Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1884-09-05


the powers of the National Government. The
Republican party believes that taxes on im-
ported goods should be the chief source of
National revenue, and that In levylnH these
taxes, called duties they. should bo levied,
not only to raiso revenue, but to foster, pro-
tcct and diversity American labor and pro.
ductlons. The Democratic party favor duties
for revenue only, or exclusiyoly-they are
very touchy about words-and thoir leaders
try all sorts of phrases TO conceal their mean.
ing. This Issue Is getting clearly defined,
aud is to-day the chief Immediate issue be.
twoon the two parties. II ls true that in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut,
we have protective Democrats, as we used TO
have antl-slavery Democrats or Bank Demo.
GRATIS &C lemperance Democrats, bus the
position of the Democratic party is for
toriu Tor revenue only and FREQ trade rs soon
as possible. Upon this Mr.. Carlisle was
elected Speaker. OF tho House, Mr.. Hurd was
nominated in the Toledo. district, and Mr..
Converse was defeated In the Columbus dis
trict. This was tho first issue that
MIR. CLEVELAND FonGoT IN his LETTER
of acceptance In favor of his moral issue.
Ho prefers TO pose us n moral reformcr rather
than AS free trndcr, but nll the same ho
would approve any free trade bill that would
pass Congress. Who does not know that III
Blaine Is elected he viii seek to maintain tho
protective policy which for twenty-five years
has been the policy of the Republican party,
and who does not know thatif Cleveland is
elected he viii have immediate and continual
agitation for the reduction and abolition of
all protective dutiesp
What ia tho object of these duties, and how
do they affect the different classes of our peo.
pie? These questions have been so fully an
swcred by recent speukcrs In Congress, and
especially by General Robinson, Mr.. Taylor.
and Major Mckinley, md Others of ohio, that
7 Will only state thom In general terms. The
object of protective duties is to encourage
home production. AS tho duty or tux Is only
levied on foreign goods, IL follows that, to the
extent of the tax, 1t is a discrimination in
favor OF slminr goods mado here. Tho do
nestle manufacturer Is encouraged to make
them here " the cost TO him here Is no
gfRn tnpt haN Ian s.rt l.A tt.l,
with the tax nddcd he can mako IL here, and
thus supply the market with tho homo pro-
duce. The advantage to the country Mt large
is that he becomes Il consumer OF other home
products, such ns food, clothing, etc, instead
OF u competitor. If he has no such protection
he must reduce the wages of his labor, or the
other pursuit. Tho Republican party believes
that the protective duty, while 1t may In tho
first instance increase the cost of the article
to the consumer. confers benefit by the di-
versty of employment by increasing the
price of labor, and making a market, and in
the end, by domestic competition, lower the
this reasoning is applied to the vast amount
of production affected by the tariff laws, IL
becomes question of unusual Importance
touching every citizen of the United states.
OUR DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS,
employing millions of laboring men, are the
great consumers of our surplus farm prod
ucts, and of the productions of other me.
chanlcs. In this way any advantage derived
by productive duties is generally distributed
among all classes, whether farmers, shoe
makers tatlors or merchants. Under this
system our production has extended to all
kinds of manufactures in all metals and all
textile fabrics, giving market for all raw
materials and all food and neccssaries of life.
But the chief benefit of a protective duty is
that 1t secures to the iaboring men and women
of this country good, fair wages for honest
labor. i confess that this is the main reason
why have uniformly supported protective
duties. 1t is not good policy in this country
to have men and women work for the bare
necessaries of life without means to improve
their condition, to educate their children and
share in the benefits of social life The men
who labor must constitute the great mass of
our people, and with them must rest all polit-
ical power. The object of good government
should be always to protect and foster their
interests and to secure them good wages full
employment and all the comforts and benefits
of life consistent with ull the rights of prop
disturbance of this protective policy creates
doubt and staEnation, deprives laboring men
of honest employment and causes panics,
strikes, reduction of wages aud organized
riots.
The threat of the Morrison bill deprived
thousands of men of employment and made
stagnant the great productive industries of
the country. This, fellow-ctizens, is one
strong reason why the Democratic party
ought not now to be trusted with National
power, for Democratic success means reduc-
lion of protective duties and II gradual but
sure overthrow of our manufacturing indus
tries.
