The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-08-02
WHAT THE TARIFFHAS DONE
The Free-Trade Purposes of Democracy
Long Retarded the COuntry's Growth.
Under Protection Development of Resources
Was Rapid and Remarkable-Mr. Morris's
Answer to MIR. Voorhees, Speech.


is an earnest student of everything that re-
nal reporter, yesterday. and asked what he
thought of the Voorhees, speech to the
Greene county people last week. THAT
speech" he said, with much emphasis, lis
a desperate assault ON our protective sys-
tenn. Voorhees's attack is vicious. He APP
peals to the lowest passions of anignorant
Democracy, and attempts to prejudice our
farmers and laboring men against our
manufacturing industries. 1t is present.
neptly a free-trade speech. and puts the
Senator in line with his party on the tariff
question. If he intcnded it for keynote
speech for the coming campaign we will
accept the issue he tenders"
'Is the tariff war taxi"
mo, sir. The system is as old as the gov
eminent, and is in no sense a war tax. The
internal revenue taxes are war taxes, and
our people should be relieved of them as
soon as possible; but the tariff system is
permanent. and was inaugurated with the
government The first act which laid the
groundwork of the great American sys-
tenn was signed G.. Washington, on the 4th
day of July. 1889. The acts of 1904, 1885,
1874 and 1928, developed it, and threw its
shield around all of our infant industries.
In 1882 the Southern Democracy made war
on the protection system, and the compro-
mise act of 1888 was the result of that war.
Here. In this act, Ia the first expression you
find in the legislation of this country IN
favor of a tariff for revenue only. 10 that
idea the Democratic party has adnered,
the Democratic politicians base 1t on this
free-trade theory from 1888 to 1850 In loo0
the Republican party declared in favor or
q protective tariff in our platform, In tne
following language, to-wit: That while
providing revenue for the .support
imports, sound policy requires
the adjustment of those duties SO as to en-
courage the development of the whole
country, and we commend that poncy OF
national exchanges which secures to Inc
workingmen liberal wages; to agriculture
remunerating prices; to mechanics and
manufacturers an adequate reward for
their skill, labor and enterprise, and TO the
Nation commercial prosperity and inde-
pendenee.' So you see, the Repu biican
party had determined on restoring the
American system of a protective tariff
before the war and would have done so on
coming into power If there had been no
war Senator Voorhees, is mistaken IN
considering tariff a war tax. IT. IS per,
manent system of national economy. and
hcan party continues in power"
What are the advantages of the Amer
can system of protection over the british
system of free trade in this countryW
IF you will compare the growth and de-
velopment of every interest in this coun-
FROM fry 00i lSss to e"0 $780, o'' with the
growth and development during the
protection epoch, from 1850 to date, you
will find that the American system OF pro-
= 81 Naf
Under free trade our national debt in
creased from $37,5l9.05, in 1895, to SOL, Si2,
2S1.SS, in 1860. Under protection our ma
tiOnal debt has decreased from 81, 49, ga,
1850, in 1866. to 81 ,651 ,401 ,Sy1.8, June 30,
1889. Under free trade in 1S41 the govern.
ment could not negotiate loan of 81, 600 600
at per cent. interest. Under protection In
1888 the government negotiated a loan of
S31S, 20l,350 at 3 per cent. Under free trade
the balance of trade was against us. drain
ing our country of coin to the amount OF
sa7a. 900 between 1916 and 1850. Under
protection the balance of trade has been In
our favor since 1876. bringing coin into tins
country To the amount of 81 .625, 900 600 up to
1886 The last year under free trade t1S60l
onr exports were only 1919, 1927 in 1880
they amounted to Ss23, $40 53 At the end
of twenty seven years of free trade. the
total valuation of our property amounted
to only S16159.6l6,06S. In 1880 1T
amounted to $4s, ca. 100000, and our
wealth TO he about 100000 900. 900. Under
free trade from 1880 to 1850. We built but
S0,63 miles of railroads. while under pro-
lection, from 1850 to 1856. we built 1OS.40!
miles. Under free trade England charged
us over 500 per ton for steel rails; under
protection the Carnegies, whom Voorhees,
would hang, are supplying us with steel
rails at S31 per tOn-the products of Ameri-
can labor. Under free trade England
charged us from s22 to scr per ton for pig,
this industry to such an extent that we
now have 5Sl furnaces in this country, and
their output of pig-iron for the first six
months of 1889 amounted to 4,107, 500 tons,
which places us in the lead Of all other
countries, and we are now supplying the
per ton. Under free trade England charged
us, from 1850 TO 1860, 81 to $3.50 per barrel
for salt. Under protection we have devel-
oped about two hundred salt-works that
at so cents a barrel at the works,
and VIM. Burt. prominent Democrat
of Michigan. has organized salt trust
to keep the price of salt from going lower
and yet Senator Voorhees, says the duty /.
added to the value of all domestic prOduct Is
and increases the price to the amount OF
the duty to the consumer of American prod
ucts. The truth is that, under free trade
England controlled our markets and main
tanned high prices on all manufactured ar
ticles, while under protection competition
between home industries has cut dOwL
prices to such extent that our people are
now being supplied with cheaper and bet
ter goods than ever before in the history Of
this country"
voorhees, says that protective tariff il
a heavy burden on farms. and that agri
cultural interests are languishing. How
about thiss"
1.-THE Senator is again mistaken. Our
agricultural interests have developed un
der protection as fast as our manufacturing
interests. In 1860 our wheat crop only
amounted to 173 10492 bushels. In lSS'
it amounted to AS, 479 sos bushels. In 1SG,
our corn crop only amounted to S3S. 1872. "A:
bushels, while in 1887 it amounted to 1.754,
Sol ,535 bushels. In 1860 our oats crOI
amounted to 2,643, 1S5 bushels, while il
1887 it was 4O7. S5S.9 500 bushels. In 1860 TIL,
cotton crop was only 1869, no bales. while
in 1887. 6,5j0.2l5 bales were obtained. III
1860 sugar plantations yielded 22S 753 hogs
heads, in 1888 they gave 231 800 hOgsheads
in 1850 the wool crop was only 5000, 0Oa
pounds. in 1884 we produced $50. 900. 00
pounds. Our sugar interest is the only on,
that the protective system has failed to de
velop. We consumed in 1885. 2,45S, 276. So
pounds of sugar. We produced the SAINT
year. 262. SIC, $50 pounds. which is about one
twelfth of the amount consumed. W.
paid, last year, S5S,000,0O0 duty on sugar
There being no home competition, tn,
duty in this case is added to the price anf
is tax on the consumer. 1t is Vie heavies
duty paid on any one article by the American
people. Being an article of universal con
sumption it is heavy burden on Oul
farmers and laboring men, and unless snga
can be manufactured in this country frOm
sorghum or the sugar beet, sugar should b,