Mr. WOOD. I cannot be interrupted any further. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I rise to a question of order. Mr. WOOD. Well, sir, state your point of order. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will. My point of order is, that I am unable to see what the expenditures of the War Department from money acquired outside of the appropriations of Congress have to do with the tariff. Mr. WOOD. Well, sir, I will tell the gen tleman. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order. Mr. WOOD. I will show the gentleman the pertinency of this discussion, if he has not intelligence enough to see it without an explanation. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I really do not see that it has anything to do with the question before us. Mr. WOOD. I am endeavoring to show how much money should be voted by Congress in order that we may ascertain how much tariff we should impose on bunting or any special article in which the gentleman from Massachusetts has peculiar interest. Now, sir, I propose to resume my remarks. I am willing to waive all this. For the purpose of reaching a conclusion as to the amount of money required. I will assume that every man connected with this Administration is perfectly conscientious, loyal, patriotic, and honest, and that there is no money in the Treasury which can be used to meet the necessary expenditures for the next fiscal year. But, assuming that the amounts asked for should be appropriated by Congress, I proceed to show the source whence it is to be procured. We require, as stated, $301,705,036 99. Let us see how to provide it. To this amount should be added at least $100,000,000 out of the cash kept continually on hand in the Treasury, in disregard of the public interest. Mr. DAWES. I dislike to interrupt the gentleman further. Mr. WOOD. I cannot yield. Mr. DAWES. I want to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that Mr. WOOD. I will anticipate what the gentleman is going to say. I know that the Secretary has recently put forth a statement that black is white, attempting to prove that he keeps this money there because he may at some time or other be called upon to use some of it. I know he says that he keeps $30,000,000 of gold certificates permanently outstanding Mr. DAWES. Thirty-three million dollars. Mr. WOOD. I know he says he keeps those ceruficates outstanding to meet obligations which are no more likely to be presented than this building is liable to fall before night. Yet he keeps that money stowed away in the public Treasury to provide for some contingency that may never arise. Mr. DAWES. The gentleman ignores the tact that $26,000,000 are required for coin interest due, $33,000,000 for coin certificates, and $50,000,000 to meet called bonds, making an aggregate of $109,000,000. Mr. WOOD. I know the Secretary says he must hold a part of this to provide for the interest on the public debt which falls due the 1st of July. He has been for six months keeping it in his strong box to meet the interest on the public debt which is not due until the 1st of July! How absurd! While he is in receipt, in gold, of duties on imports into the country and of $500,000 which come into this city every day from internal taxation, he is in receipt of large sums of money enough to warrant him in keeping no reserve balance. because the daily accruing receipts are sufficient to protect him in any possible difficulty or contingency. Nevertheless he has had at a time in the Treasury $133,000,000 in coin and $26,000,000 in currency. Instead of raising large sums by hard ex actions upon the people, by putting our hands violently into their pockets and taking from them their hard earnings-I say, instead of doing that, let us take $100,000,000 of the cash reserve in the Treasury and pay it out in disbursements for the maintenance of the Government, or buy up to that extent our outstanding obligations, and to that extent lower taxation. That, Mr. Chairman, would bemy policy, and I submit, with all respect, ought to be the policy of the Government. Although the Government is in debt to the amount of twenty-three to twenty-five hundred million dollars, yet we are hawking our credit in Europe, and still inflicting enormous and burdensome taxation upon the people, and yet we have $140,000,000 in the Treasury drawingno interest whatever. Why should we continue to pursue any such policy? I say we have $75,000,000 more than we require. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means told me the other day that he was in favor of the reduction of $12,893,000 on the internal taxation. I am sorry he will not go further. I will go much further. Mr. DAWES. When did I say that? Mr. WOOD. In a paper you read to the House last week as reported in the Globe. Mr. DAWES. I beg pardon. The gentle man has looked at it, and of course must know; but I will say now what I will do. I would, if I could have my own way, strip internal revenue off of everything except the tax on tobacco and on spirituous liquors. Mr. WOOD. I agree with the gentleman fully. But I would go much further. I would vote to abolish the Internal Revenue Bureau altogether. In the better days of the Republic we had no such system. Imposts defrayed the expenses of the Government. This internal revenue taxation system is a child of the Republican party. It is unjust, inquisitorial, and in my judgment unconstitutional. But we will take any reduction we can get from any source whatever. It will be seen that there is a balance of nearly $75,000,000 to spare from taxation according to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means proposes a reduction of $12,893,123 on the internal taxes. I concur with him in this, and would be satisfied with it. Taking, therefore, this reduction from the $75,000,000, it would leave about $62,000,000 to be taken off the revenue derived from duties. Having thus determined the amount to be reduced in the aggregate, the next and great est question is as to the particular items upon which the reduction shall fall. As a general principle, the reduction should be confined to those articles which directly or indirectly enter into subsistence or which are of