduced duties
OH cotton goods to the average rate
of thirty per cent. That was called
a tariff for revenue only, and those
who seek to continue the present
tariff opposed it under the pretence
that it did not sufficiently protect
labor and would destroy the cotton
industry. The census shows that all
the wages paid in cotton mills in
1880 were less than twenty-three pei
cent, or less than twenty-three dol.
lars for every one hundred dollars
of goods made. Raw cotton is the
article of chief value in cotton goods
in all the heavier and corser goods il
is more than half the value, but not
near so much on finer and lighter
goods.
The foreign manufacturer buys
our cotton, two-thirds of all we
grow, carries it TO and over the ses
to the mill and back again 10 oul
people when made into cloth, an6
pays under a 80 per cent. duty, $50
for every 800 worth of cloth re
turned. And this we are asked tC
believe would destroy our cotton in
dustries. Not only does the foreign
but he must go to Iowa, the center
of the grain growing and provision
producing region, thousand
miles from the sea, for food
While the chosen representative
of cotton industries were here
protesting against deduction Of
duties, asserting that the present
high tariff must be continued 10 pro.
tect them or they would be crushed
out and perish in our markets, oul
cotton goods we're selling unprotec
ted in foreign markets in free com
petition with the rest of the world
Last year cotton goods of our make
sold in China valued at $500, 600.
In view of these facts the often re-
peated assertions that reduction
of the tariff to a revenue basis will
destroy or injuriously affect the cot
ton industry is too absurd for belle
even by those who make them. A re
duction of the tariff to revenue basis
will benefit the manufacturer to the
extent it cheapens the cost of ma
terial and production, and benefit
the laborer to the extent it cheapeni
the cost of the necessaries and com
forts of life, while the importer
must still pay more in duty on i'm
ported goods than the manufacture
pays for wages in making domesti,
goods. 1t will increase rather thai
diminish the wages of labor by ex
tending aud multiplying market
for the products of labor. AS wei
manacle men for self defense as tt
circumscribe markets for the pro
ducts Of labor to increase wages.