The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-05-17


merchandise that could possibly be i'm
ported from abroad in competition with
our home products and to protect our
home manufacturers and the labor en-
ployed by them. Since the Sec
rotary of the treasury had made
purchase of bonds this month May the
amount offered and purchased would not
equal even the surplus of daily taxes col
lected from the people after paying
therefrom the daily expenses OF the gov
eminent. The bill now under CONSIDER
alton had been formed for the double
purpose of reducing the surplus
and relieving the country Oh
needless taxation. The changes
made, the majority of the commlttee pc
lieye, will acc Omplish these OBJECTS Dut nc
wished it TO be clearly understood thaU
the interests of labor had oeen
steadily held in view at every stage OF tue
proceedings, and that this bill turnlsheu
that protection to labor which his OPP
ponents professed to give, Dut u
which their policy had been dlreely oP-
posed. The effect of the bill womb Uo
not to reduce wages, but to lessen 10 .ne
laborer the cost of the necessarles OF llle'
aud to decrease his dependency upon MS
employer. Extreme poverty and liberty
never existed together. Starving men
and women could not be Tree;
Protection, so-called, would auu
no penny to the wage Eorker's pay or
give one days additional labor In inc
year, bnt it would rob him of an undue
proportion of his earnings to purchase
the necessaries of life and keep him a
trembling dependent. The recent history
of this country showed that the ten
dency of protected industries was
toward combination in the form OF trusts,
under which production was arbitrarily
suspended, running prices to the consumer
and throwing the workman out OF his JOB
A monopoly more terrible, more dangerous
to liberties of the country, more Cypress
! i've to the laborer, could not be imagined
| Upon no class of our people did the
present fiscal burdens of our country
bear so heavily as upon the farming clafs
One of the strongest arguments that the
protectionists made to the farmer was
home market that protection was alleged
| to insure for his products. 1t was tal
lacy and a fraud, and intelligent farmers
would not be longer deceived by 1t. This
bill put wool on the free list
It did so not only in the interest of the
wool manufacturer, but that of sheep nus
bandry itself. To enable the manutact
urer of this country to compete IN MS
home market, and to export the surplus
abroad, he must be able to purchase his
wool as favorably, not only as to price
| but as to selection of qualities
and kinds, as does his foreign
competitor. No better lllustra-
ton of the results of moderate duties on
free raw material could be pointed to than
the carpet industries of this country.
Russian carpet woods grown in Southern
Prussia, bordering on the Black sea,
practically secured, were largely imported
| into the United States for the manutact-
ure. of carpets.
The will of a majority of the commit
tee had been to readjust the duties upon
wooden and worsted goods so as to enable
the manufacturers not only to pay the
same wages they are now paying, but &c
cheaper goods, thus enabling them to
command the home market which they
are largely deprived of, anc
to compete in foreign one
Free raw wool and the duties
proposed on the manufacture of WOO
would accom- plish that object unless the
committee was grievously mistaken. In
mediately wool was free our manutact
urers would begin to draw upon the mar
! kets of the world for raw material to meet
, the American demand. The result would
be an advance in wool in foreign markets
and an advance abroad would advance the
price here, tariff or DO tariff In
conclusion, he said: We seek independ-
euce and the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of domestic
| labor by liberating it from unnatural re
! straints and allowing it an undisturbed
position and the complete enjoyment OF
It's own earnings. The other side of it is
! what? A monopolized market in which
to buy the necessarie9 of life on the one
| hand, on the other the labor market, sub
! iect to the caprice of trusts. Will the
laboring men accept the generous tender
and vote with the monopoly party under
coercion of his employer? If they do
the hideous disaster foreseen by Jeffer-
son as the natural result of restrictive
and subsidy policy will rush
down upon us and the government
of union will pass into the hands of those
who openly propose to prevent its power;
and employ them to plumber the people
for their own enrichment.
Mr. Dibble, of South Carolina, criticized
the republicans for their proposition tina
only tariff duties which should be reduced
were those on articles which could b.
produced in the south, and fol
! desiring that everything should be pro-
tected except the rice of the Carolinas anG
the sugar of Louisiana. He thought tina
this was strange commentary upon thu
professed friendship of the republican
party for the negro laborer of the south
Mr.. Haugen, of Wisconsin, opposed
the bill and criticised the president fol-
being, in part, responsible for the surplus
which he so much condemned, by his fail
ure to approve the river and harbor bill
by his veto of the dependent pension bill