Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1883-09-07

y. %. AMEN NO, n, Cle
-------.----------- -----.------..---------.--.-
to where responsibility for the reduction Of |
the tariff on wool belongs and ] ask you to |
judge, also, OF party which, in the face OF
such record, can claim what our Democratic
friends are claiming about this matter.
THAT "sEcrIos" PLATFORM.
And now few words about the tariff qucs
tion generally. Ny friend Mr.. Nevin did not
call your attention, rs he might have done, 10
the very singular platform upon which my
friend Judge Hoadly stands in this cnsnpaign,
while ago. the Democratic party has been over
a free-trade party. They never hositRted so 10
declare themselves. In 1879 they did, how
ever, for the first time, declare themselves in
favor of n tariff for revenue only. Well, there
was not much discussion about TINT matter
then. We were then talking about the rights
of men, colored men particularly, in the
South, to vote, and the tariff question did not
cut much of figure, and the result was that
our Democratic friends did not get any profit
from the experience of that campaign. and so
when they came 10 the campaign of 1880 they
repeated that same declaration and then the
question turned very largely on that issue.
The campaign was decided on tnat question.
In that campaign they did not hesitate to tell
us that they were then, by that declaration, as
always they had been, opposed 10 protective
tariff But when they were defeated 60 over
whelmingly, they found out that the people of
return TO free trade. They at once became
aware of the fact. and had 1t most en-
phatically impressed upon their minds
that free trade rae ,N was not ..,uo The
| ii they wanted to get into power. So from that
day TO this that party has been trying to show
the people of tho country, by some kind OF n
declaration, that they are not as ther fathers
were, q free-trade party.
But they have all kinds in their party. most
of them rabid free-traders, and so it happened
that when they met at Columbus this year TO
frame platform, they could not exactly agree
| 70 declare for protective tariff, or tor tree
| trade, and so they did the best they could do
under the circumstances, and they made a
| platform, which, like kentucky during the
war, contributes full quota 10 both sides,
with lot OF bushwhackers thrown in for
quantity. Laughter.
. II has an assortment OF planks, all in one
n sort of 4 pluribus urs,tm atfair--one for free
! trade and another for protective tariff, and
still another that is kind OF a liberal-conscr-
tice-go-between-as-you kind OF plank
to suit those who are neither protectionists nor
free-traders. And Judge Hoadly has been
going about over the State trying TO define his
I position with respect to this question in con
formity to that kind of plank. hope his
| performance has been as amusing to him as il
has been 10 other people. A DAY or two ago
cut out of a newspaper think it was the San
dusky Register, II little extract which struck
me as describing most completely the kind oi
success he had met with in that undertaking
] want TO read il TO you as not only defining
the Democratic position with respect TO this
question. but more especially OF the position
of my friend Judge Hoadly. II says:
4 'As near as We can make ont from judge
Hoadly's speeches on the tnriH question, he il
in favor OF a iudicious tariff for revenue only
and revenue tariff for judicious protection
only [laughter] graded in the revenue Office
as 10 either protect manufacturers or manu-
facture protectors, and we don't understand
which, [Renewed laughter judicion'
; tariff the Judge explains, for revenue onil
means only tariff for protected judiciousness
and that only Roars OF laughter.
That statement is not one whit overdrawn
! As said before the Democratic party founc
itself in such q situation that il could no
; agroe, and if it could have agreed in the ligh
r OF its experience OF 1880, it did no
have the courage TO express its con
yictions; and the result is that w
l hive n plank in the democratic platform
r which declares that the Democratic party is il
favor of a tariff 10 meet the expenses OF th
l Government--a tariff for revenue limited Z
{ the expenses of Government economically nd
l minstered. and IL wants that so adjusted as Il
prevent equal burdens encourage American
industries and American laborers, and not 4
foster monopolies The mere reading of !
! shows that instead OF being plain, clear deca
; tion which would have defined position in
: telligibly, they have purposely dealt in dupiit
ity in order that nobody might be able 10 nm
a derstand just where they do stand with regar
: to the question. And that OF itself, considern
: the character of the question, ought TO b
! enough TO cause the people of the State c
] Ohio, as they no doubt will to deny their al
C plication for power in this instance.
PROTECTION AND THE FARMERS.
/ am not going to enter into any cxtende
: discussion of this question to-day, after a
q that has been so well and so pointedly said b
u Mr.. Nevin; but before dismissing it-inasmuc
VI | ug n N
{ want to consider at least one OF the objection
Z that my friend Judge Hoadly is making whe
Z he gets into free-trade district TO protectiy
, tariff system. Judge Hoadly says that pr
r tective tariff is OF no benefit whatever to th
:, farmer. And j have no doubt, when he ge
u up here in Miami County--if he should CON
u again and have n talk with the iarmcrs-.l
:, would labor TO impress that idea upon h
q hearers. Let me consider II for just OF
!, single moment If you do not have
y protective tariff system we can not wit
u labor at the cost 1t Is in this country, compc
, with the manufacturers OF Europe, where labt
4 is two or three times as cheap as II is her
~ Under protective tariff system we have OF
industries developed, we have our resources q
opened up, We have home markets made |
ss these mills, factories, mines, and machir
d shops, that are scattered over the state, whcl
" men are employed who do not produce whi
II you do, but who have 10 eat. Thus the farme
(. have home markets, with ready sales for a
ir their products. But aside from this incident
n protection, there is levied by the laws OF II
v United States, under the policy of the Repn
A. ican party, protective duty upon the impo
m tation of every product that can bo broug
m into this country 10 compete with the Anne
m can farmer Our Canadian friends C,
oe not bring their horses to compete wi
n. ours in the markets at Baltimore or New Yor
10 nor can they bring their wheat, corn, rye
49, barley until they first paid duty, just as ft
st eign manufacturers have 10 pay duty on
n they briDg that may compete with our man
il factures. But the incidental protection
OF spoke of is the benefit want 10 refer 10 mo
ne particularly. In 1880 there We're produced
r. this country two billions bushels OF corn.
Of that great product less than five per cent W
oil sent abroad, exported and sold at Liverpool
ch less than one hundred million bushels out
st two billions. All the balance Of that produ
ut all the ninety-lye per cent. that did not
'e- abroad, was given 10 the home markets, Al
an they paid good prices, as you will rcmemb
ke and so IL will be with the product Of this yei
as gets no benefit from this because OF
sr- home Market for the reason that Lverp,
ly fixes the price, and that he gets simply
10 price at Liverpool, less transportation, ms
" ance, DC. Now, that is not truo In the II
90 place, but II IL were, as will concede for I
he sake OF argument. there II another questi
ID, behind all that, that every farmer as well
er Judge Hoadiy understands III Liverpool IL
ut the price, what fixes Liverpool II you w
rd 10 turn 10 a free-trade policy the result wol
I'd be that these men, now non-producers OF wi
lat you produce, would have 20 go into comps
st, tion with you, In order that they might ma
It. a living. 70 raise their own support; and !
AZ only that, but they would swell the produ