The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1888-03-20
SENATOR THROWN sPEAKs.

WASHINGTON, March 14,-[Special.] -Sena-
tor Brown spoke for an hour and a quarter in
the senate today on the tariff and internal rev.
enues.
Mr.. Brown was not, he said, protectionst,
per Sc, but he would raise the money needed
for the economical support of the government
by tariff so adjusted as to give American cap
1tal and labor all possible incidental protection,
and so that the heaviest burdens should be put
or. articles of luxury, and the lightest on arti-
cles of necessity. He was opposed to the prac-
tice of direct taxation by the general govern
ment and to running two systems of collection
of revenue, especially when one of them was
marked by expressions and domicliary vexa-
tons Speaking for the people of Georgia, he
said that while they desired just revision of the
tariff, and the abolition of the revenue system,
they did not wish to ruin American manufac-
turers OF to reduce the compensation of Ameri-
can labor. He quoted from the democratic
national platform of 1884, and said that he and
his state stood on that Squarely. Under it
tariff reduction must be carried out SO as not to
injure home industry. By the census Of 1880,
the whole value of dutiable manufactured arti-
cles imported in 1880 was $780, ,GS3, while
the value of manufactured products in the
United States that year was S., 369, 579, 1871 or
twenty-seyen times as much as the dutiable
imports. The farmer paid tariff duties, there
fore, on only one-twenty-seventh part of the
manufactured goods, he used, while he got as
paid on the goods bought If those now en-
ployed in manufactures were thrown back upon
farming, the fact would disarrange the whole
system, increasing farm products unremuner-
ately and adding to the cost of manufactures.
Capital and labor employed in manufactures
Of wool, silk, iron and steel, cotton,
chemicals, iute and hemp, china
glass. leather, paper, and tobacco (Which ar
ticles produced over ninety-eight million Of
revenue) would be ruined by taking protection
ind, 4f.io f,e
internal revenue was only to affect 500 reg
istered distillcries with their few employees.
The democratic platform settled the line Of
duty in such glazing antithesis of interest as
that the clash OF insolvency entailed by crush
ing these manufactures would create great
ruin and suffering How then should the re-
duction come? The issue was one between
three and four millions of aboring people and
500 whisky barons." The effect Of the tariff
in stimulating manufactures was shown he
said in the case of Bessemer steel. Fourteen
years ago the price of steel rails was
$38 ton. A tariff of 500 per ton had
caused large American production, and had
reduced the price to 1913 ton. The tariff was
now SIT ton, and rails had been offered at
S51 ton The English manufacturer had to
get $50 ton to save himself in this market,
or else lose 80 ton at the present prices. Be-
fore the war rice had sold for 50 per 100 pounds.
During the war, southern rice being cut eff,
rice had gone up to S14 per 100 pounds He
cOmbatted the idea that the tariff hurt the
farmers. During the low tariff, from 1856 to
1860, refined sugar, he said, was worth Is cents
a pound. 1t was now, undeB high tariff,
worth from to g. Calico had been ~ cents
per yard, and was now 6. The prices Of neces-
saries had fallen, and those Of labor
a tariff on live stock, breadstuffs,
fax, fruits, hay, hops, grain, provisions dairy
products, rice, sugar, tobacco, vegetables, wool
and others. OF these articles there had been
last year S1J0,G00,000 worth imported. If the
tariff on these goods raised the prices on home
raised products of the same kind by the amount
OF duty, as was claimed in the case Of manu-
featured articles, then the farmers got tremep-
dous benefit in protection. Corn imported last
year was 3050G bushels, and the duty ten cents
a bushel The total corn production in this
country was 1896, 10000 bushels. Ten cent?
make Sl93,G17 600 protection profit TO the
farmers--a greater bonanza than the whisky
ring enjoyed Under this fallaciOus rule, as
applied by free-traders to manufacturers,
farmers, on the above productions, would get
net increase Of price Of S1,20O,O00000 which
was an absUrdity. Home competition fixed
tho price, and small irnpOrtations did
not increase it. lie arged that manufacturing
establishments furnished consumers 10 farmers
and afforded q market for their products.
While the farmer paid little tariff duties, for
lie bought few luxuries, he was largely bene-
fitted By the tariff that built manufactures,
and afforded him customers. What the south
ern farmer suffered from was not the tariff,
but the practice Of an all cotton crop and the
purchase OF supplies from the vest with ina
bility to borrow money nom the bankt on real
estate security,