popular consumption. I include in this everything which is necessary for human life or comfort. In my judgment this is the just and only correct principle upon which to legislate in this matIt is not a question of making a new tariff or of adjusting the standard upon which duties shall be levied in the interests of revenue or protection, direct or indirect, visible or invisible, but simply one of a reduction of ter. The whole sum received for the same period from duties was $206,270,408 05, which shows how large a proportion was derived from the articles enumerated in the above table. Before proceeding to consider the particular articles which should bear the reduction, I propose to indulge in some general remarks pertinent to a consideration of that question. To legislate on the subject of the tariff at all is most difficult. The question, when it comes up in detail, is as multifarious as the interests to be considered are intricate and complicated. We may determine to have a tariff for revenue solely, but when we sit down to talk over the matter in detail, and as to the precise adjustments for each article, upon this principle, we may not agree as to what con stitutes a revenue standard for one of them. Again, we are the victims of private interests without knowing it. The man who is interested in the importation of a particular article will cry lustily for free trade, which means that he is in favor of admitting, at little or no duty, the goods or wares he imports or uses, so that he can increase his profits. Thus the importers of or those who use foreign iron favor low duties on this article, and instruct us accordingly. So with cutlery and woolens, and other manufactures of foreign production. On the other hand, the home manufacturer, whose want of skill or capital, or other disadvantages, prevents him from competing with the foreign article, asks for protection. He talks of American manufactures, home industries, favoring the interests of our own country against the "pauper labor" of Europe, &c. He also wants tariff legislation favoring the particular interest he represents, not caring much for any other industries, whether American or foreign, but the one out of which he wants to make money. Both sides, therefore, are actuated by purely selfish and personal considerations, and each individual connected with either side in the general contest, as between free trade and protection, struggles for himself and that particular employment or business in which his personal advantage is to be promoted. Astute dogmas are enunciated, giving im possible theories and any quantity of false facts, based upon misapplied figures, to show exactly how the case stands, and expressing great disgust with the want of intelligence upon the part of the people generally, and Congressmen especially, with the subject of tariff legislation, and the real workings of the "visible" and "invisible" protection from an Atkinsonian, Wellstonian, or Greeleyonian pinnacle of superhuman intelligence. Nor is this kind of discussion the only sort of effort we have. There is another power at work for and against free trade in the daily and weekly press. Some of them are actuated by political or party motives, others by the moneyed considerations which prompt the position assumed, and not unfrequently from a desire to appear to know more on the question than any one else. Then we have our lobbies filled with emissaries from the parties interested. Members are supplied with any quantity of information-statistical, argumentative, and oratorical-some of which is interesting, but little new. Every mail brings us tracts, pamphlets, proceedings of Chambers of Commerce, trade societies, agricultural colleges, universities, and a thousand other methods of teaching us our duties. And, last of all, we have members of Congress who are sometimes not only the representatives of particular interests, either importing, producing, or manufacturing, but who have a direct personal interest in some especial industry or article comprehending directly or affected indirectly in some one or more of the many articles comprised in the fifteen hundred items of a tariff bill. This one is a director or large owner of railroads, and does not want high railroad iron; another is interested in iron steamships, and does not wish high duties on the particular kind of iron consumed in their construction; another represents woolen or cutlery, and is opposed to high duties thereon for obvious reasons; another coming from the iron and coal regions has his patriotism highly excited at the mention of admitting the foreign article in competition with the American, and so with cotton and woolen manufacturers and the many other home industries, all of whom want their particular case attended to and taken care of by Congress, whatever may happen to others or to the country in consequence. Certainly the disinterested, however intelligent member, finds himself confused by all this. It is difficult for him to determine the right between these contending and conflicting influences. He is at a loss to know what to do. But then he is told that free trade is a Democratic doctrine, and protection is Republican. His party fealty is appealed to, and certain vague threats are delicately hinted that if he does not dot every "i" and cross every "t" of the political alphabet he may not to use a congressional phrase "come back again." This argument is conclusive; he had been in doubt heretofore. The vast quantity of stuff he had read; the ten thousand appeals to his sense of justice and national pride to which he had listened, had confused his reason and confounded his judgment, but when at last the solid, intelligent argument had been addressed to him which affected the duration of his congressional term he "caved" at once and surrendered at discretion. The matter is thus settled, and he votes as his party votes, without reference to the merit of the bill, or indeed as to knowing or caring what the proposition may be. Now, the man who can avoid all this; intelligently and honestly conduct his course so as to discriminate between right and wrong, and maintain this discrimination independently of all