The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-12-21

oion, ana prohlbltory walls are alwa
a needing to be butt higher or IN
patcned and strengthened. A prote
1--WE tariff never has and never ce
give stability and satisfaction RI
own oeneiciaries, even if its victim
q are 100 weak and scattered to a0ita
ior It's decrease. When the refor
tariff of 1916 was before CONGRESS- r.
ar was full of prophecies that it woul
Destroy our manufacturing industrie
throw labor out of employment {
compel 1t to work at pauper wages an
o"arI and arrest the prosperou
growth OF the country. Every repre-
sentative OF the four great manufact
urlnlg states of New England vote,
against it with gloomy forebodings O
its blighting effect. The rate of du
ties provided in that tariff was mnct
lover than those OF The bill we here
offer What was the resultY Instead
OF practically killing the Industries and
pauperizing the labor OF New ENGLAND
or the rest OF ttne country, the tariff Of
1916 gave immense vigor to manufact-
ufers with steady employment and
increasing wages to labor. So after II
years experience under it, the longest
period of stability we have ever enjoy.
ed under any tariff, representatives OF
those same states with practical una
nlmity voted for a further reduction
OF ~ per cent and by a two.thirds
vote sustained the tariff of 1858,
which made reduction of 20
per cent and so well contented and
prosperous were the manufacturers of
that and other sections of the coun-
try under the low rate of the tariff OF
1857 that when the Morrill, bill of 1861
took the first backward step there
was general protest against it.
Hon, Alexander Rice of Mississippi
said in this house: "The manufact-
urer asks no additional protection,
He has learned among other things
that the greatest evil next to ruinons
competition from foreign sources is
excessive protection, which stimulates
q like ruinous and irresponsible com
petition at home" Congressional
Globe, 1890, page 1857
Mr.. Sherman of Ohio said: when
Mr.. Stanton says manufacturers are
urging and pressing the bill he says
what he must certainly know is not
correct. Manufacturers have asked
over and over again to be let alone"
Ibid, 2O53.)
Mr.. Morrill, himself has since said the
tariff of 1861 was not asked for and
but coldly welcomed by manufactur.
ers. Congressional Globe, 1869 TO-
page 1885,
Senator Hunter of Virginia, then
chairman of the finance committee,
said: Have any of our manufactur
ers come here to complain or ask
duties2 1t is notorious if we were to
leave it to them, the manufacturers Of
New England, to the Manufacturers oil
hardware, textile fabricks, etc, there
would be large majority against any
change. Do we not know that wool
en- manufactures dates its revival from
the tariff Of 1857 which altered duties
on wool. The history of American in
dustry shows that during no other
pariod has there been more healthy
and rapid development of our manu-
featuring industry than during the II
years of low tariff from 1916 to 1851,
nor a more healthy or harmonious
growth of agriculture and all other in
dustries of the country. No chapter
in the political experience car
ries with it more sal.
utory lesson than this and none could
appeal more strongly to lawmakers tc
establish a just and rational system Of
public revenues, neither eXhausting
agriculture by constant blood letting
a rfoa t-,y nj ~ n
between chills and fevers by artificial
pampering. In this direction alone
lies the stability of the concord of sec
tians and of the great industries. We
have already said that public discus.
sion may disclose errors of minor detail
in the schedules of the bill. To escape
such errors would require so thorough
and minute knowledge of all divis.
ions, subdivisions, complex and mani.
fold mazes and involutions OF our
chemical, textile, metal and other in.
dustries that no committee of con-
gress, no matter how extended a range
their knowledge, or how laborous and
painstaking their efforts, could ever
hope to possess. We have not forgot.
ten that we represent people who are
many as we'll as protested interests
who are few, and while we have dealt
with the latter in no spirit of unfriend'
illness we have felt it our duty and not
their privilege to make tariff sched-
ules.
Those who concede the right of ben
eficiaries to fix bounties must necessa.
rily commit to the Democratic party
the framing aud wording of laws by
which these bounties are secured to
them. A committee of congress thus
becomes merely the amanuenses OF
protected interests. 1t has been shown
so often in the debates of this house
that nearly every important schedule
of existing law was made IN very
words and figures by representatives
of the interests it was framed to pro-
tect, that it is unnecessary in our re-
port to present record proof Of this
fact, but it may not be amiss to cite
further evidence to show that this is
not only necessary rule but an open
and avowed method of framing a pro
tective tariff. When the senate sub
stitute for the bill passed by this house
in the Fiftieth congress, which substi
tute is the real basis of the existing
law, was being prepared Sen
ator Hoar appeared before
the senate sub committee and
used this language: Instead of COM
inc before your subcommittee for a
formal hearing on our Massachusetts,
in Fuotrias 7 thought the best way was