The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-09-13
TARIFF AMMUNITION.
Points From the Massachusett.
Tariff Reform L eague.


sition of republican leaders when the tariff
was not an issue:
James A. Garfield: am for protec-
ton which leads to ultimate free trade ***
Modern scholarship is on the side of free
trade. 1870.
Benz. Butterworth: Every nation that
Is worthy the name is seeking to enlarge
the area of its trade and commerce, to
enlarge the opportunity to buy and find
new markets in which to sell.
Henry Clay: No one, in the commence
ment of the protective policy, ever sup
posed that il was to be perpetual.
Chester A. Arthur: I recommend an
enlargement of the free list.
John d. Long: The free list IS the
honest revenue reformer's hope.
John Sherman: Hope the senate will
not commence by increasing taxes at a
time when few of US are struggling to
see what little we can do to reduce the
duties imposed by existing law.
Justin s. Morrill,: The tariff was in
tended to be revised, so that there should
be some reduction in the cost of living
1t was obvious from the first that woolens
and woods would have to submit to their
fair, equitable and just share.
The other has been prepared by mem
Der OF the league, and is headed "twenty
questions respectfully propounded to the
advocates of prohibitory tariff on neces-
stiles.
Flrst-Why, under the benign influence
of our war tariff, are one-third of our
wage earners out of work one-third of the
time? Mass. Labor Rep, 1887, p. 294.)
Second-Why did wages in Great
Britain go up between 1872 and 1888 per
cent, while they went down in Massachu-
setts during the same period per cent?
| Mass. Labor Rep, 1885, p. 143.)
Third-Why did the cost OF living in
crease 1415 per cent between 1860 and
1873, Notwithstanding the tremendous I'M
provements made in cheapenipg the cost
of productionG Mass. Labor Rep. 1885,
p. 1917
Fourth-Why are wages in free trade
England from so to 100 per cent higher
than they are in any protected country on
the continent of Europe? GUS. Consular
Lab. Rep, vol. l., p. 1917
Fifth-Why does China, which has nur-
tured her people under prohibitory tar
iff for several hundred years pay her
common laborers 20 cents day and her
|
States Consulor Labor Rep, vol. iii. p.
343.)
Sixth-How are we able to sell annually
$700,00n,000 of products of our high
priced labor in foreign markets against
the whole world if, as protectionists as
sert, free competition in goods means
equality in wages? Omitted States Report
on Commerce and Nav, 1887, p. 49,
Seventh Why did the wealth of this
country increase in the low tariff period,
1850 1860, 126 per cent, and in the high
tariff period, 1870 1880, only 80 per cent,
even after reducing the census values of
1870 to a gold basis? tenth Census,
vol, vii, PIP. 3, 4, 49,
Eighth-Why did the value of farms in
this country increase from 1850 to 1860
103 per cent, and from 1870 to 1880 only
81 per cent? Census vol. Agriculture)
Ninth-Why was the average annual in
crease in Massachusetts savings bank de-
posits from 1850 to 1860 II per cent, and
from 1870 to 1880 only per cent? MAS
sachusetts Savings Bank Rep, 1887, p
6l6)
Tenth Why did American vessels con-
troll three-fourths of our foreign carrying
trade in 1916, and less than one-sixth of it
in 1886? Gu. s. Rep. on Commerce and
Nav, 1887, p. 89.)
Eleventh-Why did congress, after liv-
ing eleven years under low
tariff, vote in 1857 to make it still
lower, and why did all thu
Massachusetts members support this re-
ductionG Was Henry Wilson, the shoe.
maker, an enemy of labor? ICON. Globe
Sd $685., 44th congress, PIP. 971, 1062.)
T~elfth-Why did wages in Massachu,
setts advance from the high tariff decade
ending with 1880 to the low tariff decade
ending with 1860 81 per cent, while they
advanced from 1860 to 1883 only % pei
cent? MASS. Labor Rep, 1885, PIP. 142
1861
Thirteenth-Why should not the pro
tectionist tariff commission of 1882, Johr
l.. Hayes, chairman, who recommended 6
tariff reduction of 20 per cent, and de-
clared that such reduction was demanded
"not by mere indiscriminate popular
clamor, but by the best conservative
opinion of the country" be denounced
under the new dispensation as arrant free
traders? rep. of Tariff CON-, p.
Fourteenth-How can John D. Long
who declared four years ago that nobod!
advocated a prohibitory tariff and tina
"the free list is the honest revenue
reformer's hope" any longer support tn
republican partyH Massachusetts Repub
lican Convention of April 1884,
Fifteenth-Why,in spite of the fact tina
land and food are cheaper here, does i
cost family spending $500 year $6S
year more to live in this country thai
: in England on precisely the same scale
Massachusetts Labor Rep, 1885, p. 157.
Systematically is not $6S a moderat
: estimate of the tax paid by every famil!
in this country in order that Andre'
Carnegie and others of his kind ma,
grow immensely rich and lock out thei
employees at pleasure?
eventeenth-With Poles, Bohemian
, and Italians swarming into this countr
free of duty, how much are our wag
earners benefited by the protective Ia
3 on lumber, coal, clothing, salt and almos
r everything they have to buyH How muc
4 higher ought the tax to be in order T.
g make US all supremely happyP
a Eighteenth-In view of the publ
| assertions of protectionist5 that the prim
: object of the tariff is to help the poo
, workingmen, what does James p. Foster
n president of the republican league, mea
g by saying, in his confidential circular o
= May 20, that the manufacturers &c
$ practically the sole benefit from our tart
| oal Abak xuonId ha oood thin