influences-personal and impersonal-deserves respect, to say the least. Instead of being censured as a demagogue if he votes for the interests of the people at large, who have no such agencies at work to lead him, he should be honored as an independent Representative who discharges his duty according to the best of his understanding, freed from the ten thousand selfish considerations which continually surround him. All this is directly pertinent to a recent occurrence in the House of Representatives. The House, by two de cisive votes, resolved to place tea and coffee upon the free-list, that is to place these artieles among those which are now admitted "duty free." The proposition to do this came from a "particular" source; that is, and this objection was stated as a reason why Democratic members should not vote for the proposition. There are men whom such reasons may influence, and indeed there is no doubt good reason for suspecting the object of such a proposition coming from such a source, but it is far from being conclusive. "The devil may quote Scripture, but it is Scripture nevertheless." The real merits of a question do not depend upon the source from which it emanates. If it can be shown that it is right, wise, and politic to take the duty off tea and coffee, the fact is not changed because a protectionist advocates it. But the proposition is assailed on other grounds. The duty derived from these articles is about nineteen million dollars, and in reducing the tariff it is said that we cannot spare that sum without keeping up the duty on other articles, such as iron, woolens, cutlery, carpets, threads, and many other things of general consumption; that to take off $19,000,000 on tea and coffee is to compel the retention of this duty as it is on these articles; that they also enter into the necessities of the poorer classes, and should be considered as well. I propose to reply to these positions thus: to take off the $19,000,000 collected from tea and coffee does not necessarily imply that other reductions may not be made, as to the principal of the public debt, it is unjust to the present generation that it should defray auother dollar of it. Posterity should bear the balance of this burden. I am opposed to the payment of any more of it at this time, when it is to be procured only by the imposition of an unjust exaction upon the industry of the country. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. DAWES. I have taken up considerable of the time of my friend from New York, and I hope he will be permitted to conclude his speech. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I will take the floor, and yield to the gentleman from New York so he may conclude his speech. Mr. WOOD. I am obliged to the gentleman for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I believe this generation has contributed its fair share of treasure and blood, which has accomplished the unity of the Confederacy. We have in the short period intervening since the war paid a large proportion of the public debt. The Administration does not deserve the credit for that. It came from the pockets of the people, not from the savings of the Government. Indeed, it has been wrung from them by an unjust, severe system, through force and violence, against their remonstrance and in spite of their protests. if the whole of the duty, therefore, now received from tea and coffee should be abolished by placing these articles upon the freelist, it would yet leave about forty-three million dollars surplus over and above the Treasury requirements. The principal articles besides tea and coffee which enter into general popular consumption are the following, to which I have appended the amount of duties received for the last fiscal year: Amount of duty received on the following enumerated articles for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871. Ready-made clothing-articles of wear, Hides and skins........ 1,343,178 14 4,892,562 63 from a member who is well known to be in the Leather, and manufactures of leather... 3,839,679 50 interest of protection. The fact that it emanated from such a quarter excited the suspicions in some quarters that mischief was intended, Steel, and manufactures of steel Potatoes.... Total 107,985 50 $31,818,444 64 It This is the aggregate of receipts from these articles, and with a reduction of duty on some articles and adding others to the free list it is quite certain that under any decrease of importations, which is not anticipated, this would still remain more than the required sum. will be seen, therefore, that according to this estimate the duty can be taken altogether off of tea and coffee, salt, coal, woolens, and other articles consistent with the public revenue requirements. And there is the best of reasons for believing that a reduction of that on sugar and iron could be made without lessening the revenue therefrom. To reduce this duty would have the effect of increasing the importations, and this increase would probably make up for the loss by the reduction of duty. This has been the case in many articles, and as a gen eral principle it is an established fact that the reduction of duties in the tariff of 1870, which went into operation on the 1st of January, 1871, increased the total amount received from that source, instead of decreasing it. This is shown in the increased importation of tea and coffee, sugar, pig iron, and metals in the first six months of 1871 over the first six months of 1870. The Secretary of the Treasury states that the increase in tea was fifty-five percent.; in coffee, twenty per cent.; brown sugar, one hundred and twenty per cent.; in pig iron, one hundred and eighty-six per cent.; and in metals one hundred and thirty-nine per cent. On each of these article there was a reduction of duty. The reductions were: in tea, from twenty-five cents to fifteen cents per pound; coffee, from five cents to three cents per pound; brown sugar, three cents per pound; pig iron, from nine to seven dollars per ton. or The receipts for 1871 were $11,782,028 61 more than in 1870, although the rate of duty fixed in the present tariff, under which the collection was made, was lower on many leading