The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-10

Alabama and the south generally, and even the
cotton planters will learn by experience tnat tne
hungry mouths of workingmen engaged IN
varied pursuits 10 every part OF country
furnish the best market for their productions
And you in New England, even your professors
and free-traders, viii learn that the steady de-
mand made by millions Of your countrymen in
the West and South for textile and metallic fab
rics, furnishes you hundred-fold better market
than you find with al your ingenuity and
enterprise in the overstocke d markets of Europe
and Asia. If you join in breaking down this
system in order to increase your foreign market
for manufactures from TO even 10 per cent
you will destroy the goose that lays the golden
egg -.
OF the League and consider what we by
protection and one or two matters upon which
we may differ. The policy Of protection il found
ed upon the idea that it is best for US, as ma
ton, To produce by American labor many of
the articles essential to human life and comfort
rs possible; that to encourage their produc-
ton we justified 10 levying upon
foreign articles that come into competi-
ton with ours such reasonable rates of
duty will induce capital to embark in such
industries. and secure TO American workingmen
reasonable wages consistent with the higher
wants and the better food, clothing and shelter
demanded by the American worklngmen The
object of all this is to secure the greatest
diversity OF employment by the substitution or
American products for foreign products. When
this policy was first adopted there were practi-
esy no manufactures in America, and the prin-
forms Of manufacture and the raw materials OF
industry. Now manufactures have grown
10 such q marvellous decree that they amounted
in $780, according to the So 400 000 900,
and according 10 an estimate made three years
ago, TO over $4,000, 10000 and now TO near
81, 600, OCO, 900.
1.-THE question has arisen whether the policy
OF protection should extend to raw materials pro-
duced the farm and from the mine,
whether these should be admitted free OF duty.
We all agree that oil crude articles necessary
Erm .mw%urF m0 NwamA hat
labor be produced in this country ought to be
admitted duty free. More than 500, 0O0, 900 in
value of such articles are now admitted duty
free: but the crude materials tor manufacture
raised on our farms or in our mines which come
into competition with foreign labor, have been
considered just objects of protection.
Now IL is proposed to place these upon the
free list and continue ths protection to manu-
features. The principal articles OF this kind
are wool, produced Dy the farmer. iron ore by
the miner, and pig-iron by the furnace Now,
if this question is to be determined as mere
matter OF local interest, according to General
Hancock, or, as Mr. Lowell suggests, with
in the sleeve the men of Boston might seifshly
say that, as they want wool and make the wool
ems, they will vote for no duty on wool, because
they can buy wool cheaper in South America
and Australia; and they might say they will
vote for 20 duty iron because they can
import it cheaper from England and Wales.
But such decision would be an abandonment
of the whole principle Of protection. The bene-
fits of this policy must be reciprocal
and the system upon which it 10 founded
must be universal Tho American farmer pro-
duces wool with the same competition tnat the
manufacturer produces woolens and should have
the same consideration and protection in his
employment that ia freely conceded to the man
nfacturer, no more no less. His product Is the
completed article of his labor. and 80 with the
mining and smelling OF ores, the rich resources
planted by Providence in every part of our
country The labor bestowed iu their develop
ment is much entitled to the friendly aid of
the government ri the finest fabric of Che loom
or the completed work OF mechanical skill.
When you remember that more than million
farmers are engaged IN raising wool, and pro-
duce 282. 000, 900 pounds, and hundreds of tnou-
sands of laboring men are required TO mine more
than ten million tons of iron ore, from Alabama
To the borders of Lake Superior and from Lake
Champlain to the Pacific ocean, you must
that to leave these industries unprotected
against the competition of the poorest paid
and most degraded labor of Europe and
Africa would be indefensibe, and expose the
whole system to overthrow. All that the farmer
or the miner asks is that reasonable and proper
protection which is cheerfully extended to all
branches of manufacturing coming into compe-
tition with foreign industry, that their labor
and employments receive the same considera-
ton in framing your tariff laws given to other
industries. They only ask enough duty TO COM
pensate for the difference in the price of labor
here and the countries with which they
pete. Nor do they ask duties grades of wool
that they cannot produce. l confess that In
reasoning about this matter l cannot help ex-
pressing my profound contempt for the selfish
ness or the policy declared by Mr.. Mayor Hew-
lit, in a letter to the League in which, while
demanding increased duties for the articles that
he is producing. he insists on the repeal of du-
ties on materials he uses.
NOW, gentlemen, you may ask me what
have to say about tariff reform. i answer that
am decidedly in favor of tariff reform. always
have been, aud al ways will De. 1 have partici-
pated in tariff reform since 1850: but my idea of
tariff reform is not especially to make our duties
acceptable TO foreign nations; but. rather. to
promote the interests OF our own people, not to
take lessons from the Ccbdsn Club the
English arstocracy, but from Washington.
jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln. and TO follow
the teachings of Webster and Clay. I am not
in favor of that kind of tariff reform which
brings Senator Morgan and Mr. Lowell to-
gether. / do NOT know what they mean by
tariff reform. 81 | suppose II is g per cont on
the highest rate possible on that
they produce and the lowest rate or
none at all. on what other people produce /
tives of tariff reform would exchange ideas
other topics, they would not be so harmonious.
If Mr. Lowell should discuss civllserviee
form. Mr.. Morgan would pronounce it a humbue,
and vet they agree ON the tariff reform recon-
mended by Mr. Cleveland. which is a general
reduction of tie duties on foreign importations,
and especially on raw materials Now. to this
i am opposed, first, because it is an injustice to
American citizens in every part of country
who have been invited to engage in the process
Of manufacture. and still greater injustice to
the millions of laboring people who depend
upon industries thus protected. Again.
the policy proposed will not reduce the
revenue Dut Will aDsolutely increase IL. ana
thus swell the surplus well as disturb the bus,
mess of the country. IL will necessarily check
the enormous productions of country. in
crease and harden the competition existing
between European and American labor, and re-
duce the wages of all 1aboring men employed IN
protected industries. 1t will, in my judgment,
disturb or break down large departments Of in
dustry now in the OF successful expert
ment 1t L. a departure from the policy recon-
mended bv fathers, and especially the policy
adopted within the last twenty FIVE years under
which our manufactures have grown to their
present enormous aggregate. 1t is departure
from the poll cy adopted by the most intelligent
nations of Europe and America, especially our
kinsmen in Canada. who followed our example,
and have been benefited by it.
But, you may ask me how / would reduce
the surplus revenue / answer, frankly, that
the tariff ought 10 De carefully revised, with
view to correct any inequalities or incongruities
shat have grown out of the change of values
since the passage of the act of 1885, that every
imported article which does not compete with