Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1888-07-14

responsible for the many serious confiicts
between capital and labor"
Now, it is very easy thing to make n
statement. and often very difficult matter
to prove 1t. The simple statement is made.
that the tariff of 1851 Is more than any
thing else thescausesof the conflict between
capital and labor. He says1that the tariff
of 1861 "Is reinorseless In its infections
upon the tunfavored and unprotected.
But this Is only his opinion. and is worth
no more than an opinion. If the high
tariff of 1861 ,isym0re than anything else
responsible for the conflict between capital
and labor, il must be that labor does not
receive as good pay as under the low tariff
of fs48. This tariff of 1876 was in opera
tion from June. 1S46, to June, 1857, and
many Of you know quite well enough that
labor is today more than 25 per cent. higher.
Ii is fact within your own knowledge,
and many of you have good reasons for
knowing it, as you were working for wages
during that time.
No, the tariff of 1851 did not lower
wages; oni the contrary,s. wages have been
higher since 1861 than ever before ..in:this
country. The tariff of 1851 could not then
have been the cause of the conflict between
capital and labor. But my free trade
friends may say that they admit that wages
have been higher since 1861, but the cost OF
living has increased.
Now. il they will kindly point out in
what way the cost Of living has been in
creased. we may have something tangible.
Is il clothing for yourself and family
that is higher under the tariff of 1861 than
under the low tariff of 1S46? Certainly
moi. for there is not a single article OF
cIotbinrtthat.is not lower today than evei
before in this country. Every yard OF
cotton. cloth. seyery yard of wooden goods,
every pair OF stockings, everything, in fact,
that you wear, is cheaper today than under
the low tariff of ls48, and yet my friend
Thomas says the high tariff of 1861 Is
..cruel and remorseless in its infections upon
the unfapored and unprotected This
might be called pretty strong language,
especially when there Is not solitary fact
mot one-on which to base it.
There is not a person old enough to have
purchased anything in the way of clothing
nreyious TO 1861 but knows that goods art
much lower today than ever before.
Ifsthis.is.the fact, then the high tariff oi
1851 could not have caused the conflict
between capital and labor.
Now, If it were neither low wages mol
the high price of clothing that caused the
numerous strikes in the past few years
then what was it that did cause them? Wa.
Ii the high price of living? My frient
Thomas will hardly claim that II is, as hs
In his speech distinctly states that wheat
corn. etc. were higher under the low tariff
of 1s46 than under the high tariff of 1861
under which we are living today.
Now let us admit this one statement
of Mr.. Thomas to be true, and we are ire
sistably forced to the conclusion that the
tariff of 1861 has not been the cause, IN I'll,
remotsst degree, of the conflict between
capital and labor-why should it be?
| Labor may not-indeed Is not, as wei
paid as 1t ought to be, but every Iaborin,
man of middle age knows that today he 1
receiving 25 to IS per cent. more wage
than from 1876 to 1861, and buys everything
cheaper.
1t follows then, that the conclusion tina
Mr.. Thomas has reached cannot be sus
tanned. There is not particle of evidenc
offered to sustain it, and we may safel,
conclude that there is no evidence-that /
is nothing but an opinion backed by NJ
proof, and has no market value Whatever
We come now to his second conclusion
which is that THAT the tariff of 1861 !
more than anything else responsible for tn
high price of many manufactured goods
and for the burdens under which tht
farming interests are going down."
l will first examine his conclusion tina
the Tariff OF 1861 is more than anything
else responsible for the thigh prices
many manufactured goods"
You would very naturally suppose tina
when gentleman in public address state
proposition like the one have just read
he would offer some proof-name fe'
OF the articles In common use that ar
higher today under and because OF tn
tariff OF 1861 than they were under the loV
tariff OF 1S46.
II any OF you read his address land
trust many of you have), will be oblige
If you will point out any attempt to prov
it, except the statement that We collect a
average duty OF 46 per cent. on manutac
tured goods. Now, if.a duty of 46 pc
cent has advanced the price of manufac
tured goods consumed by the grea: body
our people, he should have named thenl
Possibly there may be some exceptions
cases, but csndidly say to you, l canno
now call TO mind single srticle that
| higher; but on the contrary, almost, II nc
entirely without exception. manufacture
goods are cheaper today than ever befor
in the history of our country.
Gentlemen who undertake to instruc
the public should be very careful in thei
statements.
Let us see what are the facts concernin
the average duty Of 46 per cent on MANI
factured goods levied by the tariff Of 1851
about which our free trade friends have S
much to say.
We deny the truth OF the statement ths
an average duty of 46 per cent. is cOllecte
on manufactured goods, such as are cor
sumed by the masses of this country. Ii
4 true that our tariff does levy an averag
duty of 40 per cent.on foreign productions
but many of these products are not i'm