articles than in the tariff under which the col lection of 1870 was made. From this fact it is fair to infer that a like effect could be produced by a further reduction, if judiciously made, on the articles to which I refer in this connection. But suppose this position is not tenable, and that the naked question arises as to which articles of general consumption shall be exempt from duty-iron and woolens, coffee and tea. I group these together because the argument is thus printed by the free-trade opponents of free tea and coffee. They say that we do not see that if the $19,000,000 is taken off of tea and coffee that iron and wool must continue to be protected and made high by the present duty, and that these articles are used by the great body of the people, who should be freed from the burden imposed; that iron enters into the construction of houses, tools of all kinds, farming utensils, &c.; and that woolens comprise nearly every article of covering for men, women, and children, all of whom are interested in the price they pay for this. I admit the full force of this argument so far as it complains of the present severe exactions growing out of the existing tariff on these goods. I am ready to vote for a material reduction of duty on them, and will go further, and vote to take it off altogether, if we can get revenue enough by so doing. But when it is asserted that the cost of iron and woolens is as important to the producing classes as that of tea and coffee, I take issue. It is not the fact. There is little analogy in the cases. The poor man spends ten dollars for tea and coffee where he spends one for iron and woolen. To illus trate this, take for instance the workingman or laborer. Suppose him to be a man of family. He requires woolen clothing and blankets, and, it may be, working tools, on all of which this Government tax is an element of the cost to him. But the aggregate amount of these to him is very much less than tea and coffee. A pair of blankets costing five dollars will last five years. The ordinary con sumption of woolen clothing will not exceed $100 per year for an ordinary workingman's family, and the iron, steel, and cutlery used by him would be of trifling expense. was laid on coffee, and from fifteen to twentyfive cents per pound on tea; and thus it has It is true he is the consumer of all these | continued ever since, with the exception of a articles, but the whole tax upon them, directly or indirectly, by duties levied upon like for eign articles, whether in the raw state of manufacture or not, is so little as to be imperceptible. Not so with the tax on his tea and coffee. These are articles of daily and hourly consumption. They are used not only by him, but by every member of his family. They are the common beverages of the poor man's household, and daily becoming more so. In stead of the habitual use of strong drink to invigorate his power of labor, as was the custom a few years ago, he now finds an equally stimulating substitute, and not intoxicating, in his cup of tea or coffee. And this fact brings me to a yet stronger reason, which is that the poor man's family is a larger consumer of these articles than that of the rich The latter can procure his wines and fine liquors, of an expensive character, and in these finds his principal beverage. man. one Thus, the largest proportion of the consumption of tea and coffee in this country is with the middling and poorer classes, who are thus made to contribute by far the greater portion of the revenue collected by the Government in the duty imposed upon them. Certainly there can be no justice in this. Instead of discriminating in favor of labor we are discriminating against it; instead of collecting the taxes from those who are most able to bear them, we are taking them from those who are the least able. For every pound of coffee used, about fifth of its cost is paid to the Government, and for every ponnd of tea about one fourth is paid. For the latter article no substitute has been found; thus the consumer must use the foreign article or none. Not so with reference to woolens and other household necessities. These can be substituted by a variety of methods which relieve the poorer classes from the duties levied upon the foreign article. Whole families in the western States grow their own wool, from which they weave the cloth to make their own clothes. The votes recently given in this House in favor of free tea and coffee have excited much comment. Some leading Democratic newspapers have been exceedingly indignant that the Democratic members of this House should have almost unanimously voted for the proposition. We were denounced as demagogues or fools, who either did not understand the question or were afraid of a popular prejudice among the people. For myself, without accepting the control of others over my official acts, I am willing to take the responsibility of my vote upon that occasion. Although I did not deem it a party question, nor act upon it from partisan motives, I am, nevertheless, willing to accept and sustain it on that ground. The Democratic party, from the beginning of the Government until now, when in power in Congress never passed a tariff bill that imposed a duty upon tea and coffee. Andrew Jackson is considered as tolerably good Democratic authority. We recognize him as the father of our present organization. From 1832 to 1861 the Democratic party, with the exception of short intervals, held control of Congress and the Government. During this period there were seven tariff bills passed, as follows: July 13 and 14, 1832; July 4, 1836; January, 11, 1841; June 30, 1842; August 30, 1842; July 30, 1846; March 2, 1861. In all of these tea and coffee came in altogether free, except a nominal duty in the acts of 1832 and 1836. Thus for twenty-five years the Democratic party supported the Government altogether from revenue collected from imported goods, without any internal revenue, without duty upon tea and coffee, and without any debt. The Republican party came into power March 4, 1861, and then, for the first time in a quarter of a century, four and five cents per pound light reduction made in the acts of 1870. Therefore, if