Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-09-22

which they declared that the industry was
one which gave employment to one million |
people, and that il was absolutely impos- |
sible for the people engaged in raising wool |
to continue the business If this tariff was
taken off. These resolutions were adopted |
without dissenting voice by large meet !
log OF wool-growers, among whom were
lifelong Democrats. In the city of San |
Francisco as | am informed by the public |
press, every single person engaged in the
wool business save one, and that is the firm
OF Chrlsty d Wise-and Mr.. Wise is a
Harbor Commissioner, and of course would
not so against his psrty-haye adopted
resolutions similar to these and stand in
favor OF keeping the tariff upon wool as at
present. | appeal TO these gentlemen as
better fitted to speak upon this question
than Colonel Irish, who said upon this
stand that he did not know one grade of
wool from another, and that all he knew
! about wool was the taste of the mutton
when he ATE it. {Laughter.]
THE cLovEN FOOT
OF the Democratic party in the Mills bill.
| as regards wool, is shown by au examina-
| ton of the bill itself They claim that
| they have reduced the tariff only on the
| raw material. They claim that their idea
WAS to reduce the tax on the raw material
WOOL so as to benefit the manufacturer in
| his productions, yet the bill shoYs-and
every hgure that | quote You TO- night is
taken from this pamphlet, issued hy the
| Democratic House of REPRESENTATIVES,
that they have reduced the tax on wool
| itself $6,390,055 IS, while they have re-
duced the tax on wooden goods Sl2. 254..
Oh ~: They have reduced the tax on the
| manufactured article almost double the
amount they have upon the raw material
Does that look as if they were intending
| TO reduce the tax or tariff upon the raw
| material to help the manufacturer? Doesn't
1t look as though they were actuated by
desire to strike down the men who raise
the wool and the men who manufacture
| the wool into goods at the same time? But
| an examination of this bill will show YOU
| tnat they have taken off the greatest
amounts in the revision of the tariff upon
| the h'gh-priced woOlen goods For in
| stance-l have not time to 90 through and
give all the figures, but will give enough TO
| show how low the bill was-upon manu-
| tactured cloths worth less than so cents a
yard they have reduced $35OO0O, while
upon the cloths worth over so cents ward
| they have made a reduction of S3 OO0COO.
upon other manufactures of the same kind
| below 50 cents per yard in value they have
reduced the tariff $4,000, while those above
81 cents they have reduced it 800 600.
Upon knit goods, which every person knows
| the want of, and nearly every person
| buys, they have reduced the taxes on all
| goods below 80 cents SIS 900, ard on goods
valued above so cents yard $40 600. |
allu.ie to these statistics to show YOU that
in reducing the tariff they have reduced it
upon the high priced goods and not upon
| the low-priced goods. They have benefited
the rich, not the poor. And they have in
| addition to that reduced the tariff upon
| the imported article, upon the wool itself
and ask you, how are the wooden manu-
| fecturers TO compete with ANYBODY when
| they ind the foreign article coming in free ?
! When they find III addition to that. that
| the foreign manufacturer Of woolen goods
has 10 pay less tariff of $12, ,2G0. 600 than
he did before, thus, according to Colonel
Irish, cheapening his goods that much.
| What becomes OF the manufacturer under
this new tariff? What becomes then of the
workingmen they say they are irving 10
benefit? They have reduced the tariff UPON
the high-priced goods and not on the low
priced goods, hence they have not aided
| the : poor people and the plain Ii shows
| the fact beyond peradventure that this re-
duction upon wool is not for the people
Ii Is not upon necessaries, but it is
AGAINST THE LOYAL NORTH.
1t was not for the purpose of helping the
| manufacturer, but To kill the manufacturer
1t was not for the purpose of aiding to bu;Id
| up the industries of the country, but to de-
stroy them. 1t was against their own plat
form and TO carry out the ideas that they
advanced IN 1857. lApplausel
| 1t Is the same with reference 10 cotton
goods. lie claimed that they had made a
reduction for the benefit of the people. An
examination of the figures will show that
the highest priced goods are reduced the
| most, the same as in wooden goods. LET
me call your attention to this further fact
| He states that the wages of cotton spinners
In this country were lower than in England
and the Erdn,iner has printed the same state
ment two or three times, and has claimed
| that the operatives of Massachusetts were
PAID less than the operatives in England.
ana yet they have reduced the tariff on
cotton manufactured goods S277, ,610 %.
tor the purpose of still further
| crippling the cotton mapufactnrer
Ii be is obliged to compete with the for
| eign manufacturer and the foreign manu-
facturer has his tariff reduced $27S, 600. does
1t not bear heavy upon the American cot
ton manufacturer, and must not the neces-
sary result be that he will reduce his ex-
penses, and to do so he must reduce the
| wages OF his employees? These wages are
now too low, according to Colonel Irish
and the LEdmt'ter, yet by their bill the
wages will be reduced still lower or stop
PED entirely. Can this be claimed. then. to
be benefit? No II is direct injury to
the manufactures and the woIk kmen alike,
aud direct injury to the whole people.
| LApplause.l
FROM An ENGLISH STANDPOINT.
AS bearing upon that question and as
showing to you where this matter of pro-
lection tends, and exactly how it is re-
garded by the manufacturers in the old
country, permit me to read to Won what
Mr. Wanamaker, the leading merchant of
| fhiIadelphla, SAID Of an interview he had
| with an English manufacturer an old and
very able business man and a member of
Parliament, during his visit to that coun-
| try:
| Said the Englishman, "Give us some speeial
| orders; we have not been able for a long time
| TO run all our looms, and we will be willing 10
| set apart certain looms for you aud make any
solely to your house" ''why don't you rf1n ali
| your machinery T' asked :" Your confounded
protection is our trouble" he answered We'll,
pull up stakes and move one of your large fact
| ories over here. America would welcome such
an industry as yours" The very wise and
prompt reply OF the British legislator and man
ufaeturer was, II you can guarantee me that
protection will remain as it now is we will
move our works over here Immediately" "Ah.
| then, said Mr. Wanamaker, When you have
| your looms and works in Europe YOU are on
posed to protection in America, but ii YOU move
over here You would insist on having it, As
an Epgllshman you are down on protection. but
II your interests were in America You would
demand 1t. Your consistency is not as clear as
your self-interesr.''
This was published in the Bee. and a
friend of mine, who is a Vice. President on
this stage, clipped it out and sent il to Mr..
Wanamaker, and asked if it was true. Mr..
Wanamaker replied "The facts stated in
the interview with the English manufact-
urer are exactly true"
That manufacturer says that if his ma.
chinery was moved to America he would
be in favor of protection Can there be
any better argument presented than that =?
The very man that would be affected by
the tariff reduction says that as he is ail |
Englishman he is in favor of free trade IN
America, but if he was an American he |
would be in favor of protection. | care not
to appeal to your preudices or your
passions. | have a love and a regard for |
the English nation and the English people. |
We are brothers. We are cousins. we |
are descendants and members of the same
race. whatever you may term the degree of |
relationship. We are united closer than |
any other nation can be and we ought TO |
be, and l speak of this not because / am