The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1892-07-15
JERRY SIMPSON.
He Scores Both Protectionists ana
! Tariff Reformers-A Great speech
l. On Free Cotton, Ties, Etc.

L ",
April s, 1892.
The house being in committee of
the whole and having under consid-
GRAFTON the bill Oh. h. 6OO6) to admit
free Of duty bagging for cotton. ma
>hinery for manufacturing bagging.
cotton ties and cotton gins. Mr.. Simp-
son said:
Mr.. Chairman: In the discussion
OF this question l presume that it is
right and proper that one who repre-
sents farmers and who is a farmer
himself and laborer should have
something to say about it. have
lam identified with the laboring class
all my life. For the last fourteen
years I have been farmer and have
tried as hard and as honestly as any
man to make a living at that business.
Therefore. think l can speak with
some authority in regard to the bene-
fits of this protective tariff system to
the agricultural class of the American
people. l have sat hero patiently lis
tening to the argument on both sides.
the Republican and the Democratic
oiuc. anu 1 udVo DeCu luStf uCGcu duQ
sometimes amused
l have listened artentively to the
speeches from the Republican side.
and | am free to say that I have been
surprised to find the Republican
party represented here by men hay
ing such indistinct ideas in regard to
the system of trade and the laws
which govern it. I listened to the
apostle Of the protective tariff on the
Republican side; listened to the sill
yer-tongued orator from Michigan
(Mr. Burrows). and to his grand ap-
peal to the people as represented
here. to support and foster the
special privileges of which he IS the
champion. but am free to say that
did not get much information out of
his appeal. Laughter. He started
out with the proposition that system
Of protection increased the price of
everything, and that it yielded a
great benefit to labor because the
manufacturers getting high prices
for their goods. would be enabled to
pay high wages to their laborers.
Then he turned around and told us
that TO put wool on the free list would
be to strike a deadly blow at the wool
interests Of this country by cheapening
wool. And yet when he concluded
his speech he concluded it with the
statement that the intention of the
Mckinley bill and the intention of a
protective tariff generally was to
cheaper everything. His speech was
contradiction from the beginning to
the end. Now. if the Mckinley bill
and the protective tariff system had
the effect Of cheapening everything
where are these grand and good man
ufacturers going to get the surplus
money to pay high wages to labor?
That is the question, gentlemen. If
the tariff has the effect to cheaper
everything and make prices low.
then ask any gentleman on the Re-
publican side to tell me where the
employers. the manufacturers. are
going to get the money TO pay high
wages?
Now Mr.. Chairman 1 am a free
srader-absolute l am not one of
those men who are ready to compro-
mise with wrong. Either a thing is
right or it is wrong | learned by
Republicanism when the Republican
party meant something's when it stood
for a principle-whe old William
Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips
said they would have no compromise
with wrong; that slavery was an
agreement with death and covenant
with hell" They refused to COM
promise with wrong. That is the
time when l was Republican. But
when the Republican party became
the champion OF special interests
when the money power and the man.
ufactu ing class got control of it to
use it as a vehicle through which to
: foster their special interests l left the
Republican party. and to-day l stand
Tor absolute Tree trade in every sense
Of the word.
Now gentlemen. what is free trade9
Is it a natural or an unnatural condi-
zion? Are not human beings so consti-
.utedthat they must trade? No matter
how primitive the state of society. men
must trade. With the developments
Of human progress. the inventions of
machinery and the division OF labor
different classes and different coun-
;ries producing separate and distinct
articles we must have a system of
trade. In olden times this cropped
out because the settlements were along
public highways or water courses by
means of which the people could
communicate with one another Trade
IS natural condition. What do these
orotectionist gentlemen propose. To
protect against trading. to prevent
people from trading with one another?
Is it not obvious 10 every man that a
protective law has for its object to
preventcsome one from trading with
some one else? 1t is evident that
there must be men in this country
who wish to trade with those in some
other country Or you would not pass a
law to prevent this trading Here
then. is a country where men are pre-
vented by law from trading.
say. Mr. Chairman that trade is
natural If left to take care of them
selves men will trade with other men
who will give them good bargains.