Democrats who sustain the exemption of these articles now are demagogues or fools, we are following in the footsteps of illustrious predecessors. During the period to which I have referred the legislation in Congress was in the hands of some of the ablest statesmen this country has produced, and if, in following their exam example, we are demagogues and fools in the estimation of those who now assume to sit in judgment upon our acts, we can only say that we would rather submit to abuse from our present revilers than to depart from and forget the teachings of our illustrious predecessors. Another ground of opposition is the apprehension that the loss of $19,000,000 will compel the continuance of the income tax. I do not believe this to be well founded; but even if it is, if the question is presented to my mind which of the two we shall part with I am for tea and coffee as against the income tax. As a Representative I believe it to be my duty to act in all things for the greatest good of the greatest number, and I believe that fifty people contribute to the tax imposed in the duty on tea and coffee to one imposed on the income If they cannot both fall together, let us abate the greater of the two evils. I am in favor of the entire abolition of the internal revenue system, and of relying altogether upon imports and revenues from imports. But if this is impossible, in view of the public requirements, I would discriminate as to both systems. I have heretofore been persistent ir my demand for the repeal of the income tax, tax, looking looking upon tax. it as unconstitutional in theory, inquisitorial in practice, and unjust in collection, but yet would vote against its repeal if an even greater evil should be continued in consequence. Another reason given in this case against the vote for repeal is the fact that the proposition emanated from a Pennsylvania Republican who is well known as being in favor of protection, and that his object is to have an excuse for the retention of the high duties on iron, coal, &c. Doubtless such were his motives, but it does not follow that such will be the result. I am sure it need not be of necessity, because a large reduction can be made in those articles without reducing the revenue of the Government below its wants. We must deal with propositions in Congress upon their merits, and not upon the presumption that they are good or bad according to the source from which they emanate. When I moved the repeal of the duty on coal last winter two thirds of the Republicans voted for it. They did not vote "nay" because a Democrat proposed it. In this they evinced good The same argument applies to this Because a protectionist favors this repeal from, as it is alleged, bad motives, it does not follow that we shall reject it. I do not accept such reasoning as worthy a moment's consideration. sense. case. I do not propose at this time to refer especially to the items composing the bill before the committee. When it comes up for consideration upon these especially I shall have something to say. In many respects the bill itself in these regards is crude and imperfect. It appears to have satisfied no member of the committee which reported it. I cannot learn that there is one member of the committee who is satisfied with it. Even the chairman has taken care in advance to disown it, and while all of the members had a hand in it not one acknowledges its paternity. It is therefore a child of many fathers and still without one. Under the circumstances, the probability is that it will be short-lived. A production ushered into the world in this manner, so contrary to nature, if not still-born must contain so much inherent disease that its exist ence must necessarily be brief and its demise inglorious. Notwithstanding, however, I propose to treat it fairly, and to give it all the consideration to which a revenue measure is always entitled at the hands of those who are to pass upon it. Mr. BURCHARD rose. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move that the committee rise. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BURCHARD] has the floor. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will state why I make this motion. I desire to go to business on the Speaker's table. Mr. DAWES. Oh, no. Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Let us go on with the tariff debate. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not insist on my motion. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. The committee informally rose; and, the Speaker having resumed the chair, a message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, was received, informing the House that the Senate had passed a bill (S. No. 526) for the relief of the legal representatives of Ambrose Morrison, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, without amendment, the bill (H. R. No. 1496) to carry out certain provisions of the Cherokee treaty of 1866, and for the relief of settlers on the Cherokee lands in the State of Kansas. TARIFF. The Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union resumed its session. Mr. BURCHARD. Mr. Speaker, the present era is preeminent for its wonderful progress in facilitating commercial intercourse. To secure the easier interchange of dissimilar products gigantic enterprises have been planned and consummated, and vast public improvements undertaken and laboriously executed. Lavish expenditures have been incurred to lessen the difficulties and cost of transportation, and thereby cheapen the price of commodities. Natural impediments to traffic have been surmounted or avoided. The paths of commerce have been straightened and shortened. The telegraph, railroad train, and steamship may fitly personify the nineteenth century. They were born with this generation, and exemplify its mission and aspirations. Themselves but agencies employed to that end, they mark the world's progress toward a wider commerce and unobstructed trade. two The beneficial effects of enlarged facilities for exchanges between consumers and producers are more marked in our own country than any other on the globe. I cannot dwell upon the magnificent results these agencies have accomplished. It