, 1888-04-18
TARIFF REFORM.
Opening Debate on This Inter
esting Question.
Mills Speech in Support of the
Bill.
A Pennsylvania Representa-
tive Replies.
The Tariff Bill.

N'bN ~ VIZ 49, SaA hASNhH
Mr.. Mills began his speech by saying
that the great increase of duties made
during the wal had been, at the time
they were made, stated to be only TEN
porary. Yet, a quarter OF Il century later
these duties were higher than they were
during the war, and they now average
47.lO per cent on the imports. The in.
come tax had been imposed to meet the
war expenses. 1t was gone. it was a
tax on wealth. and the $72, 900, 900 an
uually realized from that source was swept
away, but the war tax on clothing, on
food, on implements of labor remained
aud Il war was still being prosecuted
against people, a fiscal war, ~exhausting in
its demands. and every effort to remove
or lower that taxation had been resisted
and defeated.
Three hundred million dollars that had
been paid by the wealth of the country
had been swept away, and the burden Of
taxation had been made heavier as it
had been loaded upon the shoulders of
those who had to support themselves and
the government. Was the tax of 8 per
cent to be paid ont of the pockets of the
manufacturers Of blankets a weight more
enormous than the tax of 10 per cent
paid by the consumer of imported and
domestic products2 Was the tax of 3
per cent on incomes more oppressive than
the tax OF 100 per cent on women's and
children's dress goods? Yet all these
taxes on wealth had gone, and the gentle
men of he minority boosted they had re-
duced taxes to the amount of $3.50, OOO,-
900, while the democratic party had re-
duced it only a bagatelle. That was a
splendid column those gentlemen had
erected. All tax or wealth had passed
away, and all burdens had been cast upon
the shoulders of the laboring man.
In 1883 taxation had still further been
reduced and the magnificent shaft which
the party then in power had erected to
commemorate the legislative wisdom and
benetlcience of its laws was crowned with
a capstone taking off the internal revenue
tax on playing cards and putting a tax of
20 per cent ON bibles.
The Democrats had been tainted with
the charge that they had failed to reduce
taxation. This charge had been made by
the minority which had been guilty of
preventing action on the many bills
brought into the house by the committee
on ways and means.
Mills turned his attention to woollen
hiAlA - AAiA "ihuSN 1blI NbC DuDllC
at large was injured by the prescut exces-
sive tax and nobody benefited. High
duties prohibited and limited importa-
tionS and expectations. We were feeding
the people Of Europe, and when we put
high duties on the goods they send us in
exchange for. food, it amounted to taxing
Our own agricultural exports. The reduc-
ton OF duties would not check manufac-
turers and cramp labor. We always i'm.
ported more goods when prices were high.
Under lower duties We could export more
goods, manufactures would run steadily
and labor would be constantly employed.
Not more than 10 per cent of the goods
consumed in the United States would be
imported il all the custom houses were
torn down and the government supported
by direct taxes.
PrOtectionists argue that manufactured
articles are cheaper here than in any
other country rs a result of protection. 1t
was not so, but surprising that it was,
why, then, should they resist so strenu-
ously any effort to lower the duties if they
were able to undersell European manu-
facturers. Did manufacturers pay higher
wages because protection enabled them to
do it, No. Jay Gould was able to pay
his boot black $500, but did not do it. He
paid the market price. Paid his nickel
like a little nan Higher wages were
made by coal, steam and machinery, and
higher wages meant lower cost of produc
ton. This accounted for the fact that
free trade England paid higher wages
than protection France and Germany and
yet controlled the worlds markets.
lie had requested the present chef of
the labor bureau to ascertain if there was
any exception to the rules that wages de-
pended on the efficiency of labor, and the
result of highly paid, efficient labor was
the low cost of the product. In answer
he read a tabulatcd statement prepared
by Mr.. Wright giving the result of in
1uirJ IN a number Of cases which APP
peared 10 fully bear out the rule.
Mills then proceeded with frequent cita.
tons from economic authors and from
tabuiated statements, to elucidate his
argument that the high rate of wages in
tbis country was not the result of the pro-
tectiye system. We had grown rich,
prosperous and powerful, not by the aid
OF restrictions on foreign ommerc but
IN spite of them. He quoted tables to
show that the tariff was not intended to
benefit the laborer that the benefits Of
the tariff pass into the pockets of the
manufacturers and never come to the
pockets of the laborer. Taking I'D the
case of blankets, where the tariff exceed
ed the labor cost by 81. 50, Mills declared
that every dollar of excess was reaped by
the manufacturers.
Grain of Texas interrupted to ask how
the WAYS and means committee had treat
ed those blankets.
Mr.. Mills replied that it had reduced
the tariff On blankets from $l.77 to II
cents. Continuing, he said it was asserted
that congress had intended to benefit the
iaborer by the tariff. 1t had failed, and
not q dollar of the protection afforded got
beyond the manufacturer. He, however,
hired his labor at the lowest rate in the
open market. The committee hadIeft
in the bill more than enough protection to
pay for all labor, and q bonus besides.
The present policy was making a vast dis
function in this country between two
classes-one poor and numerous; one
small and powerful and rich. The con.
centration of the wealth of the country