THE DUTY ON WOOL.
But they tell us, and am told that Brother
GeddeS told you that | am responsible for the
reduction of the duty on wool. In this be is
no worse than Governor Hoadly, who last
year made the reduction of the duty on wool
in the tariff of 1883 the burden of his story. He
aud Mr.. Converse and Judge Geddes and other
leaders promised that the Democrats would
restore the wool tariff of 1857. regard this
wool cry as the cheapest and meanest dema-
Eogsm since the Democratic cry of Polk and
Dallas and the tariff of 1872.
Let us see who is responsible for the reduc,:
ysas Sn of proe 56e o duty March 9s w9s @ tho br ]
revenue, of the National Government
exceeded the wants of tho 80 Govern
ment more than hundred i0o million dol
a general demand for the reduction of taxes,
and this was so far ncquisced in that the
House of Representatives passed bill redu-
cling internal taxes, and II commission was ap-
pointed to make report to Congress of a re-
vision and reduction of duties on imported
goods; This commission took testimony all
over the country, and reported a bill, which
proposed general reduction OF from ten to
twenty-five per cent, and among other things,
reduction no Of the duty on wool and woole1
at once struggle occurred between the two
great parties as to the extent of the proposed
reduction on different kinds OF goods; The
Republicans, generally maintaining their pro-
tectlve principles, opposed the reduction on
foreign goods that came into competition with
American industries, and the Democrats,
with scarce IN exception, favorlng still
greater reductions of nll duties. 1t was
the old fight. over again. The votes
show clearly the uniform tendency of the
Democratic party toward the reduction OF
duties and free trade, and of the Republican
party toward the maintenance of protective
duties on articles that compete with our
home industry. Among other changes made
were important notifications In the tariff on
woolen and cotton goods. | believe that the
reduction of the auty on wool was bad IN
gree of protection as any manufactured
article. ] know that under our pro
tective laws the number of sheer
had increased from Io,Oa0 0JO in 1857 TO 5000,
0)l in 1883, and the quantity of wool produced
from $1,000, 900 pounds to 32J,OOOOOO pounds.
believe that the true policy of the Govern
ment was to let the duty stand without change
leaving the gradual reduction of the price of
wool TO come from domestic competition and
not from foreign competition. This opinion
AS soon as it was possible under the rules OF
the Senate l offered an amendment to the
Tariff Commission BILL restoring In sub
stance the duties fiXed by the act of 1867
which were entirely satisfactory to the WOO
growers.
1t appears from the Record, which have
before me, that this amendment of mine was
voted for by majority of the Republicans
present, and voted against by all the Demo
cratic senators voting except three. The de
bate shows that with General Logan aud
others, spoke and voted for the amendment
Mr.. Bayard, Mr.. Beck, Mr. Maxey and Othel
Democratic Senators, spoke and voted agains
IL. Some ten or twelve Republican Senators
mostly from New England, voted with the
Democrats, and thus caused the reduction oi
the duty on wool. Some of the Democratic
Senator'S including Mr.. Bayard, advocated
the repeal of all duties on wool. and
THE GENERAL POSITION OF THE DEMOCRATS
was that wool was n raw article of industry
which should be made free 1 have alway,
regarded the course upon that question of the
Now England Senators, who are good Repub
leans, as unfortunate for them, Inconsistent
with their known taru views, and as blum
der which has had, and will have in future
Legislation, injurious effects TO their interests
and perhaps to the interests of the country
They supported their votes on the ground
that American wool should bear, like Other
articles a fair reduction of duties, and theiI
constituents, ns purchasers and consumers OF
the wool, were interested in II, and naturally
desired 10 get II us cheaply as possible. The
Democrats, however voted against The duty
on wool on the general principle that they
were opposed to protective duties, and espe
oially on articles like wool, which they claimed
were raw articles, and should be free. 1t !,
true that after being defeated in every effort
to restore the duty on WOOL / finally voted foI
the passage OF the tnrn bill. Sometimes
have doubted whether that was wise
vote, but my Judgment then was, ant
Is now, that as the bill contained an enormous
relief from taxation to our people, as II EN-
braoed In its scope thousands of articles be
aid hat NlauNa ala