would be profitable to trace the growth and development of the great federal nations of the world, the United States and the North German Union. It would be instructive to analyze the sources of their prosperity and see the impetus free interstate trade has given to their progress.in national greatness. Our own nation is a miniature world. The different States, like the nations of the earth, have dissimilar productions. In one lies the ore, in another the coal. Fertile prairies without timber in one State supplement vast forests in regions incapable of tillage. The cheap power and easy transportation and nearness to centers of distribution in New England invite the products of the field, the mine, and forest of other States. Her swift streams furnish unrivaled manufacturing facilities. The long sea-coast line of the Atlantic affords spacious harbors, and builds up commercial cities for the convenient receipt and distribution of supplies and finished products. We span a continent; we stretch from the Arctic seas to the climate of the tropics. The diversity of intercourse and free interchange of the products of the labor of our people, is one of the secrets of our growth and strength. our soil, climate, and productions, and the freeators and members of Congress an opportunity In antagonism with this spirit of the age a school of economists maintain that the road to national prosperity is in exclusion and isola tion; that trade should not be left free to seek its own channels and methods of exchange. They advocate the creation of artificial impediments, and desire tolls and tariff dues to be imposed for the enhancement of prices. Exchanges profitable to indviduals they believe to be calamitous to the nation. Although the millennium of commercial independence grows year by year more remote, extreme protection prophets still find followers. These theories would be of little importance did they not concern and underlie our system of taxation. It is conceded that the necessities of the Government require the imposition of duties on imports. A revenue tariff regards the wants of the Treasury as the measure and end of governmental interference. The pro tective system, purely such, would assume the supervision of the business of the country and a parental care for its capital and labor. The one leaves the laws of trade to regulate industrial enterprise; the other relies upon congressional legislation. The latter asserts that prohibition is the road to na tional wealth. It discourages foreign trade, although profitable, shuts our market against commodities cheaply produced abroad, and aims to stimulate their home production even at enhanced cost. It concerns itself for a few favored producers, and ignores the rights and claims of consumers; it would force the establishment of manufactories, though unremunerative, and support them by public contribution. A revenue tariff permits commerce to flourish, seeks exchanges with the cheapest and most desirable markets, and leaves capital and labor free to avail themselves of natural advantages affording the most profitable employment. The extreme protectionist's ideal is constrained diversification of industry, mercial independence, Japanese isolation. com I cannot stop to discuss the merits of these different theories as abstract propositions. I but state the apparent aim and effects of the systems, and leave protection and free trade as questions of political economy to essayists and logicians. TARIFF LAWS CONSIDERED. It is a legal maxim that to interpret a statute correctly, the old law, the mischief, and the remedy must be considered. Such also must be the statesman's order of procedure of providing new legislation. Among the statutes we find enactments for the collection of revenue to support the Government. Whether framed upon this or that notion of governmental policy, it is our duty as legislators to inquire into the effects of existing laws and devise relief for their hardships or oppressions. It is undeniable that our rates of tariff duties are now higher than ever before in the history of our people, and far exceed those of any civilized nation on the face of the globe. The debt-burdened monarchies and empires of Europe dare not oppress their subjects with such tariff taxation as we impose. FORMER TARIFFS. Under the protective tariff of 1842, in force four years, the average rate of duty upon dutiable imports was only 30 per cent. The people were restive under what they considered its unreasonable and oppressive discriminations, and swept it away. The lower tariff of 1846 followed. This withstood all assaults in Congress and before the people, and for eleven years collected only an average rate of 25 per cent. It yielded in 1857 to a less protect ivę tariff, which for four years more collected but 20 per cent. upon the dutiable imports. The necessity for greater revenue furnished a reason, and the secession of southern Sen to reëstablish protective duties, and secured the passage of the act of March 2, 1861, some|| times called the Morrill tariff. WAR RATES. The enormous expenses of the war of the rebellion demanded increased taxation. Higher duties from year to year were imposed. This candid admission confesses the opportunity for oppression in the protective system and the injustice of present tariff rates. Excessive rates of duty secure to mechanical industry higher wages than can be earned in other kindred employments. How? Surely only by increasing the price of their products to consumers. Otherwise there is no protection or advantage. What are these kindred employments which excessive protection The average rate of duty upon dutiable imports, which was 19 per cent. during the fiscal year ending June, 1861, ran up to 38 per cent. under the tariff of that and the following year, and to 494 per cent. under the | oppresses so that labor is forced from such tariffs of 1864 and 1865, and the special tariffs subsequently passed, and was 44 per cent. for the last fiscal year. The average rates per cent. on certain manufactured articles before the war and at the present time are as follows: avocations into protected employments? CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIES. There are two classes of producers that encounter foreign competition: the one in foreign markets. the other in our own. The first produce such articles as we export, the second such as are imported. A third and Rate of duty. Rate of duty. middle class render services or produce arti Article. Iron manufactured. Steel.. 