The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-05-11
Mr.. HILL AND THE CABBY

Gus details. TO attempt to give an,
idea of the particular merits of these
arguments in a brief space would Of
| course be out of the question: mol
| would it be worth while to single ou'
Tor criticism the errors and defect.
/ Which could easily enough be discov-
! cred in the great output of tariff
talk that fills the fortnight's issues
or the Congressional Record. A few
| examples, however, of futility of one
kind and another may in some de.
gree be entertaining or instructive
Thus striking instance of that fail
ure TO come to grapples which so of
| ten characterizes our Congressional
debates is to be found in the speech
&of Mr.. Moore of Pennsylvania, OF
April %:
But let us take UP the bill which
| now bears the name of the gentleman
| from Alabama (Mr. Underworld, and
/ see where 1T leads u.s. It puts upon
| the free list, first of all, agricultural
| implements" And what was the duty
collected at the custom houses on these
important articles during the last f1s-
| cal year, 1905, for which we are given
comparative figures? Why just ex-
| actly $2.775. That was all the gov
| eminent received from the importer
| and that is the amount which ou1
| Democratic friends propose to save to
the American farmer
L WV, IIfS would nave Deen D6lC
enough If Mr.. Underwood had said
| nothing about the matter; but as a
| matter of fact, in his speech opening
| the debate the Democratic leader had
said:
The first articles we place. on the
free list are agricultural implements
NOW, l desire to call your attention
to this fact, that the census Of 1906
shows that the domestic production
of agricultural implements amounted
to Sill, 345,000, that the appropriations
coming into this country were less
than $14, 900, and that the duties paid
at the custom houses from this mag
nif1cent tax levied on agricultural inn
plements amounted to SITS.
You levied a tax at the custom
house on the agricultural implements
used by the farmers Of this country,
which only raised the pitiful sum of
$2,775, and we PROPOSE to deprive the
treasury Of the United States of ST.
us. and In lieu thereof to give to
the American farmer absolute free
dom in the purchase of the agricu1-
tural implements he needs for working
his farm.
With a smaller hall, no desks, and
a thoroughly reformed Congressional
Record, there would be vastly less
of the particular kind of futility that
is illustrated by the first of these
quotations.
An old-time trouble with which the
Republican orators had to contend
was In evidence number Of times.
Free-trade England was of course
their chief resource in the way of
bugaboo; but against the poison of
fear thus introduced the Democrats
were ready with the appropriate anti
toxin, Alongside the low wages Of
free-trade England they insisted on
putting the still lower wages Of the
protectionist countries OF the contin-
emit. Mr.. SGraharn of Illinois, indeed,
confronted q Republican colleague,
who had been trotting out the British
free-trade scarecrow with speech
the latter gentleman had made during
the discussion OF the Payne bill, in
which Congress was asked to make a
careful inspection OF the following
try and the wages paid in free-tr
Europe'-the table showing wages of
brfcklayers, stone-cutters, painters,
etc., in the United States, Great Brit
ain, Germany, France and Belgium !;
with the figures, showing an enor-
nous advantage to Great Britain over
these Continental countries. innocently
put forward by the protectionist Con-
gresham. apparently under the i'm
preston that Germany and France
and Belgium were free-trade coun-
tries. But usually these gentlemen.
though perfectly aware of the incon-
venient fact simply shut their eyes to
It. Thus Mr.. Hill of Connecticut,
winding up one of the important
speeches OF the debate with a por-.
trayal of the horrors of British free
trade and low wages. met an inter-
ruption along this line as follows:
Mr.. Hardy: They have high tar
iff in Germany Are the laboring
people any better off in high-tariff
Germany than they are in free trade
England?
Mr.. Hill; NOW, really, I do not
want to stop inNmy line of thought to
argue out a question of that kind. If
you cannot draw your own conclu-
sion from the things that I am going
no argument that could make would
satisfy you.
There is one passage in Mr.. Hills
speech that deserves to become clas-
sic. Turning from mere details, he
took up the broad question of labor,
perience in foreign travel. An this
was his piece de resistance:
7 was riding, say, in the streets
of Oxford one day in a cab, with the
driver sitting in front of me, and I
said to him, as we went down the
street. Chow much do you get for
driving this carriage. or do you own
I drive it by the week. t.What are
your hours? When do you begin?"
He said, From nine o'clock in the
morning" How long do you work ?''
said T. From nine in the morning I'M
til ten O'Clock at night, and IL have
a fare I stay with it until It leaves
me-"
asked him, How much do you
get?r He said, st get $3.50 a week.
How old are your said I. He said.
Il am fifty-five years old" Have
you a family?'' He answered, Yes,
1 have family of Ave-" asked him,
"How in the world do you manage to
liver" "Of course, I cannot" he said,
"but I have son and daughter at
work. The daughter is at work in
a linen mill and she gets S2.25 a week,
and my son is a printer, and gets
$3.50 week, and we manage to get
along" There were three people at
work, with an aggregate income OF
S7.25 a week
In the face of this damning and con-
elusive evidence of the horrors Of free
trade nothing but irredeemable wick
edness can account for the votes that
were cast in favor of the free-list
bill. There is, to be sure, one con-
sideration that may, in measure,
break the force of the claimants har-
rowing story. He belongs to a class
which, even in the good old days of
protection in England, piled it's trade
under strange difficulties 1t was in
the year 1S27--long before the repeal
of the corn laws-that Mr. Pickwick
had his memorable encounter with a
cabman:
49, t,1-So ~.