The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1884-10-30
PROTECTION.

When the Democratic party went int
rebellion because Abraham Lincoln hat
been elected President, M. Churchill wa:
manager of Keystone Furnace, in thi:
county. In the summer of 1861, he re
cruited the first company of three year:
soldiers in Jackson County. He rost
from Captain to Colonel. Since the wal
he has been engaged in the iron business
in GAINESVILLE. Recently he made the fol
lowing speech, in Zanesville:
MIR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLE
MEN
It's with reluctance that appear before
you this late in the canvaSS-after you
have heard the issues between the parti"s
so ably discussed by others, and my only
apology is that 1 have been requested by
some of your number to speak, and feel
ing as I do that the result of this election
is fraught with more than ordinary con-
sequences to us all, L have consented.
The issues between the parties are
there is one, which, in my judgment, is
paramount to all others, namely, whether
the American market is to be preserved
for Americans, or handed over to En-
gland? Whether this nation, possessing
the most boundless possibilities, after
having fostered and protected its indus
tries for the past % years. until we can
and do manufacture every needful arti-
Gle, giving employment to our own peO-
pie at wages averaging fully one hundred
per cent above those paid for like work in
foreign lands, shall now reverse this ben
'efcent policy, let down the bars, and in
vite foreigners to come in and possess our
market, and in so doing destroy the busi-
ness of our manufactures, and turn our
skilled mechanics ont of their places, or
make it possible for hem to work only
at about the foreign standard of wages:
Now, my fellow citizens, this is the
question of questions of this campaign,
particularly to you workingmen. l am
aware our Democratic friends prefer to
discuss some other questionable Multi
gan letters for acknowledgements and
'reform" with large r, anything, every
thing, rather than define their position on
the tariff. The fact is, that the Demo-
cratic party in this case, as in all others
of moment for the past quarter of CEN
tury, has managed to get on the wrong
defensible position, and they know it,
hence their preference to discuss some
thing else. They have no tariff policy
which they dare openly avOw. Their last
platform on the subject is mere tumble
of words, depending, like Jack Bunsby's
opinion, upon the application" 1t can
be construed to mean free trade in free
trade localities, and protection in protect
i've localities. 1t has been aptly termed
"a tariff for Office only"
On the contrary, the Republican party
holds decided views on this subject, and
having the courage of its convictions,
boldly avoWS them. Hear this extract
from its national platform adopted last
June at Chicago:
It is the first duty of a good Government to
protect the rights and promote the interests of
most productive Of general prosperity, and the
OF the people. We, therefore, de-
mand that the imposition of duties on foreign
imports (good~) shall be made not for revenue
only but that in raising requisite revenues for
the Government such duties shall be SO levied
to afford security to our diversified industries
and protection to the rights and wages of the
aborer, 10 the end that active and Intelligent
labor, as we'll as capital, may have its just
reward, and the laboring man his full share in
the national prosperity.
There is no misunderstanding the mean
ing of this plank of the Republican plat
form. 1t stands ailleQtioocalzy for pro
tectioll.
But do not propose to confne myself
to the utterances of party platforms to
ind out where the parties stand on this
question. The acts of a party, like those
Of an Individual, speak louder than mere
them.
One among the first acts of the Repub-
lican party on assuming control of the
in 1861, was to pass a highly
protective tariff. With some inlsnsider-
able changes, this tariff remained in force
until the passage of the present law, in
March, 1888. While the duties are too
low on some things-made SO by the con-
slant and persistent opposition to any
Tariff nrOtQptIOn in
of Congress, and the duty on
some articles may be too high, vet the
fact remains that all of these tariffs aOere
DrstectfCe tariffs, as distinguished from
what Is known as revenue tariffs, or "tar-
if for revenue only"
This is the Gff7mati0e record of the Re
publican party on the tariff question
while in power.
: Now let us examine the record ef the
Democratic party. ''.'''
That party since the close of the war,
has several times carried the lower House
Of Congress-, enabling it to elect the Speak
or and appoint all the standing, commit
an ay99wed II Fee trader, then, as snow now
Chairman of the Democratic House Com
mittee on Ways and Means, introduced
Dill which among other reductions. pro-
posed to reduce the then duty on pig iron
llOll % @i.OO W Ipo!OU per IOIl, GIl0 Cn6n duty
Of one cent per pound on bar iron, to one
half cent per pound, or reduction of 80
per cent on pig iron, and 30 per cent on
bar iron. This hill created great alarm at
the time, and had it's share in aggrayat-
ing and intensifyipg the then hard times.
have no record of a vote on this bill,
but it is sufficient TO say that it failed to
pass because of the united opposition of
the Republican party.
T, do
of the House from New York,
what is known as the "Wood
Tariff Bill" The author of the bill said
in speaking of the then existing rates of
duties;
1reeognize an implied moral right 10 a little
longer CONTINUATION of the favor which they af-
reported affects them so far the rates of duties
are concerned, but little. Its reductions are trI-
fling as compared to what they should be- and
in my opinion, they could we'll afford to bear
Then he adds, and ask you to careful
ly note the language:
If 1 had the power to conma ance de-novo, I
should refuge ting duties 90 per cent instead of
less than p per cent, upon an average, as pro-
posed:
Here we have the admission of the au-
thor of the bill, that it proposed an aver
age reduction of duties of Is per cent, and
if he could take up the tariff as an origi-
nal proposition, he would advocate re-
duction to so per cent.
At the time when this kill was under
consideration. times were hard, labor was
not fully employed, as you all remember
and the iron works of the country were
holding on by the eye-lids-many had
failed, and yet this was the time chosen
by the Democratic party to attempt to
give the material interests of the country
a kick, and deprive the workingmen of
the land of a portion of the limited
amount of work they found to do and
compel them to accept lower wages.
On June 5th, 1878, motion was made
to strike out the enacting clause of the
Wood bill. There were 134 votes cast in
favor of killing the bill. OF these lis
were cast by the Republicans and only 10
by Democrats. Opposed to killing the
bill, and in favor of it's passage, there
were 12O votes. Of these liz were cast
by Democrats and oily I by Republicans,