24 434 12 to 24 43 cles neither exported norimported, and therefore unaffected directly by foreign competition. Among the first class we find not only farmers and planters, but a large number of manufacturing industries exporting products abroad; in the second, manufacturers of textile fabrics and workers in metals, and generally articles easily transported and pro In 1864, when most of the present high || duced in other countries as well as our own; duties were established, the exigencies of the Government to carry on a gigantic war required revenues to be raised from every possible source. Internal taxes were directly assessed upon domestic manufactured articles, and indirectly by special taxes upon occараtions, and sales, and the means of doing busiUnder the provisions of internal revenue laws passed simultaneously with the tariff of that year, in 1856, $234,000,000 were collected from sources of revenue that have He asks: "Will the producers in other forms of industry consent to the maintenance of excessive rates of duty on mechanical fabrics? The result of such duties is to secure to mechanical industry higher wages than can be earned in other kindred employments. Such excessive protection ceases to diversify † Specific. * And ten per cent. in the third, all engaged in local industries, builders, such as carpenters, masons, &c., tailors, shoemakers, blacksmiths, and the long list of trades, occupations, and professions required for the local convenience of the people in every town and village. To fully appreciate the effect of our tariff laws upon the industries of the country, it is all important to bear in mind the number engaged in these three classes respectively, and their mutual relations to each other; the first class, producing exports, and the third class producing commodities incapable of im portation, cannot be protected by tariff laws. from securing higher prices for their products. The enhanced prices are a tax that somebody must pay. One industry gains at the expense of and by taxing another. Compensation for this burden is sought to be given by imposing duties and protecting the products of other industries. In endeavoring to make this extension the inequality and favoritism of the system becomes evident, for tariff duties can prevent competition from foreign imports but cannot aid our exports. The latter must be sold at the prices in the markete abroad. The producers of exportable commodities can secure no compensating price to make up for the taxation imposed upon them. They cannot throw the tariff taxation upon consumers of their products, nor can other producers of similar commodities, finding a market at home as well as abroad. All these must stand the tax imposed by the tariff. They cannot raise the prices of their products to meet the increased cost of production oссаsioned thereby. Other non-protected industries, unaffected by foreign competition, such as those engaged in building, inland transportation, traffic, trades, and professions, and the hundreds of unprotected employments, can raise the price for their services to compensate for the tax imposed upon them by the tariff duties. They can charge other industries, both protected and unprotected, higher prices for their own labor or products. benefit to the second class arises solely AGRICULTURE DOUBLY BURDENED. But a double burden falls upon those the value of whose products must be measured by the price in the foreign market The enhanced price occasioned by the duty bears directly upon them as consumers, and ultimately they pay a portion of the tax imposed upon articles consumed by non-protected trades whose services they require. The cotton-planter, aud wheat and corn-grower, pay the duty not only on their own clothing, wares, and implements, but also the increased price upon the goods and tools used by the carpenter, blacksmith, and workmen they employ. Go through the list of our exports and see the millions of value produced by the labor, skill, and capital of our country that must compete with the labor, skill, and capital of foreign lands. Regardless of cost of production, of dear labor, capital, or any other disadvantage, these exports must be sold at the ruling prices for our own and foreign products. We exported in 1870-71 to foreign countries: Those engaged in producing these commod ities outnumber those engaged in all other industries. Next numerous are the various local trades and industries which every town and village affords, likewise taxed but not benefited by tariff duties. The number engaged in industries claiming protection against foreign competition are comparatively few. They comprise only those whose products are easily transportable; such as manufacturers of textile fabrics, metals, earthenware, glass, salt, paper, &c., miners, and owners of coal and ore beds. Not one in twenty of the laborers in all the employments and industries of the country is benefited by the high tariff duties. Enumerate the trades and pursuits of this country. See how many are burdened, how few aided by tariff laws. The distinguished gentleman from Pennsyl vania, [Mr. KELLEY,] the fearless advocate of protective duties, who may well be styled the apostle of the faith, addressed himself lately to this theme, Should Congress compel American laborers to work for lower wages? He mistakes the object of maintaining present tariff rates. The question is, shall thirty eight million consumers in this country be exorbitantly taxed to keep the profits of capital and wages of labor excessively higher in a few employments than in others? The maintenance of high tariff rates means nothing else. Its aim is to divert capital to certain pursuits. It seeks to keep manufactured products dear in order to induce investments in their production. It affords higher rewards in new fields of industry, by burdening production and lessening