Bennington semi-weekly banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 1894-1902, 1894-09-11
Mckinley on the Tariff.
TConeluded from 1st Pdge.l

American farmer Where has it given
hope? Whose factories will it set to
work? 1t has improved, confessedly
improved, no American interests what
ever, unless it be the Sugar and Whiskey
Trusts. 1t will not start a single new
factory at home. 1t will not light soil
49, = 49, ~ Lo-,. IT, Iii ,,o+ ~
crease the demand for labor at home.
Whatever hope it brings is to the alien
and the stranger. Whatever industry it
quickens lies beyond the seas; 1t is not
located beneath our flag.
"Better than the law of 1901 A law
under the operation of which every man
in this country was employed at good
wages! Every factory was running at
its full capacity, and the consumer was
securing the necessaries of life cheaper
thon he had ever received them before.
Does any thoughtful man believe that
the law of 1894 will ever restore these
happy conditions here in the United
States? The law of 1890 was enacted for
the American people and the American
home. Whatever mistakes were made
by it were all made in favor of the occu-
pations and the firesides of the Ameri-
can people. 1t didn't take away sim
gle days work from solitary American
to all, such as they had never had before.
1t did it by establishing new and great
industries in this coudtry, which in.
creased the demand for the skill and
handiwork of our laboreTs everywhere.
1t had no friends in Europe. 1t gave
their industries no stimulus-it gave no
employment to their labor at the ex-
pense of our own, and this cannot be
truthfully said of the law of 1894.
During more than two years of the
Administration of President Harrison,
and down to its end, it raised all the rev.
enue necessary to pay the vast eXpendi-
lures of the government, including the
interest on the public debt and the pen
slons. 1t never encoached upon the gold
reserve, which in the past had always
been sacredly preserved for the redemp-
ton of outstanding paper obligations of
the government.
AMPLE WAGES.
During all of it's operations, down to
the change and reversal of its policy by
the election of 1892, no man can assert
that in the industries affected by it
wages were too high, although they were
higher than ever before in this or any
other country. If any such can be
found 1 beg that they be named. 1
challenge the enemies of the law of 1890
to name single industry of that kind.
Further, assert that in the industries
affected by that law, and which that law
fostered, no American consumer suffered
by the increased cost of any home pro-
ducts that he bought He never bought
them so low BEFORE nor did he ever en-
JOY the benefit of so much open, free,
home competition. Neither producer
81 Al,
suffered by that law. Will somebody
name the provision in the new law which
is an improvement on the old? Let us
stop generalization. Let us know what
you mean. 1t is asserted in some quar-
tiers that it is better because the rates
of duty are less and the average percent
ages lower In whose interests are
these lower duties? Whom do they ben
fit?
Senator Mills answered this we'll
when he said in his recent speech:
What has been the fact in reference to
every tariff act in the history of the gov
eminent that reduces duties? Importa-
lions increased, and with increased i'm
portations came increased revenue. 1t
was so in the Walker tariff of 1916.
Now, with these facts before us, and they
are mathematical and cannot be contra
dicted there is to be very large in
crease of importations under this bill,
and large increase of importations
means large increase of revenue
WHAT IT MEANS.
$50 we start with the declaration from
those who framed the law that importa-
tons are to be increased under it. But
what does this mean to the American
people? Increased importations of arti-
cles we make in the United States means
diminished production in the United
States. 1t cannot mean anything else;
and diminished production in the United
States means diminished employment to
our American labor, and diminished
wages to those who are employed. You
cannot escape from that conclusion.
"The bill is to increase the revenue;
but if you diminish the duties you must
increase and multiply the importations
to produce even the revenue received
under the old law. If duties are re-
duccd one-half, importations must be
doubled to maintain the present level
If the revenue is to be increased, which
every Democratic Senator and Repre-
sentative insists must be the effect of the
new law, then importations must simply
be enormous to produce this increase,
and its effect-which is as certain as
that the day follows the nights that
production at home will be diminished.
Employment will be scarce and wages
will be low. The mere anticipation of
this measure-a bill to increase importa-
tions-has been to produce the very con-
ditions have named"
He then quoted Senator Mills to show
the fallacy of the free trade argument
from percentages, and said:
PERCENTAGE TRICK.
This disposes of the craftsmanship of
percentages and demonstrates, as Re-
publican speakers have so often done, its
cheap and misleading character For
example, the percentages of duty under
the law. of 1890 were paraded as some
thing enormous by Democratic orators
and editors, who utterly ignored the
great fact that the law transferred from
the dutiable list to the free list non COM
peting goods and products to the value
of nearly $l10,000,000 The truth is that
the average rate of duty on all imports,
under the law Of 1890, was % per cent,
and not 40 per cent, as has been so often
enormously stated. 1t is well to re-
member that the free list of 1890 is great
er by about $50, 100000 than the free list
of the new list. But, bear in mind that
our free list consisted of products which |
IN the main do not compete With those
made by our American workingmeG and