Montgomery County sentinel., 1888-05-25

believe that the power of taxation should
be exercised only for public purposes, and
that the burdens OF taxation should be dis
trlbuted equally among all the people ac
cording to their ability to bear them, and
those who believe it is the right and duty Of
the government to encourage private inter-
ests by the imposition Of higher rates than
the needs of the government require. This
is the sole cause of the difficulty which we
are now encountering in our efforts to re-
ieve the people and reduce the surplus.
Whenever we propose to reduce the burdens
of taxation on the people; whenever we pro-
pose to secure TO each individual citizen the
full fruits of his own toll, subject only to
the requirements OF the government; when
ever we propose To remove restrictions so
that there may be ireer production and ireer
exchange, the alarm is sounded, and all the
cohorts of monopoly are assembled to hear
the heraIds proclaim the immediate and ir-
retrievable ruin OF the country. We have
heard it over and over again during this de-
bate"
lie then gave, with much detail, a history
! of the various tariff acts since 1916, show =
| ing that New England members had voted
for reductions in 1857, and stating that from
| 1850 to 1860 the value of the wooden and
cotton manufactures increased enormously,
while wages increased proportonatcly. He
!
| if this bill were passed.
| He referred to the financial crash of 1873
as the greatest in our history and had moth
ing to do with the tariff. The governments
credit was bad in 1861, because of the uncer-
tainty due to the civil war; and had nothing
| to do with the tariff In regard to the effect OF
the bill, he said: "If | believed that thu
passage Of this bill would work any mate :
rial injury to any honest industry in this
country would hesitate long, not with :
| standing the emergency now on US, before
casting my vote for il. But am salts fed
that instead of injurng the industries of the
country it will be of great benefit to them
and at the same time relieve the people from
the burdens under which they now labor.
The gentlemen who resist the passage oi
this bill, as | have said, do So mainly upon
the ground that it interferes with the pre-
sent rates Of duty upon imported goods ,and
they tell us, and the gentleman from Maine
has repeated it in various forms to day, that
u high rate of duty upon such goods is ben
eicia to the great body Of the consumers
OF the country, because, they say that in
stead of increasing the price Of domestic ar
ticles Of the same kind it actually reduces
the price. Well, sir, if this is correct, then
all the other arguments in favor of the pro
tective system are not only superlluous but
are unSound
; The proposition that the duty upon i'm
ported goods reduces the price of the pro
ducts of labor and at the same time enable,
the employer 10 pay labora higher price 10
its work is utterly inconsistent. Labor il
paid out Of its own product, and unless the
employer can sell that product for IA sufii
cient price to yield him reasonable prof
and pay the established rates of wages thu
business must cease or wages must com,
, down. When the price OF the finished pro
duct is reduced by increased efficiency o
Labor, or by the reduced cost of raw mareri
al then the manufacturer may continue Il
pay the same or higher rate of wages anC
still make his usual profits. But the tarit
neither increases the efficacy of labor no
diminishes the cost OF raw material.
| do not deny that the prices of proGuc
ton on the whole of the agricultural pro
ducts and manufactured products h av
largely decreased during the last iity years
, not only in this country, but throughout tn
civilized world. Nor do | deny, sir, tha
the general tendency during all this perlo,
has been towards an increased rate of wa
yes, not only in this country but in the othe
countries throughout the whole worid-ii
, all countries, free trade and protection alike
One of the most efficient causes, in fact TIN
most efficient cause, is the increased ctlcen
cy of labor in combination with the ma
chinery."
The remancr of his argument was de
, voted to showing, AS he said, that Il reduc
ton of tariff duties would benefit all ciasse
r of labor, and particularly the iarmer4 IL
, argued that iurelgn market was Yeedet
for the stimulating of our cOmmercA