profits in the accustomed employments. For ten years past the unavoidable results of a necessary war tariff of duties have been uncomplainingly endured. The practical question presents itself for our consideration, is the continuance of present rates necessary or defensible? How far can they be safely and advantageously lowered without serious disturbance of industries or injustice to invested capital and impairment of the revenue? The capitalists engaged in mining and manufacturing profess to ask high tariff duties for the interests of their operatives as well as their own. If their laborers secured these bounties, other laborers taxed but unprotected by the tariff might well complain of its partiality and injustice. TARIFF BOUNTIES. How much is the per capita bounty to his operatives each manufacturer claims should be paid to him to maintain his establishment, it is not difficult of computation. The statistical tables of importations and of domestic produc tion in this country give the total consump tion, the census statistics the number of persons employed, and the tariff laws the rate of duty by which the price of the domestic article is sought to be enhanced above the foreign. I append a table giving the bounty allowed by present laws to manufacturers engaged in producing some of the most neces|| sary articles of comfort, health, and enjoyment: TARIFF PENSIONERS. The Commissioner of Pensions reports 92,667 Army and Navy pensioners. He states the total number upon his rolls, including widows and others, at 207,495, requiring the annual expenditure of $22,804,994. This is not half the number for whose support pensions are claimed and the people taxed-not a tenth of what is paid. Those who lost health and limb in their country's service are the rightful recipients of the nation's bounty. The orphans' or widows' scanty allowance does not requite the debt due to the dead soldier. The loyal tax-payer sanctions with out murmur the transfer of his hard earnings to provide for such pensions. But who are these drawing pensions from the general wealth? Where are they maintained? They are the protégés of the present tariff laws, the owners of coal and ore beds, and manufacturing capitalists, who exact contributions from consumers to swell the profits of their investments. They resist reductions in excessive rates; they ask that high duties shall be perpetual. Their exactions cease to be temporary bounties; they ask life pensions. The tariff taxes are assessed and the bounties paid through the laws of trade, instead of for his operatives twenty-three. The glass manufacturer deems himself well entitled to a dollar a day from the general bounty for each blower he requires. A yearly bounty of $345 is none too high, while the disabled commander of a regiment is limited to $300. PENSION FRAUDS. The country was startled by the announcement that great frauds had been discovered in the administration of the Pension Bureau. Fictitious names were upon the rolls. The ghosts of deceased pensioners quarterly, as pay day came, revisited the pale glimpses of the moon and left legible evidences in regular receipts for the Government bounty their unsubstantial forms were supposed no longer to require. An Indian pension was sufficient to induce virtuous traders to forego the sweets of civilized life and doff the trappings of the Ute or Camanche. Only a few thousand dol lars was thus fraudulently drawn, but how indignant the feeling that sacred trusts were thus betrayed or careless officials overreached! Yet all the while millions upon millions of the bounty claimed for the laborers in favored industries have been misappropriated and diverted by capitalists and employers. No wonder that mechanical labor is discontented. If we believe their employers, the pay-roll here is higher than abroad for the same labor, and yet strikes and unions. As a distinguished agitator says, the nation is slumbering upon a volcano. New England asks a labor commissioner to investigate these subterranean rockings and mutterings. Gentiemen, the laborer sees the result of your system but cannot apprehend the cause-adventurous manufacturers amassing fortunes, building palatial residences, immense warehouses and factories, becoming large landed proprietors, and investing surplus wealth in bonded securities or mortgage loans. In contrast, he laborer sees his seeming liberal wages absorbed in increased expenditures. At the end of the year no richer, or at best but a few dollars remaining of the scanty savings of weekly toil, he sees there must be injustice and wrong when capital grows rich and swollen upon his earnings, and no share of the profits comes to him. He has heard that making the products of labor dear is a protection to industry, and, credulous and unreasoning, he believes the tariff and the debt which requires it national blessings. He knows not that this system grinds upon national industry to fatten wealth. He supposes it is the currency, the use of coin, the rate of interest, congressional land grants or railroad oppressions that keep him poor and have made his employer rich. He has never investigated to ascertain the enormous boun ties paid by the nation through the protective system to manufacturing capitalists, and how little comes back to him. But our farmers are threatened that in case these bounties stop manufacturing States will cease to consume farm products. as though food could be dispensed with. Who believes that coal-mining, or the making of iron, steel, or textile fabrics would materially decrease if the duties were reduced? Who supposes they would wholly cease if duties were restored to a revenue basis? MANUFACTURED EXPORTS DIMINISHED. passing through the Treasury and the Pension or one See the effect in diminishing exports of manufactures from the United States. The exports of certain articles in 1860 and 1871 were as follows: Ashes, pot and pearl... Candles Cotton. 10,934,796 3,598,135 467,772 95,397 Iron, and manufactures of...... 5,712,990 4,815,541 Earthen and stoneware. 65,086 37,383 Boots and shoes Salt.. 129,717 47,115 Tobacco, manufactured. 3,383,428 2,087,160 240,841 163,364 Whale and fish-oil. 896,293 251,562 525,175 318,085 |