The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-11-09

mon occurrence for Frenchlagricultural
labOrers whose yearly wages amount TO
hnt $40 TO save out of this s 10 per year.
This is over 80 per cent. of his wages.
How does he do it? He pays but $2o
to $40 for a years rent of fOur-rOomed
house and a garden. He pays less for
years clothing than the American, who
paws the cost Of tariff subsidy to the
manufacturer, pays for a single sult
He pays less for furnishing MS mouse
than the American pays to furnish a
bedroom, and in like proportion for
every necessity.
The result is the French labOrer, on
one-third the wages of an American,
lives better and saves more money than
Our cOuntrymen. 1t is so rare for an
American day OF agricultural labOrer to
save $40 per year that doubt If any of
Won who hear me tonight can cite a
present instance. Certainly you can
not cite me the case of one who saves 30
per cent. of his wages, or say Sl42 per
year. The tariff makes every American
pay about 40 per cent. more than ne
Should for all he consumes. How then
can he save anything?
The thing to be accomplished ana
what we want, it seems to me, Is to pro-
cure for the American labOrer not only
higher wages than his European fellow
workman, but also higher purchasing
power for the wages he receives.
This we can only do by reducing the
burden of his taxation, both internal
reyenue and CustOm-hOuse taxes, and
the cry that reduction of these taxes
is to produce a harmful efect upon the
labOring man is one of those raise IDEAS
which would neveT have obtained foot
hold, had it not been for the great et-
Z ~ ivaINr fAyp in tnTnGf-
ed individuals who have put them III
circulation.
The immense surplus in the Federal
Treasury, engendering extravaganza
and corruption, is proof in itself that
our present system of taxation Is at
fault, aside from the fact that 1t impo-
ses unequal burdens upon the people.
The advocates of high duties have
been indiscreet enough to recently aY0W
their willingness to advocate tariff for
protection, with revenue as mere In
cident. The bOldness of this declara-
ton from MeasTs. Kelly of Pennsylva-
mia, and Mckinley of Ohio, indicates a
plan of so complete peTversiOn of the
public function of tariff legislation
from its only Legitimate purpose of pro-
Yiding revenue to the Government,
into a scheme of taxing the people for
the benefit of a certain class of manu-
facturers, that no more tlagrant case OF
a policy of class legislation could be cI-
ted by the anti-mOnOpOlists.
The Democratic party, basing its po-
sitiOn upon the public welfare, and the
constitutional modes and objects of ad-
ministering the Government, insists
upon a tariff for revenue whenever 1t
speaks as apaTty.
Unless the now generally accepted
laws and rules of political economy are
impOtent fallacies, the United States
foreign merchandise, unless the United
States sell an equal value of their own
products to foreigners.
Trade must be an eXchaDg ge of articles.
For us to pay foreigners in money for
what we buy of them, or for foreigners
to nav us in gold OF silver for what they
take of us, cannot long continue. If
then our products and manufactures are
to 90 on increasing in quantity and
quality and value, as we hope and eX-
pect they are to increase, the United
States must find an outside market for
their surplus products and take foreign
products in exchange therefor.
But how are we to find foreign mar
kets for our surplus manufactures if we
aim to exclude surplus foreign articles
from our own shores? And how shall
our products be carried to foreign mar
ketsP And this brings me to the ques-
tiOn of our shipping.
Our shipping tonnage has in twenty
wears declined a million and half tons.
We now carry in American ships but 8
per cent. of the worlds commerce. Our
own commerce for 1881 was S1,675, ,O24, :
31S. The ocean freights on this, in
elusive of mail service, were $167. .JO2,-
421. If to this we add the amounts paid
for the passenger trade, about S24,ODO,-
900 year, we find our ocean commerce
worth in freight and passage mOuey
alone over $191, 100000. Of this but 10
per cent. goes to Americans.
OF 100000 bushels of grain eX
ported last year it is reported that not
bushel went in an American ship. The
sailors required to do our own trade
would be over 100000 men if we did our
own work, but we pay to foreigners
over S151, 100000 for doing this work
that we might, but for our bad tariff
and shipping laws, do ourselves at a
great profit.
We can build better, feeter and
stronger ships than our foreign rivals,
but our tariff laws will not allow our
ship-buildeTs to compete with foreign
builders in the purchase of the material
for ship-building. compelling them by
the tariff on the materials to build a
one thOusand-tOn iron ship to pay over
$4,000 in duties.A This tax is collected
by the Custom House if the materials
are imported, but if purchased from
American manufacturers they collect it
by adding it to the cost of the
materials they sell. The duties would
pay the labor bill for building a wooden
ship of the same tonnage. Wooden
ships cannot compete with iron vessels.
Hence the policy which prevents Ameri-
cans from prOfitably building iron yes
sells is one that cOmpels us to abandon
that field. In doing this we destroy
many profitable industries, for the con
structiOn of ship of $500 tons gives
employment to 900 men of over thirty
trades, paying an average of $500 per
year to each. This is nearly 800 higher
than the average yearly pay of labor in
the twenty principal cities of the
United States.
These are but few of the evils that
grow out of the loss of American ship
ping interests. l have not time to dis
cuss them on this occasion, but can at
least indicate some of the remedies
that Congress should apply. There
should be such a change in our tariff
laws as to enable Americans to obtain
the materials at home or abroad for
building ships and to build and employ
them with the same freedom and profit
that marked the days of American sue
cess and prestige on the sea. There