The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-09-02

plOym60L I0r laOOf ana aQQlClOnal Markets I0E
our surplus farm productsl We are now annu-
ally importing from abroad about 500, 600, 600
worth of sugar. Had we not better make it at
home and thereby furnish employment to our
own dependent peopleY 1t is conceded by those
who clamor for free trade in sugar that the re-
moval of the duty would at once crush the sugar
industry Of this country, which has to compete
with the Chinese and slave labor of Cuba.
During the investigations of the tariff commits
sion. in 1882, Mr.. Ira Bursley, of New York, a
Wholesale commission merchant, was summoned
before the Commission to give in re-
gard to the practical working of the tariff. He
stoutly argued for a total removal OF the duty
from sugar. Al the conclusion of his address
Commissioner Boteler put to him this pointed
question:
You commend that sugar shall be admitted free,
with the assurance and knowledge that If we admit 1T
free it will entirely strike down the sugar interest of
Louisiana, and also the interest of the
part of our country, where they are making sugar
from sorghum. In short, the whole sugar interest of
the United Statesl
Answer-Yes sir; / do.
The interrogatory placed Mr. Bursley in an
awkward predicament, but he could not do 9TH
erwise than answer it as he did. / cite this cir
cumstanee to show that the whole animus of
those who are clamoring SO loudly for a removal
or reduction of the duty on importations is the
destruction of American enterprises, and the
consequent increase of foreign importations,
which will enable them to grow rich on the prof
its of a mmerc which benefits none but them
selves and foreign producers.
The people of Indiana are interested in two
ways in building up the sugar industries of this
country, They want cheap sugar, and they
want additional home markets for their surplus
farm products. If the people of Louisiana, Texas,
and Florida, with the aid of our Northern sugar
makers, could produce the additional $100, 5000, 900
worth of sugar annually consumed by our people,
would it not be better for all in this country ex-
cept, perhaps, the importers of foreign sugars?
If this additional 500, 000, 900 worth Of sugar
were made at home, it would certainly create a
80 e.
wheat, corn, bacon and many other things of
Northern growth. One thing is certain: we
must build up home markets for our surplus
wheat or quit raising a surplus, for we can no
longer depend upon the European markets for
the sale of wheat. In the last ten years the ex-
ports of wheat from British India have increased
from 100000 to 40, 200, 900 bushels, while
the quantity produced in the United States has
increased in the last forty years from 4 13 to 10
bushels annually per capita of our population. In
the last sixteen years the wheat-growing area of
the United States has been doubled. Besides,
theconstant invention of efficient machinery is
making the raising and handling of wheat a
very easy thing. From these facts it must be
apparent to everyone that if we cannot
build up home markets, by diversifying
our industry, we shall be so completely overrun
with wheat that it will rot on our hands.
DEMOCRACY AND THE TARIFF.
Mr.. Kennedy discussed at length the position
of the two parties on the tariff question. In
ACC@ ~ q a. u VII
the subject of the tariff as Clevelandis letter of
acceptance. In 1868 the Democratic national
convention declared in favor of "a tariff for rev
enue upon foreign importations, and such equal
taxation under the internal revenue law as will
afford incidental protection to domestic manu-
factures, and will, without impairing the reve-
nue., impose the least burden upon and best pro-
mote the great industrial interests of the
country In 1872 the party had so far wan
dered away from this doctrine and bee so
much impressed with free-trade ideas, that its
national convention Of that year resolved as fol-
lows: Recognizing that there are in our midst
honest but ~irreconcilable differences with regard
to the respective systems of protection and free
trade, we remit the discussion of the subject to
the people IN their several congressional dis
tricts." In 1876 they demanded that
all custom house taxation should be only for
revenues" in 1880 they declared for "a tariff for
revenue only;" and in 1884 they declare that ''all
federal taxation shall be exclusively for public
purposes Here is one clear omission and five
distinct attempts in twenty years to state the
position Of the party on the tariff question. And
now, If anybody can tell from these repeated
enunciations what the position Of the party is,
he will be entitled to the credit of possessing q
wisdom higher than human wisdom. Forum
ately, however, we are not without the means of
finding where it stands. 1t may shuttle in plat
form-making. but it's vote in Congress on the
Morrison bill fixes its position beyond doubt or
cavil. The Morrison bill of last winter simply
proposed a horizontal, or indiscriminate reduc-
SAN 1N-e% ~ 0A o4OAN1 &AaA uAAAo -
just as sensible as would be q general order from
a physician to go through a hospital of five hum
dred patients, and without making any inquiry
as to their several diseases and condition, give
the same kind and ar equal quantity
of medicine to each one. This is
the way our wise Democratic doctors
propose to cure the tariff of its ailments. The
bill was denounced in Congress as the joint prod
uct of stupidity, laziness and demagogism. But
this is not the worst of til it was the child of a for
eign intrigue designed to retard the growth of
American manufactures. 1t sprang from the
brain of the Golden FFee-trade Club, of Lon
don. In 1880 one Mopgredien wrote o pamphlet
for the Golden Club, a whole shipload of which
were sent to this country and distributed among
farmers in the West. The pamphlet closes with
these significant words: fLet the American
farmers give their support to no candidate for a
seat in the House of Representatives who does
not pledge himself, if elected, to propose, or at
least to vote for a reduction of 5 per cent every
year on import duties until the whole is abol-
ished." Following up this very idea, Mr.. Hewitt.
while the Morrison bill was under discussion,
said: 81 would begin at the foundation, and by
removal of duties from the materials which enter
into the protected industries, prepare a way for
the gradual and final abolition of the duties
on the finished products Here we find Mr..
Hewitt and the Golden Free-trade Club. of
London, urging precisely the same result by
methods only slightly different. Both adj
vocate the abolition of all duties-au protection.
1t will be observed that the Democratic conven-
ton of 1872 said that the party was hopelessly
divided with regard to ''the respective systems
of protection and free trade not with regard
to protection and "a tariff for revenue only or
a tariff only for reyenue,s or taxation
for public purposes exclusively but
was divided with regard to the merits of protec-
ton and free trade. This difference made itself
manifest when the Morrison bill was under con-
sideration; but the free-tfade faction prevailed
in the Democratic caucus, and adopted the Nor
rison bill as a Democratic caucus measure. The
caucus was. however, unable to get the bill